>
>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.
Agreed, but maybe the problem is whatto do about _capitalism_ in its current state.
>The route is premapped,
Why do you say that?
>
>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.
Isn't this what Marxists would call an "idealist" approach, the assumption being that the current impasse is due to our not having a good enough theory? Rather than to certain objective problems, liked the one Carrol mentions--the other side is awfully strong, we are weak and disorganized.
>
>If HM is just a series of independant theories unrelated 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.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways, the point, however, is to change it. No theory is going to save us. If the theory we have is even half right, only the organozed activity of ordindary people can do that.
>
>It is important for me to state, that these ideas are not my own invention.
>The clearest expression of [my ideas] 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).
Bertell Ollman. Lots of places, starting with his first book, Alienation.
>
>
>
>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.
Count me out. I don't think that's a worthwhile project.
>
>What is the actual role of Hegel's Science of Logic in HM.
Less important than you think. I think that the dialectical scheme of the Phenomenology of Spirit is pretty important for Marx, but I don't think that the categories of the Logic do much work in historical materialism. They do a lot of work in Marx's Capital, as Tony Smith has shwon in The Logic of Marx's Capitsl.
Why did Marx not only create a schema of Modes of production but stuck rigdily to it throughout his life?
Why do you think he did?
>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?
What movement? What is "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?
No. That's an easy one. Carrol and I have bonked heads many a time about whether Marx was wrong to dery any prognostication at all in the form of building models of a postcapitalist society (C says yes, I say no), but we agree that he was right to insist that the future will be built in ways we can't picture or predict in more than the vaguest terms by them as do it practically.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx