From: Martin Kragh (Martin.Kragh@HHS.SE)
Date: Mon Jul 02 2007 - 11:50:06 EDT
Dear Rakesh,
The reason why I don't care much for prevalent marxist theorizing on the USSR (the big exception today is obvisously Donald Filtzer) is the fact that most of it doesn't make you understand the regime any better. That's the difference between somebody like R.W. Davies who dedicated his life analyzing the facts, and marxists like Resnick & Wolff who simply have theories about it (theories about theories). It is true that professor Chattopadhayay praised their work. Professor Mark Harrison called the book "trivial":
"Does Soviet history truly bear out the authors' theory? I must say yes, but in a sense for which they may not thank me: in my view the theory is trivial. The authors correctly wish to avoid the traps of determinism, and specifically those of the economic kind. Many Marxists of earlier generations based deterministic predictions on economic trends of one kind or another that eventually came to nought. Instead of determinism Resnick and Wolff offer the Althusserian concept of "overdetermination": "all aspects of society condition and shape one another" (p. 9). The result is that anything can lead to anything, or not, as the case may be (p. 78). Consequently no predictions are possible since anything or nothing can happen. A theory that is consistent with anything happening clearly cannot be refuted from history; in Resnick and Wolff's hands the purpose of historical analysis is only to illustrate the theory, not to subject it to any potentially damaging test. "
http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0576
Harrisson's review basically summarizes my own position so read all of it for an overall assesment of my position. I have read the review by Martin Thomas but cannot find it now.
A few very last remarks.
You write:
"For example, you thought the personal idiosyncracies of Kim Il Sung were important in determining the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. Is this what you mean by empirical analysis or thinking for oneself unencumbered by theories and orthodoxy?"
My answer is NO. And you have also misunderstood what I was writing about Kim Jung Ill. Indeed I agree that a nuclear North Korea will be deterrent (very much so), this is why Kim wants them so much. The reason I don't want him to have them is because I believe he is crazy enough to use them in one way or another. This is based not only on his personal "idiosyncracies", but also his political behaviour, which so far has led to tremendous suffering for the people of North Korea. In a country that rich with resources failures like that could have been avoided, had not the political system been, that's right, crazy. Therefore, only a madman would want to see more weapons of mass destruction diffusing over the world.
" Have you read Wolff's regular entries at mrzine? Are you sure that they are badly written or empirically thin? I disagree."
Sorry I have not read them but I am sure he's really competent in many aspects. I just didn't find his work on the USSR convincing.
"Even before reality confirms the theory in a comprehensive way? And how are theories related to reality? It's all so much complicated than you seem to think."
Only reality can confirm a theory in the social sciences, if you develop your theory deductively or inductively doesn't really make much difference. Somewhere along the road the theory will be tested, and the facts analyzed. But I never intended to start a Methodenstreit, I just reacted to your smarmy remarks on Juriaan. Please do not patronize me with your "it's all so much complicated" talk. You claimed a while ago that Schumpeter had sympathies with fascism, how do you relate to reality at all?
"And your point is...??"
My point is that you should stop calling people "empiricist" and behave your age and position. If you'd like to discuss the history of the USSR or Russia, I'd be glad to do so. The ideas raised by Juriaan on exploitation are in my opinion fundamental in trying to grasp the whole of societies, and they constitute one very important aspect of historical development.
Many kind regards
Martin
________________________________
Från: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] För Rakesh Bhandari
Skickat: den 2 juli 2007 03:22
Till: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Ämne: Re: [OPE-L] SV: [OPE-L] SV: [OPE-L] exploitation and abstraction
Hi Rakesh,
Thanks for your swift reply, very short:
i) In my reply to Chattopadhyay, a scholar I admire greatly, I'd say that if you want to learn about the USSR in all its complexity, you're better of reading Oleg Khlevniuk and R.W. Davies than Marx. I don't really care for what a marxist analysis would say, if all it's saying is that the USSR was capitalist, state capitalist, degenerated state bureaucracy capitalism shaken not stirred.
OK you don't care. I don't know why.
But I think Chattopadhyay goes way beyond this,
How? Or Bettelheim? Yet Chattopadhyay enthuses about Resnick and Wolff book.
therefore I enjoy reading his work (and I payed good money for his book too, you can check amazon for yourself on price ;-)).
The books by Wolf and Resnick on the USSR get many of the most basic facts wrong,
for example. For an empiricist like you I was expecting that you would mention a basic fact or two and show how they undermine the theory. So far no argument has been presented.
I also have no idea what you mean by empirics and reality. For example, you thought the personal idiosyncracies of Kim Il Sung were important in determining the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. Is this what you mean by empirical analysis or thinking for oneself unencumbered by theories and orthodoxy?
plus they are poorly written.
even if true irrelevant. Have you read Wolff's regular entries at mrzine? Are you sure that they are badly written or empirically thin? I disagree.
There are reviews dealing with this problem in Historical Materialism journal a while ago.
Which problem? I am supposing that you agree with the Martin Thomas review which I have not studied but what about it do you agree with?
I doubt many other scholarly journals even bothered with it.
And if true what would that imply? Again please note that your replies are hardly arguments. Will we have to list the great books which have been missed by reviewers?
This was however just an example I gave. My point is this, if you cannot relate theory to reality in a comprehensive way, drop the theory.
Even before reality confirms the theory in a comprehensive way? And how are theories related to reality? It's all so much complicated than you seem to think.
There is nothing ad hominem in this,
I disagree.
on the contrary, it is the modern marxists who take the truth value of premises as given.
don't catch your meaning.
ii) You write:
"Wow! Marx applied common sense in the same way that Keynes and Friedman did. I am glad that you are using such formulations to defend Jurriaan, not me!"
This is the opposite of what I was saying, which you know, since you quote me saying myself that:
"I am using the concept "common sense" broadly here, and obviously not everyone agrees on the ideas of Keynes or Friedman, in fact they are opposites, but I am talking here about the development of economics as science, not specific arguments"
That is, a social scientist makes arguments, and if people find the arguments convincing, they'll subscirbe to the theory.
Do they subscribe to theories on the basis of arguments which seems to suggest a rationalist view of science or on the basis of facts which suggests an empiricist view of science? I thought you were arguing the latter but frankly I don't know what you are arguing by invoking common good sense.
As an academian, you might have heard that the economic departments are filled with people who have different ideas, some are "Keynesians", some are "neo-classical", some are (a few) "Marxists". They all have to defened their theories, and you do so with facts and arguments. This is how any science evolves. It has nothing to do with my "defence of Juriaan", a person who can speak very well for himself. But it is obvious for any child that there are different opinions on what constitutes "common sense", and how to reach it. I never thought I'd have to state this is so many words.
And your point is...??
Rakesh
Kind regards,
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT