Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 01:26:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Marx - not a Marxist? 



No doubt. Thomas Kuhn has a provactive paper called The Function of Dogma
in Science where he argues much as you do. The problem is, what are the
Established Truths from which we move forward? Doubtless you and I would
disagree about these. I would not include: the inevitability of socialism,
the assurance, held blindly, that socialism would be better, the
desirability of communism as Marx seems to conceive it, the practicality
of planning as a general principle of economic coordination, the labor
theory of value, the possibility of the end of scarcity, the withering
away of the state, or a good many other cherished Marxian dogmas. Some of
the above is actively disbelieve, others I merely want to supported by
argument. On the other hand, we share enough of a frame of reference that
we can talk more or less on the same wavelength.

I guess I'll go with a Marxist who is less well-known that he ought to be
Otto Neurath, the red herring in the Vienna Circle, who sais, "We are
sailors ona  ship: we can take up any plank, but not all all once." His
idea was that every belief is revisable and subject to criticism, as long
as we hold enough of the background constant. (PS, Ralph: that's
pragmatism in a nutshell.) 

--Justin 

On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Jorn Andersen wrote:

> Well spoken, Justin. I agree very much with the spirit in this - but ...
> 
> I am not in the "science business", but I think dogmas are quite useful -
> if used with sense. As I understand it the term "dogma" in its true meaning
> means something like an established truth from which we move on to
> investigate further.
> 
> This is useful as it allows us to have debate and research based on certain
> truths which for the time is outside debate. In other words we don't have
> to start with Adam and Eve everytime we debate about f.x. "Social Democracy
> in Denmark" (to take a very important question for the world proletariat).
> 
> Of course these "dogmas" (basic truths or whatever) can not just be stated,
> we must be able to argue them out, if they are questioned. But making a
> virtue out of being "non-dogmatic" is IMO not very productive. It basically
> says that all accumulated experince is worthless (i.e. that we *do* have to
> start with Adam and Eve over and over). This of course is not true, not
> even for those who claim to be "un-dogmatic". They *do* have dogmas, but
> they are obscured behind the "un-dogmatism". This IMO is muddle - where
> clarity is needed.
> 
> What *is* productive is to state *which* "dogmas" should be questioned -
> and how.
> 
> So if we take "dogmatism" to mean mere repetition of formulas, I think we
> agree. But this should never be used to turn "un-dogmatism" into the new
> "say-all-say-nothing-formula". I mean: Some of these "dogmas" have been
> paid very dearly for.
> 
> 
> Yours
> 
> Jorn
> 
> 
> At 17:19 18-09-96 -0400, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >I am opposed dogmatism of any sort. The questions we have to ask of any
> >proposition we consider, once we have determined what it means, are (a) is
> >is true? and (b) is relevant and useful for a useful purpose?
> >
> >The misuse of "nondogmatism" by reformists both old (Bernstein) and new
> >(Blair, who actually isn't interested enough in Marxism to critique it) is
> >no rational basis for taking a dogmatic Marxist stance. The reason we
> >don't compromise on whether the working class should rule and whether
> >class conflict in capitalism is inevitable is that these propositoions are
> >true and right, not because Marx or Engels stated them. 
> >
> 
> 
> -
> Jorn Andersen
> 
> Internationale Socialister
> Copenhagen, Denmark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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