[lbo-talk] Mechanical Marxism: A useful concept?

[Carrol Cox]

The phrase "vulgar marxism" clearly isn't very useful. When Justin uses
it, I'm reasonably sure that I know what he means, and that he will know
what I mean. But there's no way to remove the sneer from "vulgar," and
phrases using tend to be nothing more than sneers at the target.
"Mechanical marxism" is probably more useful, and can be described in
more or less intellgible terms. It consists in the reduction of social
relations to the 'things' related, denying the reality of the relations.
The clearest example of mechanical marxism is any empirical definition
of class as opposed to class as a relation and a process. 

The text of Chomsky Tayssir cited is among other things merely vulgar in
the popular sense. It doesn't say anything but repeats without
specifying that his critics haven't said anything. It's simply not very
interesting. Perhaps Chomsky should mull over the passage in the
Grundrisse (hardly a "pomo" text) to the effect that relations, unlike
the things related, must be thought! In other words, fundamental
reality, i.e. relations, cannot be observed but merely (merely!)
theorized.

Carrol

Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:


> Well, I already offered some evidence which suggests Chomsky
> consciously disagrees with vulgar marxism. 

I find your use of "vulgar marxism" utterly unintelligible so I can't do
anything with this.

Carrol