-----Original Message----- From: James Heartfield <Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Monday, December 31, 2001 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Marxism is a science
>I'm not sure from what you write what the problem is with objectivity.
>
>I think in the case of Marx, objectivity was an important question, in,
>for example, his criticism of political economy, which was moving
>towards a subjective interpretation of value, whereas he wanted to argue
>that value was objective.
>
>So in the subjectivist version, value (not distinguished from price) is
>what the buyer is willing to pay.
>
>Marx by contrast seeks to abstract from the subjective intentions of
>buyer and seller to fathom an underlying objective value.
Yes, I agree that Marx considered objectivity important. I'm unsure that Marx' notion of objectivism is, well, sufficiently Marxist. To have multiple different (and equally subjective) notions of value - market value, use value and labour value, does not inherently mean that they are all equally productive or useful notions of value. Each has to be judged by the practices that it entails. That is the lesson I've always taken from the unity of theory and practice. But each is still subjective, provisional, and subject to criticism. Ultimate objective knowledge is simply unavailable to the human theorist.
>As to physics, I was not aware that it had abandoned its ambition to
>describe an objective world outside subjective investigation - only that
>Heisenberg had raised some difficulties in the way.
Physics has not. But then, I'm a bit of a rogue defector from my hard science education. Heisenberg has nothing to do with my argument. In fact, I hate the abuse quantum mechanics and relativity get from mystics.
Instead, I argue that no unmediated access to the universe exists. Human consciousness - and that includes awareness of the categories of physical science - is a product of the human environment. That means that the universe doesn't inherently possess even such quotidian categories as "up" and "down", or "air", "water" and "sun", and even less categories like "electrons", "quarks" and "photons." Humans have those categories, and the only objective knowledge we can possess of the universe is about the usefulness and limitations of those categories. Our categories aren't arbitrary, they're just not any less subjective for it.
For instance, it is hard to imagine Relativity being of much use in the 17th century, and it is doubtful that any useful practice might have come of it had it been introduced in the 17th century. In the 20th century, it is a different matter. And among physicists, the eventual replacement of current theories and categories is viewed as inevitable.
I'm arguing that Marxism's categories are just as subjective and provisional, and that they're validity is measured by the practices they entail. In this sense, neither is physics nor Marxism are objective, but neither is necessarily just so much superstition because of it.
Ah hell. It's already 10pm in Europe and I've already had way to much to drink to be arguing philosophy of science. I'll try again tomorrow. G'night folks, happy New Year.
Scott Martens