On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote:
> Apparently then, Marx tells us very little about the architecture of what
> is to replace capitalism. I'm interested in investigating what can and
> should replace capitalism, in terms of political reality and economic
> possibility; I continue to find Marx of little value in that regard.
Who tells you a lot about the post-capitalist architecture? What prophets
do you have in back of you?
> It was brilliant that Marx was able to predict so much about capitalism
> when he did, but the objective realities of capitalism and its "takeover
> of world construction" are now obvious facts
You misunderstood me. There are capitalist class fractions whose
intellectuals have figured out to a substantial degree parameters of the
capitalist dynamic and this has permitted them some control over the
system. But that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the
working class becoming conscious of the objective process of world
construction and taking over the process. This takes a system of knowledge
and action which permits aligning intersubjectivity with objective
reality. Based on the pragmatic criterion, and with real history in back
of it, historical materialism is that system of knowledge and action.
> I find it more useful now to
> analyze current conditions than review old analyses.
I must quote from a recent piece in The Guardian (London/Manchester)
"No Marx for the duvet theory of unemployment," by Mark Steel:
The idea that theories have no modern relevance because they are
old is quite selective. I do not suppose Tony Blair throws his
champagne glass into the air, shouting: "What's the matter? You
don't still believe is that gravity nonsense, do you? That's 300
years old."
Maybe his bathroom is regularly flooded, because he refuses to
believe that 2,000-year-old Archimedes rubbish about the water
level rising when you get in the bath.
The Tories are even stranger. A 1980s poster showed a picture of
Marx, with the caption "Do you want the country to be run by a
100-year-old corpse?". This was at a time when most Tory ideas
came from the Adam Smith Institute, named after an economist who
died in 1790. Perhaps they did not realise he was so old, and
Cecil Parkinson never understood why Smith did not reply to his
requests for a photo shoot with Nigel Lawson.
I sent the whole piece to Richard earlier today. The rest of the essay is
quite good.
> Has marxism become a neo-aristotelianism? Is one to learn about flowers
> from reading the master instead of examining real flowers?
What does this mean, Richard? Is Einstein irrelevant because he is dead?
Einstein's general theory of relativity dies with Einstein? Are the
principles of natural selection identified by Darwin to be rejected
because Darwin has been dead now for so many decades? Isn't it a matter of
examining the world today in a particular theoretical framework and
looking for predictive validity and explanatory power? It doesn't matter
that Marx is dead, Richard (at least not for this discussion). What is
important is whether the theoretical and practical system he and others
developed works.
Your argument shares with politicians of the bourgeois system their
slogans.
> >It would be based primarily in collective ownership of the means
> >of production and a distribution system based on effort and need.
>
> This would seem to be adopting the most discredited economic agendas of
> communism as we have seen it implemented in the Eastern block. A more
> mixed economic solution would seem to make more economic and political
> sense.
When was the economic system of the Eastern block "discredited"? State
socialism took people to heights they never dreamed of. And since the
demise of the socialist world system, the people are in terrible
conditions. State socialism didn't fail because of collective ownership of
the means of production or the goals of reward by work and need. State
socialism succeeded in these areas, and succeeded remarkably. These sorts
of claims are typical anti-communist propaganda, right down to the typical
word use in this cliche "discredited." This is what passes for historical
analysis?
> Quite right: an opinion based on evidence and understanding has more
> validity than one based on false authority. What I see you saying, all to
> often, is that "materialism is truth" and "materialism decrees x to be
> true".
Well, you need to develop better skills of observation and interpretation.
What do I say? That historical materialism is the superior mode of
historical analysis. I base this judgment on explanatory power and
predictive validity. I have suggested you read the work of Bill Robinson,
Robert Cox, Stephen Gill, and others so you may make this judgment for
yourself, but, alas, you blow them off. In fact, you admitted not knowing
who they were. And yet you pretend to understand the body of theory you
decry.
I may be wrong, but my impression of your posts to this list on this
subject, given the tone of your language, amount to an effort to clear
historical materialism out of the way so that this theory of yours you are
always hyping can have a niche. As you say, you want to help lead the
world into this new system (whatever it is). If this is the case, you
falsely flatter yourself.
Andy