Justin I am sorry for the tone of my last reply, these posts are quick off the mark and not easy to properly compose or even read without reading more into them then was intended to be there.
It is natural for things to get slightly exagerrated and best when this happens to slimply pull back a little, nor should too much be made of phrase of expression, or should recasting a view mean either capitualtion or duplicity (an accusation for which I apologise).
Reading through what you have written below I see nothing but a reasonable point of view, my previous comments were too extreme by far.
Now to business.
Justin:
"I also don't think that the most useful sort of analysis is at the level of abstraction you seem to want."
I agree with you on this to a large degree, it is not an ideal approach and can and often does lead to that type of philosophising I am sure we both reject. In my defense I would only say that I have tried a number of different approaches to raise this and other related problems but have not managed to engender the sought of discussion I thought necessary.
Perhaps I need to find some other way of plugging away.
"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."
You make two points, both of which I in fact agree with (with small cavaets).
I am quite prepared to wipe off the self-identifieid Marxist organisations that now exist, if only on the basis that none seem in any realistic sense to be a part of worker's movement (nationally or internationally for that matter). I am with you on the next step, the tradition of formal partry organisation procliaming Marxism will probably never revive and I do not see this as a failure but a sign of historical sophistication (mind you I do not step away from various organisations filling the void much in the sense that Marx used in party of the working class in 1848 - something much broader than an organised party in the traditional sense).
Now having said this getting the intellectual appratus (however you may frame it) on a better track it is obvious that such future political possiblities do not depend on it ( at least not in the way previous parties depended on a cannon of belief).
However, my cavaet would be that though the relationship has to change getting a better collective understanding may well be an impoortant contigent feature in this development that is it is possible that a better intellectual response may conttribute to spuring just such a thing forward. After that how theory influences events cannot become the same as in the past - its contributions will have to be qualitatively different into how they feed into and respond to any future movement. All I can say about this is I strongly believe electronic communciations can play as significant part.
"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."
Though I naturally disagree you are absolutely right on the second point - but I am perhaps less relentless in this then might appear to be the case.
My main thesis is that the classical works are far from exhausted, in some areas (such as a general theory of social evolution) we have barely scratched the surface, politically it is an area which has much to say about the relations between the sexes and family and not a little about property and the state. However on this many would disagree.
"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."
I do not think we can ever obtain completeness, not in the sense of having the lot stated in some sought of physics'-like precision, not even the sense of filling in all the major blanks. Even if I am completely right, what we end up with still will look like chopped salad, but as less of a side dish and more as a main course (if such an analogy makes any sense).
We will all have to live with inconclusiveness. It is easy enough to quip how much we are prepared to accept and in what areas is the real question. But I take the point.
Without going into details at this point, if I said that conceptually the general understanding of what is Socialism is not compatable with Historical Materialism and for the sake of argument this was accepted (for instance that the economics of socialism is based on the capital-labour relation) it is something which has wide ramifications especially politically but also theoretically. In a sense, it is not hard to imagine such a thing as having a significant ripple-effect on a whole number of questions.
At this time I am not seriously proposing this example (though I hold the opinion), but use it to part support my contention - it is not meant to be connvincing, just suggestive.
"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?"
Again a good point. It depends on what you mean productively - I would rate CLR James and Duneskaya (spelt wrong) pretty highly and would include many who would not readily fit the mold in any exact sense (Zygosty, hints of Bukharin and definitely I would drag post-1914 Lenin into view). But such comparitive lists don't really reflect what I see as thread running through many including some who may well be placed on an analytical list.
For instance, I really don't know where you would place Braverman (I forgot the name of his main work on labour), I mean this seriously I would love to claim him, but I suppose he could also fall into your definition (I don't honestly know one way or another). But any form of analysis while perhaps ensueing Hegelianisms depends on fundementally clear conceptualisations and these themselves can be addressed separately.
The best analytical approaches can go off the rails if the conceptualisation is faulty, there is an immense pile of such works, some rewarding some not. In fact, often works that are faulted can become quite useful when allowances are made for such problems. I would use Dimtrov's speech as a good example where some allowance must be made not only for the conditions of the time but also for some of the concepts of the author (which get a bit hairy especially in his definition of fascism). In terms of political usefulness this is an example of a very under-rated and much negelected area as indeed the whole experience of the Popular Front remains.
You will probably find this completely off-topic with no seeming interconnection, or perhaps it is clear, how we handle our concepts, especially those that are most familar has a determining effect on what we produce - some of the most intellectually productive can have a natural gift in creating the right conceptualisation, most of the rest of us have to struggle with each and labouriously take apart and resassemble them to cope with fathoming what is going on.
