Re: [OPE-L:7136] "Quaderni di Operai Contro" (Vitale)Re Riccardo's [7138]; Allin's [7l40], and former listmember Jurriaan's [7l4l]: >From Riccardo's [7l38]: > (i) most Marxists, and also and primarily the those who objects of Andrea Vitale, are using exactly the same style, simply turned upon some kind of academic ultra-orthodox marxism, which takes almost all the history of Marxism except Marx and themselves as 'errors' and (implicitly) betrayal of truth < Hi Riccardo. Of the 5 "public letters" in this self-described polemic, only the 3 which were written by Vitale have been published online. The above criticism (or is it a conclusion of a critique?), because of the clause that reads "primarily ... those who objects to Andrea Vitale", seems to be directed at Paolo Giussani. Is that the case? Are you basing this criticism on the content of the 2 unpublished (at least online) public letters of Giussani or is this a criticism of his style (and substance) generally? Are you inferring that the advocates of TSS (or just Giussani) represent "some kind of academic ultra-orthodox marxism, ...."? > (ii) Vitale is making interventions not in 'scientific arena' but in 'political' debate: I still don't like that style, but that's a different thing [e.g., I suggest people going to read, say, how Lenin, or even Luxemburg, or even Marx, wrote, I think you may easily find same kind of phrases] < I think that Allin and Jurriaan made similar points. The most personalized public attacks that Marx tended to make (e.g. against "Parson Malthus" and the "stupid" J.B. Say) were directed against *class enemies*. [Side note: on another list it was suggested by Justin Schwartz that the term "Marxism" was first coined by Bukunin as part of a polemic against Marx and the "scientific socialists". In this sense, "Marxism" -- a personalized term -- was allegedly first used in a derogatory way during a public polemic. Both Marx and Engels and the other "scientific" and "critical" socialists strongly objected to this.] When, in the history of Marxism, this style of abuse in polemics was extended to include debates with *other revolutionary and socialist parties and individuals*, I'm not sure. The tradition of "public villification" may have started with Lenin, as Jurriaan suggests, or it may have started beforehand (immediate references don't come to mind now, but I think the latter is the case.) Lenin and the Bolsheviks -- and groups that have identified themselves as Leninists since -- have tended to relate to other political groupings and parties in the workers' movement as "enemies" which have to be defeated in the course of struggle. In this sense, one could claim that Lenin's polemical form was a reflection of his conception of revolutionary organization and the "vanguard party". In this sense, Lenin's "ruthlessness" (which he considered to be a character virtue for revolutionaries) towards other political parties on the Left was a reflection of his political program. Russian culture might have also entered into this tradition, as Jurriaan suggested. One might also claim -- connecting this thread to one from last week -- that this style of argumentation has some patriarchial roots in that it might be seen as exhibiting what Nicky, citing Herring in [7082; 7094], called "masculine language" and forms of discourse. However, I think it is misleading to suggest _just_ continuity between these traditions. One can't forget that Lenin was the leader of a mass political party and was engaged in debates with representatives of other political parties which also had mass followings. The same can not be said for the groupings that both Vitale and Giussani are part of. I think that in general the most heated and personalized debates have tended to happen, in recent decades, among small (often *sectarian*) groups rather than mass political parties of the working class. From that perspective, the degenerate style of debate -- and the heat with which basically obscure theoretical questions, which are often far removed from the actual class struggles of the day, are "discussed" -- is a reflection of the weakness and isolation of small groups of political activists and/or academics. > (iii) the actual content of what Vitale positively says is VERY interesting, very often more interesting than academic Marxism, still more than those academici Marxists who wants to show the scientific truth of each word of Marx. < I agree. If one takes out all of the personal abuse, then some interesting (but very abstract) questions are being debated. The issues being debated seem to me to revolve around the questions: a) [from Vitale] "can value be determined before and independently from exchange?" [this is a question that we have repeatedly discussed, including in a rather long thread on "ideal vs. real value". b) whether value and surplus value should be understood as quantity, as magnitude. Thus, Vitale criticizes Giussani for allegedly viewing exploitation as "a simple quantitative difference". [This also has been an issue that we have discussed, e.g. in debates between Fred and VFTers.] c) what are the limits of "algebraic Marxism" (an expression also used by Alain Lipietz -- see Appendix on "The Value Controversy" in _The Enchanted World_] and of applying quantitative methods [note Vitale's criticism of the "calculus of values'] towards comprehending value. [This, as well, has been discussed -- somewhat obliquely -- in connection with the previously mentioned threads; Michael P for instance has repeatedly questioned whether it is useful to try to calculate value (and here I paraphrase) down to the last decimal point; on the other hand, another subscriber -- who would surely have been sharply attacked by Vitale -- once claimed that "capitalism is all about quantitative relations".] *YET*, all of Vitale's basic points can and should have been made without personal abuse. Indeed, my biggest criticism of her interventions is that her "style" of argument got in the way of her being able to clearly focus on the real issues being debated. In that sense, they detracted from her argument rather than focused it with greater clarity. And, *this*, from a pragmatic perspective, is the biggest problem with this style of argument: i.e. it tends to be *self-defeating* since it misdirects attention to the style and away from the substance. In this connection, I am reminded of a discussion I once had with a subscriber. I invited him to my home, gave him coffee and bagels with cream cheese, and tried to explain to him that his style of argumentation was getting in the way of his being able to communicate his thoughts clearly. I suggested to him that all of the basic points that he wanted to make could be made without all of the drama and accusations and then asked him: "Did anyone ever tell you that you are your worst enemy?". I was somewhat taken aback when he answered "No, no one ever has" and when he then asked me to explain what I meant -- which I then did. So, from my perspective, the one who is usually hurt the most by this style of argument is the one who is making the argument. For others, the question that becomes: how best to respond? Often, one responds in kind which doesn't help a debate get back to the issues. Or, one can try to re-focus the debate on the issues -- which is sometimes very hard to do. Or, depending on how important the issue being discussed is, to simply drop out of the debate and refuse to communicate with someone who has misrepresented your positions. This also can be hard to do but sometimes might be the only real option -- since staying in a discussion with others who are purposely and maliciously mis-representing your position gives credibility to those who are making those charges. For myself, had either Vitale or Giussani (who is a old and good personal friend of mine, btw) addressed me in such a way over the above issues then I would have most likely withdrawn from the debate: life is too short .... In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EDT