From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Nov 12 2007 - 11:26:32 EST
Who are you talking to Rakesh? I have noticed that you have not stopped commenting on what I write even once. You think you are the smartest guy out there? So you can simply wait for somebody to respond to what I write to give your stupid editorializing on what I write. I have ignoring you and have endured you for long enough! I came back on this list on an explicit and public acknowledgment by the moderator that you will not be allowed to comment either directly or indirectly on whatever I write. You have violated it consistently since I have come back and I have endured it silently--hoping that the list managers would tell you quietly to desist. Be a man of honor and stick by what you publicly promise. Ajit Sinha --- Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU> wrote: > >Dear Ajit, > > > >While Marx could be construed as putting forward a > theory that > >explains why everyone sees things in a certain way > while he alone > >does not, this would be an uncharitable > interpretation. The idea > >seems to be more humdrum: Copernicus claimed a > different standpoint > >(as, incidentally, did Kant in Philosophy) for > explaining the > >apparent motion of the stars and planets which also > offered an > >account of why they seemed to move as they do to > people who had not > >adopted that standpoint but one that more > immediately reflected their > >experience. Marx might only be saying that from the > standpoint of > >seeing indefinitely enduring social systems as > historically limited, > >he can provide an account of exploitation, etc, > that is invisible to > >those who do not take their object of study as > arising only in > >specific historical circumstances and depending for > its reproduction > >on specific and transient historical conditions. > > Ian, I think this and your other recent post on > Cartesian > subjectivity are very well put. Thanks. I think the > rise of the > workers movement did provide Marx with a standpoint > which I think you > are suggesting is epistemologically superior. I also > think > dialectical thinking even in the form of Engels' > principles allowed > him to theorize economic phenomena in a new > way--value form as unity > of opposites and price of production as a > reconciliation of > contradiction between law of value and law of > profit, as two > examples. Or quantity to quality transitions in the > transformation > from petty proprietor to captialist or in wage > relatin from exchange > to appropriation. He was alerted to how process > could result in the > negation of its own negation too of course. Most > importantly though I > think Marx's dialectics were not only logical. > Marx's genius depended > on the dialectical process that history had by the > 1830s applied to > capitalist institutions, bringing out contradictions > which no amount > of dialectical genius on the part of Smith or > Ricardo could have > disclosed. > > Rakesh > > > > > >More suspect, surely, would be Marx's gestures at > some sort of > >historical inevitability of social change > independent of individual > >agency, > >Cheers, > >Ian > > > >Cheers, > >Ian > > > >>--- Ian Wright <wrighti@ACM.ORG> wrote: > >> > >>> > Jurriaan, I think you did not understand what > I > >>> was > >>> > trying to say. Let's say I claim that "I > always > >>> lie". > >>> > Now if this statement is true then I have > >>> obviously > >>> > contradicted myself, because I have > apparently > >>> made a > >>> > statement which is not a lie. And if it is > not > >>> true > >>> > then still I have contradicted myself because > what > >>> I > >>> > stated is not true. This is the kind of > problem > >>> Marx's > >>> > (or at least an interpretation of) historical > >>> > materialism falls into. If historical > materialism > >>> is > >>> > true then it cannot escape its own > historicity and > >>> if > >>> > it claims to be universally true (as it does) > then > >>> its > >>> > claim to universality stands in contradiction > to > >>> its > >>> > own theoretical claim. One aspect of Marx's > >>> writing is > >>> > quite prophetic in nature. He seem to sit on > a > >>> hill > >>> > top looking down at ordinary folks in the > >>> > valley--commenting on how little they can see > >>> given > >>> > their circumstances etc. whereas he, of > course, > >>> sits > >>> > on a previledged position from which the > vision is > >>> > much clearer and complete. Cheers, ajit sinha > >>> > >>> I think you are choking on an a > self-referential > >>> feature of Marx's > >>> Historical Materialism (HM) that he inherits > from > >>> his inversion of > >>> Hegel. Both thinkers argue that human history > is > >>> intelligible and > >>> law-governed. For Hegel, history is the > >>> self-development of Spirit, > >>> for Marx its the self-development of social > labour. > >>> Both Spirit and > >>> social labour function in the role of > invariants in > >>> each respective > >>> theory that ultimately explain social change > through > >>> time. Hegel > >>> claims that the Spirit first becomes > self-conscious > >>> of itself in > >>> Hegelian philosophy, whereas Marx argues that > social > >>> labour first > >>> becomes self-conscious of its own historical > role in > >>> scientific > >>> socialism (e.g., "philosophy must be realized > in the > >>> proletariat"). So > >>> HM is a theory of history that explains the > >>> necessity of its own > >>> appearance at a certain stage of human > development > >>> (hence the > >>> self-referential element). But of course it is > not a > >>> finished theory > >>> (hence the historical contingency). Since > science is > >>> cumulative the > >>> claims of HM are universal without entailing a > >>> contradiction: if it is > >>> a true theory of history then better and more > >>> complete theories in the > >>> future will retain its essential insights (c.f. > >>> Newtonian mechanics as > >>> a special-case of quantum mechanics at large > >>> scales). > >>> > >>> I think your invocation of the liar paradox > does not > >>> do justice to > >>> this theoretical complexity. It's also a > typically > >>> "analytical" > >>> objection that ignores how self-referential > >>> paradoxes can get resolved > >>> once time is introduced. Implement the liar > paradox > >>> in Prolog and > >>> you'll get an infinite loop not a crash. > >>_______________________________ > >>Ian, I'm not talking about the theory of history. > I'm > >>talking about the critique of ideas based on the > >>master strategy of HM. To quote Rubin via > Jurriaan: > >> > >>In Das Kapital, as Isaac I. Rubin emphasized, Marx > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 00:00:03 EST