I expressed myself poorly if I led you to think that I said that there's no practical point in theoretical analysis or that "emotional" acting Without theoretical reflection is what is called for. I don't think, however, the sort of theoretical analysis that is called for is limited to re-evaluation of old texts by Marx, interesting and even valuable as that might be. I am sorry if I misinterpreted you as saying that getting a certain sort of theory right is all we need; of course the purpose of a list like this is not to organize but to talk about theory, quite right.
I also don't think that the most useful sort of analysis is at the level of abstraction you seem to want. There is no more communist/socialist movement in the sense of an international workers' movement self-identified as Marxist, and I don't think that one so self-identified is ever likely to revive, but the prospects for an international workers' movement however self-identified do not seem to me to depend on whether, e.g., Bertell Ollman is right about historical materialism as opposed to, say, G.A. Cohen--whose approach in broad outlines I find far more congenial than Ollman's.
Since you ask, it's a long time (decades) since I read Ollman's book, and while I learned from it, I wasn't persuaded by his particular sort of Logic-driven Hegelianizing. You say, it's not enough to say that, but in fact the burden of proof is on those who insist that the relentless holistic approach is productive. You admit that what it looks like we have is a chopped salad of sometimes inconsistent empirical theories. I say that is all we ever going to get, but it's enough, all what wecan do is to sort through them, develop the more promsing ones better, live with inconclusiveness.
This kind of approach, exemplified by the analytical MArxists, seems to me not only satisfactory but desirable, and is borne out by the results of a lot of good work: Cohen and Wright/Sober/Levine on historical materialism, Wright on class, Przezworski on social democracy, Roemer on exploitation, Schweickart on market socialism, Elster on social psychology, etc. I can't say the same for the approach you urge. Who has pursued it productively?
I don't think Hegel should be ignored, but paying attention to him doesn't have to mean taking over the most abstract and holistic aspects of the Logic; Tony Smith argues, persuasively to my mind, that the Logic was important to Capital, but I also think that what is valid in the analysis of Capital does not depend on the stuff derived from Hegel. I think the negative dialectic of the Phenomenology is much more imporatant for historical materialism and has a lot more validity--the notion of an immanent critique, transcendance of contradictions, and the like.
Some defects of your approach are revealed by your remarks taht the subject of HM is "world history," a very Hegelian formulation. But Marx nevr did a Philosophy of History. He was interestedin social change and stability--to my mind the subject of HM--and in particular in the transition to and from capitalism. I certainly don't think that Marx (or almost any other serious Marxist) is committed to a rigid lockstep schema of 5 historical modes of production, but if he was, then I agree that that is not an acceptable analysis except for certain very limited abstract and schematic purposes. It's highly debatreable to what expect some of the main categoresa nd propositions of HM apply outside the context of the rise and trajectory of capitalism.
I am puzzled by your last comments. As I have said, I think there is no more communist/socialist movement in any significant sense, though of course working class struggles continue. I myself think that the abolition of markets (though not of private property or wage labor) is a pipe dream, but debate about market socialism versus nonmarket socialism is important. Participation in reform struggles is essential; it's mainly what we do. And obviously things are not fine.
jks
Greg wrote (many snips):
>
. . . , 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? I
. . .
>
>Justin if you're so familar with this point of view why pretend you are
>just dealing with me - what are Ollman's faults?
>
. . .
>do you really mean that Hegel is there in these regards but still should be
>ignored??
. ..
>
>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.
. . . . "
>
>"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.
. . .
>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.
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.