On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:01:19 +0000 loupaulsen at attbi.com writes:
> > conjunctural concern.
>
> Sorry to break ranks, Yoshie, but I think Doug has a point here, and
> I've sort
> of thought this for a long time.
>
> First, on the terminological point: I don't care whether you use
> "theory" only
> for macrotheory and "thought" for middle-range theory and
> microtheory, or use
> some other set of terms. But on the substantive point: I would
> IDEALLY like a
> lot more Marxist theory, or thought, or scientific study and
> propositions and
> conclusions, whatever you call them, both economic and political and
> even
> social-psychological.
>
> I would like a Marxist microeconomics, for example. I've been told
> a hundred
> times that you can't have a Marxist microeconomics, that all those
> propositions work only at the system level. Well, does that mean
> that you can
> use standard bourgeois microeconomics? Yes? No? If not, then what
> kind of
> microeconomics are we supposed to have? Please nobody tell me just
> not to
> bother what happens at the enterprise level.
Didn't some of the Soviet and East European economists work on these issues? Oskar Lange, I believe did do some work on developing a Marxist microeconomics, in which he drew upon concepts from neoclassical economic theory, while modifying them to make them compatible with Marxism.
>
> And what difference does it make that in Capital everyone is using
> gold coins,
> whereas today we are using plastic, derivatives, and so on? How
> does it
> improve Capital if you use calculus and study flows and rates,
> instead of
> having the M-C-M and C-M-C cycles go to completion iteratively as if
> the
> capitalist sold all his commodities before he went and bought raw
> materials
> again?
>
> If Marxist propositions are generally correct, and I believe that
> they are,
> then they interface with other scientific propositions in
> 'sociology' (taken
> in its correct broad sense, incorporating social-psychology,
> historical
> science, cultural anthropology, political science, and economics),
Well, Bukharin did attempt to delineate a Marxist sociology in his *Historical Materialism*. Some of the Austro-Marxists (i.e. Otto Bauer, Max Adler, Otto Neurath) also attempted to develop a Marxist sociology which would integrate data from the different social sciences. Neurath as both a Marxist and a logical empiricist proposed the development of a unified science which would integrate the natural and social sciences into one body of knowledge.
> and of
> course with the physical sciences as well, in the same way that the
> "germ
> theory of disease" must interface with microbiology, biochemistry,
> and
> physics. Where and how? What can we keep of 'bourgeois science'
> and what do
> we have to challenge or adapt?
>
> Of course I used the term "IDEALLY" above in caps. We have a
> personnel
> shortage. We are busy writing anti-war leaflets etc. I would like
> to work on
> this stuff, but who's going to pay me? Who's going to be the
> Frederick Engels
> of today and subsidize the Marxes of today (whoever they are) from
> the profits
> of his/her family enterprise?
And of course, Fred did plenty of substantive intellectual work in his own right as well. You don't see too many business executives doing that type of stuff today, then again there aren't too many executives who are also socialist revolutionaries. Then again, I don't think that even in Engels' day there were too many working capitalists who were also dedicated revolutionaries.
>In fact there is useful work being
> done in the
> academy, but who is going to filter it, interpret it, compile it,
> and
> transship it to the practical Marxists? There is a lot of very
> useful
> sociology which could be informing our work, but the practical
> Marxists never
> see it. Not because they're too stupid to understand it, but
> because they
> just don't have time to keep up with the literature. And if you
> think the
> Marxist section of the American Sociological Association is going to
> digest it
> and pass it on to them, well, not in this period.
>
> Meanwhile the practical Marxists, in parties or whatever, are out
> there trying
> to use understandings which they think experience has proved to
> them, and
> which the academic Marxists never address, because they would never
> consider
> Marxist parties as a source of interesting propositions to test, no
> matter how
> well they might compare with some of the vague or irrelevant
> propositions
> which actually ARE tested in academe.
Well, in France and Italy which used to have strong Communist parties, these parties were supposed to help bridge the gap between the academics and the practical Marxists, which I suppose they did to some extent, although probably not as much as one might have liked (did the work of Althusser and his students have much impact on the praxis of the practical Marxists?).
Jim F.
>
> Maybe it's different outside the US .. ?
>
> LP
>
________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com