Carrol Cox:
> Here we have, a think, one of those points at which
> Marx the scientist(critique of political economy)
and
> Marx the philosopher of historytouch. There is
> _nothing_ in his core analysis of capitalism
> which_necessitates_ the claim that capitalism has an
> "historical task."
Carrol is absolutely 100% correct here. While it may be difficult to distinguish between Marx the scientist and Marx the revolutionary at the level of personality, I think it is entirely possible to distinguish between the scientifically meaningful parts of Marx's analysis versus historical-philosophical prophesies that are an expression of revolutionary hope.
The prospect for communist revolution has no bearing upon the validity of Marx's analysis of capitalism. Some would even argue that Marx's analysis of the fetishistic relations of bourgeois society demonstrates the impossibility of revolution. I don't share this perspective, but I do not think it is nonsense.
> No. But unlike you, Marx had some - dare I say -
> faith in the capacity of humans to act collectively
> to make a better world.
Doug, this is a dishonorable caricature of what Carrol says. I think Carrol's perspective is far more in accord with the thought of people like Foucault and Althusser, that history is a process without a subject. Carrol is not denying the possibility of revolution, he is arguing against the bourgeois ideology of autonomous, self-activating subjects.
Charles Brown:
> For Marx, there is only one science the science of
> history
Charles, how on earth is a "science" of history even possible? Please do not take this as a rhetorical question. I think one can do useful analytical, scholarly historical work, but there are no "laws" of history. Using the word "science" makes exaggerated claims for scholarly historical analysis.
> As there is a lot in common between left-Marxism
(by > which I mean autonomous Marxism and more
libertarian > variants) and left-anarchism
"Libertarian" is a semantically meaningless curseword used by anarchists to denounce others who don't share their religious investment in an essentially benign "human nature".
I assume by "autonomous" Marxism you are simply adopting Harry Cleaver's synonym for Operaismo and Post-Operaismo?
The North American anarchist movements attempts to appropriate Operaismo as an anarchist current is a stupid joke. Tronti, Negri, Bologna were all admirers of Lenin, as were there American precursors, C.L.R. James and Martin Glaberman.
As Chuck on this list demonstrates, anarchists have an irritating and sleazy tendency to overcome their own marginality by projecting their views onto others.
____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com