>What about "systematic inquiry"? Are there not connections among our
>various ideas? Don't we want at least minimal coherence? And does not
>Chomsky in all his books in fact strive for such coherence? Doesn't he
>regularly try to connect one "fact" to another?
Yes, but the impression I get from what little I've read of him seems to be that his connecting the dots all point in one line, like a detective's method or reporter's, back to a single source (usually the US government). I don't get from him the same "feel" I get from reading Marx's connections, which seem to lead off in many directions at once.
>
>And as soon as you affirm that Fact A links to Fact B, you are affirming
>(whether you like it or not) a _principle_ in terms of which Fact A &
>Fact B link.
Depends on facts and context, no? Two facts don't have to be linked by a principle (or can be so deeply linked that no principle is apparent).
>And as soon as you assert a principle, whether you like it
>or not, you are asserting all the other principles which that principle
>generates, unless you elaborate a set of reasons for _not_ extending the
>principle to those other related principles.
That latter could be done. Don't capitalists do this all the time? "It's not capitalism itself that's causing all these problems, just 'bad apples." Their apologists and yes-people just keep feeding them the crap they want to hear.
>
>Every important marxist, beginning with marx, has in one way or the
>other emphasized that whenever one acts, one acts according to some
>principle, and the only question is whether one consciously adheres to
>that principle (thus making correction possible) or unconsciously
>adheres to it, thus making correcton (criticism) impossible.
Mmm. Maybe. But correction might also be made impossible by other things besides unconscious adherance to a principle. The "tone" in which correction is delivered, for example . . . . !{)>
>
>Finally, the _only_ connection between present and future is theory --
>and to reject theory is to reject the possibility of purposeful action.
??!! Come on, Carrol, really. Plenty of people perform purposeful actions with no theory to guide them; I'd imagine that it simply makes what they want to do that much harder and less likely to succeed (assuming they're aware of the lack), but not necessarily impossible. Call for thoughtful action, which would involve a good mix of theory and practice, not unneccessary divisiveness and wall-building.
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963