The point I am badly making is that I just can't concede that there is such a division, at least not in good work. Bad Hegelainisms are just as prevelant as bad Analytical works and in both cases very good authors sometimes produce useless trash (the opposite also being true). The reason I liked Ollman is that it gave the ability to resolve apparent differences without dictating a single methodology.
Now what typifies the worst is in mind Althusser whose overly structuralist method went from no-where to no-where. But I would add to this a great number who, for a while, dominated Marxist Philosophy and lead directly to the post-modernist impasse. Now in a very real sense no Hegelian-Marxist could have this laid at their door - I don't know if such a negative argument could be called persuasive, but it is the flip-side of problem.
"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."
You don't have to read much from the Hegelian school before your eyes glaze over and many works in this area are pointless, but not all. Hegel is as hard as bricks to deal with. However, following on from CLR James "Notes on Dialectics" I am still overwhelmed by his concept of error and its relationship to ideology in general (it is just one tiny part). Politically I have found this rewarding in a very direct sense (ie when dealing with fellow workers), in terms of sifting through literature a better concept of what ideology actually is (derived from Hegel's logic) has been equally intellectually rewarding (mostly in the ability to dismiss false debates).
All very personal and again hardly convincing.
Now Tony Smith's work which I think is one of the finest foresenic works I have ever read was startling for it confirmed what I always found in reading capital but could never properly conceptualise what it was and how it was working - I knew something else was there giving it shape and spent years trying to fathom exactly what it was. Smith filled the gap, but the importance lies in how much more can be dug out of capital and indeed the Grundrisse (which is not so directly designed but has the Logic's finger prints all over it).
I admit my knowledge of the Phenomenology is worse than thin and I doubt I will ever properly read it. However, the quest for what in the hell was the dialectic did find a home in the Logic and I cannot say I found the same condensed rendition in my attempts to penetrate the Phenomenology.
It was only last week I found something of interest on just this point in "Hegel A biography" by Pinkard. That is that the logic was a distilation and reformulation of the Phenomenology, in fact in some reagrds a revision of it but one which left it standing. His argument is almost purely historical based on Hegel's records. I found this useful in that again it tended to confirm my impression of the Phenomenology as somewhat removed from what I was after.
Now this does not dispute what you have said above, in fact given this relationship the influence of both would be expected in Marx.
"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."
A good point to pick me up on - yes that is my formulation not Marx's and he was not interested in a philosophy of history as such. Now if you are prepared to let the terms ride loosely, my view on this was shaped by examining Engels' Origin, Morgan's Ancient Society and finally with great difficulty and not to the depth I would like Marx's Ethnological Notebooks as edited by Kraeder.
I woulkd loosely link this to "The Making of Capital"(I have forgotten the author's name) where the original plan for capital was examined - something like a world history was part of this. But this is not strong evidence the Notebooks on the other hand are. Marx did not stumble across Morgan untill after he began a rather extended reading of theories of social evolution or what today might be slipped into anthropology.
The Notes make it clear that Morgan was a very happy accident indeed and most of the Notebooks become devoted to him heavily ladled with Marx's own examples and some extensions and criticism. The point being, as Engels pointed out in his original preface, that this had become because of Marx's death an important bequest to introduce these theories.
Much doubt has been cast on Engels about this, but the notebooks make it clear that Marx was planning a big something in this area and not that Engels cobbled together bits and pieces as was the common opinion.
Now the mode of production schema Marx had kept for so long comes into its own. Marx on Capital is rich enough and something can be gleaned about class societies from his writings, but on Primitive Communism there is very little at all, most is simply philosophised anthropology, but from the enthological notebooks things change, he makes active enquires on related topics and is clearly working towards filling in the big gap - pre-calss societies.
The attempt while not fully sucessful is much more so then is given credit to it. I would use George Thomson as a good example of its application on historical questions, I personally have found it politically useful on some aboriginal issues, but its most universal appeal politically must rest in the potential to clearly understand domestic production and the sexual division of labour, an area no full of the most profound nonsense.
"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 have some small disagreements with this, but I am very much in agreement with your conclusion, it is noty only debatable it often misses the point altogether in societies which have had a none capitalist ancenstry and sometimes becomes totally misleading when looking at contemporary events where non-capitalist relations play important parts (Afghanistan under the Taliban for instance).
"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."
Justin we need not agree to reach an accord. In this case I am pleased that so much misunderstanding has been cleared away so quickly and elegantly, it basically cheers me no end to see such honesty and good comradeship - thank you.
I would like to pick up on the "wage labour" problem in some latter post. As for markets well ironically the victorious proletariat may find it necessary to actually create some just in order to get around some of the internal chicanry put in place by multinationals, as for private property the bourgeoisie would seem to have done a good job of socialising much of that, serious persistence of Private property under socialism has by historical fiat become a non-issue.
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. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________