Chomsky on "theory" from Barsamian interview,was "no social science theories"

[Carl Remick]

>>This _was_ Marx's core theory of socialism -- that it was undiscussable
>>(under capitalism) except in the most cursory way. That's perhaps the
>>main thing that distinguishes Marxism from liberalism -- Marx's disdain
>>of prophecy & promises.
>>
>>Carrol
>
>That's not a theory in the sense that Chomsky means, which is an 
>explanatory
>and predictive theory that tells you about the nature and behavior of some
>phenomena. Btw, although Marx repeatedly _said_ that one couldn't talk 
>about
>communism, he didn't mean it. For example, he "knew" that it would be a
>nonmarket, and indeed ultimately a nonstate form of economic coordination,
>and he heaped vitriol and scorn on fools who, like myself, doubted these
>propositions. As indeed do you, Carrol.
>
>jks

What interests me is that you can find essentially the same view (absent the 
vitriol and scorn, of course) in Emerson.  Emerson was sympathetic to the 
goals of Charles Fourier, with his often ingenious schemes for utopian 
socialism, but he thought he was way too rigid and uncomprehending of 
psychology.  It's certainly arguable that the growth and spread of the 
transcendental awareness that Emerson advocated would produce more 
socialistic thinking and the development of nonmarket forms of economic 
coordination, but it's not possible to predict exactly what changes in the 
structure and operation of society would result.

Carl

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com