Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 03:34:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Marxism and reductionism


>From: <GACOTTER-AT-well.stats.govt.nz>
> I am interested in the problem of reductionism in Marxist theory. The
>term reductionism is used as a term of abuse by many social theorists -
>but why. 

Because it is a crude, unsophisticated, mechanical approach.

>Marxism is seen as reductionist because it posits that political
>social and other events can, in the last instance, be subsumed to the
>economic.

Genuine Marxism is not reductionist; it is monist.  It is monist in that in
the LAST analisis, in the very abstract it attributes material factors only
to be the driving force in history.

But when applied concretly one cannot dogamticly repeat the above, silly
formula.  When asked What happened in France 1968 do you say it is all due
to 1 economic factor X -- that would be a very, very crude example od
reductionism. A correct, dialectical answer would explore the relationship
btwen all the different factors and then plave them in order of importance
(obviously the obj. fcts primary).  One can not explain, to take '68 as an
example, without discusing the role of stalinism & the CP.  This is not an
economic phenomonon.

If you want to discuss this furtheer I would be happy to continue the
discusion off-list if it dies down on-list.

--
Philip Locker
Labor Militant
New York City, USA



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---