Re: Marx's materialism

12/5/2000, George wrote:
    > it is difficult for me to follow Richard's position. what
    does he mean by "philosophy" when he says that the Manifesto
    is not philosophical? and what am I to make from the train
    metaphor? it seems that he is looking for absolute truth,
    something which is not available. there is a real difference
    between a theory of how the capitalist mode of production
    works and metaphysical questions about the nature of Being.
    we may be tied to the track, but what can we do in the
    remaining moments. well, if things are at that point, I
    guess one would not take the time to read Capital. however,
    I wonder if we can know if we are at that point.
    
Dear George,

You sent this only to me, but it is phrased in third person,
so I assume you meant it to go to the list.

I didn't say the Manifesto wasn't philosphical; I only said
that the quotation posted was not philosophical.  It was
brilliant, but a set of empirical observations.  "You have 
nothing to lose but your chains" is philosophical.

The train metaphor: What does that have to do with absolute
truth?  All I'm saying is that the danger of capitalism has
become so obviouis and so acute that we don't need much
theory - what we need is an action plan.

How do we know we are 'at that point'?  We have been at that
point ever since Ludd, or ever since agriculture was
invented, depending on how far back you want to go.  What's
special about this particular moment is that we have an
historical window of opportunity.  Liberal 'democracies' are
a sham but they nonetheless provide an opportunity for
popular expression that is historically-speaking unique,
compared say to life under Louis XIV, Ghengis Khan, or the
Incas.  Before the WTO regime closes this window we need to
wake up and put humanity on a better tack.

rkm