Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:09:12 +0000 From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: marxist sociology
Justin, I have enjoyed this exchange very much, but it may be getting towards its end right now, unless the personal aspect diminishes a bit; but here are a couple more replies for now.
What do you mean? I mean, I was trained in part political science, do I think that this has any epistemological conssequences vis a vis Kelly, who was trained in sociology, I doubt it. It jsut means we read some different books, can't imagine that has ainteresting epistemological consequences. ANyway, can't you ever say, sorry, I misunderstood, I was wrong, or don't they teach that to kids nowadays? Maybe it's not revolutionary?
Tahir: You seem obsessed with your age. And you assume that I am wrong, probably because you imagine that I'm much younger than you. I raised what I think is an interesting question and you replied only, it seems, out of your irritation with the arrogance of some 'young' upstart. But anyway, I happen to think that the way that different academic disciplines organise themselves, in terms of their underlying scientific philosophy, the way in which they delimit themselves from others, and the procedures that are approved for research and argument are all important, interesting and open to critique. But often these are imbibed somewhat uncritically by those entering the discipline. I think that academic marxism has been shaped by its incorporation into these disciplines, and I think that this means that it becomes something quite different. Let me take a quite different example, namely linguistics. When I studied linguistics as an undergraduate back in the seventies, the Chomskyan!
paradigm was almost unquestioned in many linguistics department as being definitive in terms of what linguistics is, i.e. what it takes as its object. I began to realise that this was unsatisfactory years later when I was working on my doctorate. Well that orthodoxy has been dislodged to some extent and there are now some different conceptions of what linguistics is, or can be. And I have no doubt that a new orthodoxy is taking shape around 'cognitive linguistics'. (BTW the Chomskyan model was also described as neo-kantian by some of its critics, but let's not go into that right now!) So I'm afraid I can't be contrite about the epistemological question that I asked. The discipline (just think of the meaning of that word for a moment please) is a set of limits and procedures that define the knowledge project that is being undertaken, and I think that is very interesting and should be open for critical inquiry. OK?
>
You are so proprietary!
Tahir: You, you you you...............
Who do I like? Analytical Marxists (Cohen, Roemer, Elster), Hegelian Marxism (Lukacs, Gramsci, Korsch), Walter Benjamin, Rosa Luxemburg, and of course the old man himself.
Tahir: Except for all that silly stuff about communism that some of them still talk about.
You apparently mistake me for one of the people who thinks Marxism is refuted by the failures and collapse of the USSR. I do not. What I do think is that as a self-identified mass movenent that calls its Marxist, Marxsim is over,
Tahir: We agreed about this, but I insisted that there will still be a communist movement - that's the part that you don't like. Actually I would be thrilled if the two main parts of the movement, namely marxist and anarchist, could find their ways back together again.
and has (so fars we can tell) permanently lost the ability inspire its intended constiturency, the working class. That does not mean that a substantial part of the substantive propositions of historical materialism are false; I think they are in the main true,a nd explain,a momng other things, the collapse of the USSR.
Tahir: Yes, I wouldn't mind if someone initiated a thread that takes up your very last point above. It's far from unimportant (or settled).
Even worse, I believe in constitutional democracy, representative government, competitive elections, an independent judiciary, extensive civil liberties, all kinds of reactionary nonsense.
Tahir: Your sarcasm here is quite unnecesary. Everyone on this list I'm sure can agree that all those things are progressive in relation to what came before them AND that they can only be superceded if we come up with something better (not with another SU). I personally believe that this could only come about as a supra-national movement and that any notion of the 'socialist state' sitting in some or other corner of the world is rubbish. But the difference between us is that you apparently think that the changes that might be vital or revolutionary could come about within the framework that you sketch above. I don't, and I will never vote for a professional politician of any stripe or party.
>
>Tahir: Do you have a bit of a problem focusing on the thread of the
>discussion? Bit of a short attention span then? (it comes with age you
>know)
Did anyone ever tell you that you are fucking jerk?
Tahir: Ooh plenty! I can live with it.
I don't mean this in a hostile way, but if you don't do something about it now, it's gonna cause you problems in years dealings with others.
Tahir: "years dealings"? No don't worry I'm pretty comfortable with who I am. You started the personal stuff pal, and everyone here can see that you are the one trying to keep things on that track. Why?
I guess I think it matters tht the book is a meringue, lot of air; and taht the message is pretty harmless. It;s sort of like Cornell West calling himself a Marxist, how cute. In the old days the term had an aura of menace, there was the intellectual weight of a mighty tradition and a lot of workers, and of course sevearl powerful states and revolutionary movements. Now it;s sort of a fashion statement, likeweraing a Che shirt. I am sorry you can't see that, but it's what Hardt & Negri's use and success shows.
Tahir: You may be right that my example was ill-chosen - I don't know - but I kind of like the idea that people are saying we are communists and proud of it, that's all. I have no stake in H & N's specific intellectual project and I never said I did, just that the best-selling status of people using the c-word in that way means that it is already taking on a different meaning, whereas you claimed it was forever linked to the old bureaucratic regimes.
Oddly enough, I'm proud of my honorable profession. Apparently you think I'm a sellout ina suit (and yes I do wear a suit) ashamed and embarassed by your bright revolutionary purity.
Tahir: Oh stop, this sounds very silly.
Not so. I even like wearing a suit.
Tahir: Oh really. What are your favourite styles and colours. Natty blue with shiny black shoes? Sober brown? Italian cut three piece? As a lawyer you probably wouldn't wear the more sinister looking black shirt with your suit I guess. Pale blues and yellows in there somewhere perhaps?
What do you do for a living btw, you a student?
Tahir: No, but I do work at a university.
>No it's not a joke - you have the pedantic air of a lawyer,
Don't know many lawyers, do you?
Tahir: That's true.
>and this also fits well with your respect for institutions such as the
>state itself and the various paraphenalia of liberal democracy,
Actually most lawyers are pretty cynical about this stuffr, we see it too close up.
Tahir: So you are atypical then?
>not to mention your need to credential your arguments with reference to
>your publications list.
Well, since I ahvea ctually worked out some the points we discussed in detail, it's more efficient to refer people to where I have rather than to try to type it out again anad again. Besides, those pubs represehnt what we pedants call accomplishments, what have you got?
Tahir: What do you mean, you want to compare the length of our publications lists? Why don't we just cut to the chase and start with our dicks? The point is that if you reply to someone every time they disagree with you that you have so many publications on the subject, you're really just trying to silence them. In other words it's a bit crass (or maybe not in the US?) It's kind of like someone saying: "hell I'm just right because I'm richer than you, because if your were cleverer than me you'd be making more money." Aren't you even a little bit ashamed for arguing in that sort of way?
Dr Tahir Wood Director: Academic Planning Unit University of the Western Cape Phone (021) 959 3385 Fax (021) 959 3170 e-mail: twood at uwc.ac.za