From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Mon Oct 29 2007 - 14:41:40 EDT
>Jerry, some questions for you: >1. Do you think that social theories can purport to represent >universal interests when in fact they represent the particular >interests of economic classes? Hi Ian: That is possible. One has to _show_ this, however, rather than relying on the "implications" of a particular perspective. >2. If so, do you think it an important part of scientific work to >uncover such states-of-affairs? I gave my answer to that previously, I thought. To the extent that bringing to light such "state-of-affairs" is a valid endeavor, it must be demonstrated rather than merely asserted and must be a component part of a scientific critique. The presentation of such claims therefore presumes that one has already conducted the critique. I have no problem with attempting to locate a issue in terms of history, including the history of thought. It was _precisely_ for that reason that I reacted strongly to the suggestion which was made about the class basis of surplus approach theory. I would argue that this form of debate has been a big part of what has been wrong with Marxist debates from Marx's time on: I can think of dozens of such examples including (mis-)characterizing anarchism as petty-bourgeois and Stalinists and Trotskyists each accusing the other of being petty-bourgeois. It is a form of debate which we need to surpass. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:20 EDT