Science, Science & Marxism

Greg Schofield g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au
Sun Jan 6 20:20:13 PST 2002


Please excuse me for re-entering the debate without having become fully familar with all the entries associated with these threads (as I have just returned after a week's absence). Please also excuse this long posting.

My original reason for raising this was because of a perceived fault in Marxism as it has developed as the ideology of the socialist movement - I referred to it as comic-book Marxism in the context to raise the level of Marxism up a notch or two as part of the effort in re-invigorating the movement.

Within this view was implicitly accepted that various parts of Historical Materialism were sufficiently developed but that the generally held concepts (the culture of our movement) lagged too far behind (not that other areas do not need attention). Hence the problem that this implies - is in what direction this should take and the assumption that only by raising the general understanding of Historical Materialism were various important questions (political and analytical) find a context in which they could be addressed and answered.

What I tried to do was raise the problem as one to do with scientific ontology (hence the direction we need to go is more or less suggested - ala Science of Logic, uniting young and later Marx, awarness of the whole Historical Materialist project etc). The whole thing derailed at a fairly early stage (at its first premise - which was that science must be understood as a series of subject-matter determined ontologies).

Perhaps no one wishes to revist this area, but I do not want the main point simply lost to view because of this. Michael Pugliese's "Marxism as Science and Critique, by Alvin W. Gouldner" referenced to http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/Marx/ch2.htm is useful in this. Goulder proposes a split in Marxism's history between the "scientific" structuralist thread (Althusser) and the Marxism as a "critique"/ hegealian thread (Lukas). As far as it goes it seems fair enough, but another way of expression would be between an orthodox (Kantian/structuralism) and a dissident (Hegelian/dialectic) approach. The latter very much within the mainstream (despite the political theoretical differences) and the latter as a cautious sometimes overly abstract and politically tendentious school.

Simple resolution of this is not possible, the history of the latter group does not lend itself to be grafted on and the danger always remains of being lost in the abstractions. However the former orthodox school offers no hope, in fact, it typifies the problems both political and theoretical that we are presently bound within.

Back to the ontological question, one that I posed because I see it as the premise for treating Historical Materialism as a whole and single project. Again no easy answers but this time some interesting questions arise.

If it can be concieved that Historical Materialism is a single conception and we begin for sake of argument just with Marx's own development, then we reflect this on the various orthodox opinions we see an interesting conflict.

A lot of Marx's thought (from Modes of Production and their historical schema, Marx's interest in Morgan's social evolution, Marx's coneption of the two stages of communism, the persistant role of alienation and capital's self-development, etc. let alone the connections between Marx and Hegel) we find that the orthodox/structuralist or traditional "scientific" (via Goulder) exists based on a great number of forceful resolutions of internal contradictions and a range of pat explanations and negating definitions which in toto present something of the comic-book version which I originally criticised.

Now Goulder's "Critique" trend in Marxism does attempt to deal with some of these, though notorious for going off beam into endless abstractions and fine points which often seem to miss the point altogether. But there is a difference, this school has accumulated a lot of compatable insights and illustrated many interconnections which traditionally been pushed aside. It cannot be grafted on (its history works against this) but it can be plundered and some aspects built upon.

If an ontology is accepted as an implicit in Historical Materialism but needing to be more clearly expressed (Ollman talks about this if memory serves correct), then in a sense we have a project that promises some for of intellectual ressurection - that is not just to recover this ontology (which many fine individual thinkers have in the past) but cast it into a form which is more understandable and capable of becoming a mass form of self-education.

Again I have given a long-winded post, the salient part is rather than seeing the accumulation of works within Historical Materialism as a diverse but not necessary compatable resource, we can look at the same material and see also an accumulation of material which places us in a much better position then previous generations of giving a more definite shape and clearer rendition of Historical Materialism. However, the secret to so seeing this heritage is the acceptance that Historical Materialism does form an implies ontology where all the parts bear definite and understandable connections with all the other parts (a lot of course needs to be dispensed with and most of the rest needs to be given a clearer overt expression of just where it belongs and what it addresses).

This is not a remaking of Historical Materialism (though it would appear so to those who hold an orthodox/structuralist understanding), nor is necessarily a huge task given that so much work has already been accomplished, but it needs to be a collective response where the general aims and direction are shared and clear.

The immediate problem is just getting this initial clarity of direction established. These related threads show there is a great problem with this and perhaps the first hurdle seems the least relevant, but maybe there is more to the "science" debate then just mutual confusion, perhaps if this could be cracked what needs to follow may be more easily achieved.

Goulder

Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________

Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/) * Powerful filters. * Create you own headers. * Have email types launch scripts. * Use emails to automat your work. * Add comments on recieve. * Use scripts to extract and check emails. * Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions. * LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX. * A REXX interpreter is freely available. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________

--- Message Received --- From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:15:09 -0600 Subject: Science, Science & Marxism, was Re: Marxism a



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list