"Such as? This is a serious question, not a snotty retort."
Thanks Miles I will take this in the spirit that it is raised.
First, the impulse for raising such questions is not philosophical but political - unfortunately this tends to get overlooked as soon as the abstract questions are raised.
In this sense we begin with being dissatisified with the progress of Marxism. I use "Marxism" as the term to denote recieved Historical Materialism as distinct from what Historical Materialism may actually mean (Marxism in this case is more or less the Marxism as understood by our movement - a historically derived understanding).
We are already getting abstract at this point, one the one hand we have Historical Materialism which I have nothing new to bring and where some very able minds have made sufficient contributions for us to move on, but then there is the contradiction of Marxism, different from Historical Materialism from which it derives, apparently diverse but in real political trouble.
Abstractly the question is not problems with Historical Materialism, I see no problems here except a lack of application, but what to do about Marxism in its current state. The route is premapped, if at anytime we need to update change or modify the general ideology of Marxism we need to readdress Historical Materialism and find within this the means of furthering its generally held understanding (Marxism).
Miles I hope that no-one is confused by this. But we need to be clear and abstractly this clarity can be best served by holding up on one hand a source of resolution and on the other the source of the problem. Natrurally such a spearation is false and forced as one is just the expression of the other (Marxism is an expression of Historical Materialism, Historical Materialism can be found buried within Marxism).
But note that while I can have Marxism as an extension of Historical Materialism [HM] (which by shorthand I initially called the scientific bit), it does not work the otherway as HM is buried within Marxism it would make no sense to say that Marxism was the expression of HM as a general statement, instead it is something buried within.
Already the problem is abstractly solved - that is it is Marxism that is stuck and the need to bring from within it a more meaningful expression of the science that lays negelected at the core. To do so is to oppose current Marxism (its prejudices and some of things taken as gospel) and propose a more scientific and rigourous understanding of the core buried within.
Abstractly we know the problem and the resolution and nothing other than this rather drawn out and pedantic style seems to help.
Now where I went wrong was to get into the science is an ontology debate. I now want to correct this error. Forget that science or onotology has been mentioned at all - our problem is to resurrect HM and change Marxism (effect the ideology of the movement - making a break with the past).
If HM is just a series of independant theories unrealted to one another then we have no hope, HM is just an area of study and any form of Marxism can justify itself by leaning on one aspect and neglecting others. If this was the case we are doomed before we begin - there is no way out except to wait from some brilliant mind to come up with a set of theories which micraculously deliver us from our plight.
I hope this makes sense for my argument here is one of necessity - either HM is a body of closely related and dependant theories making in effect a single complex concept, or it is just a dumping ground for various theories which do not bear any particular relationship to one another.
I believe Marxism has treated HM in the latter fashion but I cannot for a minute concede that this is what HM is. For me HM is a single complex concept of interelated and dependant theories or it is nothing, not a science and not a good way to comprehend historical reality.
It is not a matter of choice, severe the unity of HM and anything goes and practice is the sole judge of what is correct on incorrect, in fact any illusion which promotes social activity would be equal. I cannot accept this as reason is the first victim and reason if it has any purpose is to make the world a conscious reality.
The result is that HM if nothing else has to be seen as an ontology or related and dependant parts, in essence a single concept (but a very complex one). Abstractly the question is where does such an ontology begin, how is it shaped, and most importantly how do the parts relate to one another?
At this point abstract questions begin to concretise, we should start seeing a way of handling the material (HM) purposefully. This beleive it or not was my whole purpose in this debate, though it has become very sidetracked.
I beleive that if a number of people could just reach this point together then we really have things to discuss. However, unless such an intellectual agreement can be made (a common assumption on progressing the critique) anything said would be misunderstood (as has often been the case so far).
It is important for me to state, that these ideas are not my own invention. The clearest expression of them as far as I can remember (this was almost two decades ago) was Bertell Olloman (I have mispelt this and for the life of me cannot recall the work where he discussed ontology and HM).
As the problems of Marxism have become more apparent since then my motivation has grown to get this argument out and open it up as a means of rectification.
Miles I would not blame you for thinking this was a lot of words to get to a simple point. However, my abilities are limited and my previous attempts have been failures, so only now am I trying as best as I can to be explicit as possible.
What I would really like is a thread, even an entire list, to work together just based on the common asssumption that HM is an ontology which needs to be explicitly explored - the questions at this point remain theoretical but are far more concretely so.
What is the actual role of Hegel's Science of Logic in HM. Why did Marx not only create a schema of Modes of production but stuck rigdily to it throughout his life? Why did Marx spend his last years on social evolution (via Morgan) and why has the movement exercised this from the main body of Marxism? Is there a way of relating all of the concepts within HM and coming to a definitive understanding of what really consitutes Socialism (phase one of communism) and Communism proper?
Of course this becomes a pandora's box, but in my own little explorations time and time again I have come to conclusions that Marx (and other related thinkers) are saying things very different to how Marxism has interpreted them and politically this is in my own eyes explosive stuff despite its theoretical nature.
We don't have to become Hegelians, we certainly don't have to retreat into overly complex and arcane arguments, but we do have to find a common basis of critique and organise intellectually on that basis.
The point is to change the world, our specific point is to change the socialist movement into a meanigful historic force capable of expressing proletarian interests on a world wide scale - the days of waiting for some brilliant mind to do this for us are over in my opinion - it is more the duty of everyone who takes HM seriously to do their part.
We have a great bonus, amongst all the dross which has been published under the name of Marxism there are some exceptional and very real contributions, we do not have to begin at the begining and re-invent the wheel but we do have bring together what is of use and be ruthless in dispensing with those things which do not help but hinder our purpose.
Miles in the hope that such ramblings clarify more than they disguise, I would very much like to hear your opinion on this.
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. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________