Justin I have spent most of my life struggling practically against capitalism, in this a email list is of very little use. Obviously we come to such a list for something else.
">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."
Agreed as well, how do you propose to get there?
">The route is premapped,"
"Why do you say that"
Because of what I was saying in the paragraph, if you want to do something to change the ideology of Marxism (the form of historically recieved Historical Materialism) you obviously have to go back to the source - hence the route is pre-mapped.
Otherwise you are in the silly position of not necessarily grasping the Marxism you are trying to develop. It may be unusual to separate the two (Marxism from Histrorical Materailism) but it makes simple sense that the ideas attributed to Marxism are not always a part of it (hence Marx declaring himself to be no Marxist - it makes sense only withih such a context).
">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."
Not for the social actors themselves, Justin, the Socialist movement is stuck that is obvious, there is a criticial role here for ideas, I do you think that the best form of political activity is purely emotional? If you think this is idealist then you best get rid of theory where-ever you enconter it, because that damn stuff is all about reflecting not just on past practice but future possibilities.
">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."
Thesis 11 was not intended to end thought Justin, but join it to social action. Read in this style it implores us not to use our brains at all. Theory is not going to save anyone - have I actually said this!
If you are trapped, I suggest the first most practical thing you can do is think about the trap you are in and then do something about it - of course hitting your head against the same wall all the time may wear it thin and your problems may be over (either the head or the wall).
And I am amongst the first to say if we can only get the theory half-right then the rest will come but not by any thinking but by action - our problem is that we are fooling ourselves that we have even got things half-right at this time, and as for action do you know of any that is growing in strength at this time?
">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."
Justin if you're so familar with this point of view why pretend you are just dealing with me - what are Ollman's faults?
I mean I am somewhat relieved that the point of view is better known, but a bit puzzled why it should be treated with such distain - Ollman is no mean figure within Marxism, I know of no refutation of this point of view within Marxism, it obviously has a little more force behind it then my own attempts - so why don't you argue directly against this view instead of just putting forward a counter view without a critique. I mean I have spent some time trying to explain the point as best a can from a variety of angles.
If you know Ollman's work all of that was unecessary - if you have read him then the ontological position is something you are already familiar with - so where is the critique of it - what the hell is wrong with it?
I was under the illusion that I was not making myself clear, that somehow you had missed the point or did not recognise the logic - by specifying Ollman in this way you show this is not the case at all. So were the hell is the counter argument! Merely dismissing it holds no water, and if some pronouncements on pragmaticism are thought sufficient I cannot see how this fits in with a reading that is familiar to this degree with one of the major authors.
I am sorry Justine but this is looking just a little too philistine for me. I hope I am wrong and misjudge the situation.
">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."
Well somehow I begining to see why.
">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."
Wait a minute Justin, were you not the one arguing that Hegel was misplaced in Historical Materialism in the first place and now you ship him in. I say offhand that the two illustrations you give above are more then sufficient reason for revisiting Hegel seriously. I now just cannot make out what you're saying - do you really mean that Hegel is there in these regards but still should be ignored??
I am sorry Justin I am having real problems with this posting, you have just conceded more then I was attempting to argue and then use this to say it is not as important as I was arguing - a neat trick, but either there is serious misunderwstandings here or this is looking like iuntellectual duplicity.
"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?"
Because that rigid division into 5 Modes of production are essential to the primary arrangement of the subject material (world history), 5 Modes in distinct relation to one another was not mere accident but the primary method of identifying capitalism as distinct from preceding and contemporary modes. During the seventies this was felt too rigidly and did not miorror reality, in fact it was understood too concretely and at its proper level of abstraction esstential to comprehending world history. Hence Marx stuck to it after making a few minor adjustments betwewen 1844 and the German Ideology.
">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?"
Come now Justin the remains of the communist/socialist movement, the main body of Marxism being the ideology/theory of that historical movement from which niine-tenths of leftwing discussion stems from. There is a limit to how explicit someone can be in such positings, but even my terrible style should have made this plain after all it was the subject of the posting from which you are quoting.
"> 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."
Perhaps you may have also considered that the Political Economy of Socialism is in fact the capital-labour relation - of course dear old Marx would never have said that would he! And if he did then such an idea would not effect our political stance would it!
OOOps I forgot, the remains of the socialist movement maintains the absolute abolishment of private property, the market and universal planning as its "realistic" objectives. Is something out-of-kilter here, or what!
Communists avoid any type of reform in order to not delude the masses (and I am accused of being idealist) and form into battling ideological foes in the same movement but they are not being a utopian sectarians. Of course the real irony is that every single one of them knows the Communist Manifesto backwards (they just have trouble understanding it).
I take it these are signs that everything is fine and dandy.
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. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________