On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 02:16:05 -0500 Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> writes:
>
>The good (or bad) of any human endeavor cannot be correctly evaluated
>from
>the point of view that doesn't posit a future without classes (and
>keep in
>mind that this future is not guaranteed in a Hegelian fashion -- it is
>what
>we can but may very well fail to create).
This seems almost to be a Gramscian point. Tha American pragmatist C.S. Peirce had posited a consensus theory of truth in which truth was identified with the ideal-limit of the consensus that a community if inquirers or researchers might reach providing that they had sufficient time and resources for pursuing their inquiries. Gramsci developed a similar conception of truth with his notion of truth as an ideal asymptotically approached in history but only finally realized under communism after a practical consensus had been arrived at. If we accept Gramsci's conception then it becomes evident that the abandonment of the communist project as being impossible and/or undesirable would entail the abandonment of the science/ideology distinction.
> All truly scientific
>endeavors
>contain the kernel of truth beyond ideology when seen from the point
>of
>view that posits a future classless society (e.g. biology and medicine
>have
>been distorted ideologically; nevertheless, true explanations that
>have
>been discovered in these disciplines will serve, minus capitalism,
>sexism,
>etc., to enhance human happiness, for instance, by relieving pain).
>
>Therefore, those of us who have not given up on Marxism or an
>adventure to
>create a classless society cannot do without the concept of ideology
>(that
>stands in opposition to truth). On the other hand, for those
>post-Marxists
>who have abondoned this objective (such as Foucault), it makes a lot
>of
>sense to say that science can never be distinguished from ideology.
>In
>this sense, postmodernism is an ideological expression of the despair
>of
>leftist intellectuals. 'No Future,' they sometimes shout in a futile
>protest. At other times, postmodernism helps them to reconcile
>themselves
>to a 'world without a communist future.'
It is also interesting to note how postmodernism has at times been explicitly used for reactionary purposes as Meera Nanda has shown in the case of India. There pomo was originally introduced into the country by leftist intellectuals but it then found favor among rightwing Hindu nationalists who found it convenient a convenient device for bashing left for promoting Enlightenment ideals which could be stigmatized as "colonialist" and the like. It was especially appealing since it could be used to place a "progressive" veneer on leftist bashing.
Jim F.
>
>Yoshie
>
>
___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.