From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed Dec 07 2005 - 10:00:06 EST
Hi Ian W., Howard and others, I am only going to reply to brief sections in Ian's and Howard's posts because those sections, in particular, caught my attention. 1) Ian wrote: > Some general observations. Ruccio's essay encourages my belief that > "postmodern Marxism" is both anti-science, at least science as I > understand it, and anti-Marxist. (These are not arguments against > Ruccio's propositions, but I think it is helpful to categorise the > postmodern current). I think it is worthwhile noting the following historical trend: ever since the mid-19th Century, Marxists have been fragmented into different intellectual traditions and political tendencies and groups which have often claimed that _other_ Marxian traditions and tendencies are 'anti-science' and 'anti-Marxist'. I can think of no historical experience where the individuals and groups making these claims have not moved on towards dogmatism, sectarianism, and -- in cases where the accusers had power -- repression. I am accusing you of none of these things, but I think it is worthwhile given this historical experience to reflect upon this praxis. While I think it is often worthwhile to situate a perspective within a historical and intellectual tradition (or, as you put it, "categorize" a current), let us not forget how categorization has been abused by so many Marxists in the past as a way of dismissing alternative perspectives. This is not a call for relativism. Nor is it an endorsement of the perspectives you are critiquing. Nor is it an objection to the thrust of your critique. Rather, it is simply a precautionary note that Marxists should consider at the outset of the 21st Century. 2). "the relevance of practice" Howard: Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly, but when you suggest that there is a rejection of the "relevance of practice to theory" by post-modernism and post-modern materialism, I think this is misleading. I think that post-modernist materialists emphasize the importance of praxis. Indeed, this tradition might be seen in part as being a response to Marxian traditions which simplistically derive practice from theory: e.g. a response of sorts to traditions which "derive" on the basic of abstract theory the need to prioritize praxis "at the point of production." In emphasizing gender, race, and class _together_ , rather than ranking and separating them, they recognize and _emphasize_ the relevance of practice! Similarly, when they emphasize the _variety_ of struggles by different communities, including the many communities that are formed outside of the workplace, they are offering a critique of some traditional perspectives on praxis and are putting forward alternative visions of practice. It should also be noted, I think, that postmodern materialists not only conceive of practice, but also practice practice: i.e. they tend to be engaged in a wide variety of struggles. When, for example, they are housing activists, environmental activists, feminist activists, gay and lesbian activists etc. they are engaging in a particular type of praxis which, it seems to me, is consistent with their theoretical perspective. If I have misunderstood your point, which is entirely possible, please feel free to correct any improper impressions that I may have. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 09 2005 - 00:00:01 EST