I am not sure whether I have not explained myself clearly enough or whether we just hopelessly disagree on what counts as accepting Marxism social science. I do think that some version of historical materialism is defensible, not an inevitablist or stagist version, or, probably, a primacy of the forces of productive version. I incline towards productive relations/class struggle accounts.
I do think that the core of Marx's critique of capitalism, stripped of the value-theoretical voodoo, is valid. Since, Rakesh, you regard the value theoretic voodoo as the core of Marx's project, we end up butting heads rather fruitlessly here.
I do not see how the following two views you attribute to me are consistent:
(1) you accept Marx's social science
> mostly as a
> description of the way in which capitalist work
> processes undermine
> autonomy. (2) That is, you reject Marxist social
science
> as an
> explanatory enterprise,
I'd say yes to (1) as far as it goes and no to (2).
Although I value individual autonomy and admire JS Mill no end, I think Marx goes overboard in making autonomy the centerpiece of his critique of capitalism. He's not a liberal, of course, but he does this anyway. I think he improperly neglects/rejects justice and other values.
I'm not sure my views about potential moral basis for a critique of capitalism, or Marx's implicit moral views either, are directly relevant to either of our assessments of Marx's explanatory theories.
The kind of liberal I am is not not who insists on the absolute priority of liberty in the manner of Rawls. As I have repeated explained, I am a political liberal, which means I believe in competitive elections, universal suffrage, and extensive social and political liberties as a matter of law; also a philosophical liberal, in that I think that the state should remain as neutral as possible in its policymaking between competing conceptions of the good life. None of these views commit to saying that the specter of individual liberty should silence all competing values or trump equality of opportunity or material equality (for example).
--- Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Andie
>
> "I have explained at too-great length here what I
> take
> to be the main insights of Marx's critique of
> political economy and why these can be be stated
> without the use of value theory. I don't care to
> repeat my account or why it doesn't rely on
> neo-Sraffian models. This stuff is available on the
> archives."
>
> As I understand it: you have asserted the normative
> primacy of
> individual autonomy for not explicitly Marxist
> (perhaps quasi
> Kantian?)reasons but accept Marx's social science
> mostly as a
> description of the way in which capitalist work
> processes undermine
> autonomy. That is, you reject Marxist social science
> as an
> explanatory enterprise, and you prize autonomy
> almost as if the very
> words individual freedom should intimidate anyone
> from even
> suggesting an equal or greater good. You therefore
> rightly insist
> that you are not a Marxist but a liberal of the JS
> Mill kind.
>
> Perhaps this is something you can bite into.
>
> Rakesh
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/