RE: [OPE] Science and scientology

> Starting from that intellectual tradition however there is a
> body of scientific work and knowledge that should be tested
> irrespectively of what Marx said.
> I never suggested that I was saying anything profound, just pointing out
> the obvious that sometimes gets lost in discussions. For instance, if I
> argue for the state theory of money I get the response that this does
> not adhere to the argument presented in Vol. 1. This has nothing to do
> with the validity of the theory and whether it answers certain questions
> raised within the Marxian tradition.
 
 
Hi Dave:
 
That's a good example of how a focus on Marx - rather than the real subject
matter - can introduce a bias into one's analysis. When presented with two
contrary theorems, the presumption for many Marxists seems to be that whichever
theorem comes closest to what Marx believed in has the advantage. This is
sometimes even explicitly stated. Those who want to make a claim that differs
from that which Marx accepted have a higher expected threshold of proof.
Underlying this is the belief that, unless one can prove the opposite, one
should _assume_ that Marx was right. This is simply not a scientific method
of proceeding. There is no science - none! - which adopts such an
attitude towards the writings of a founding figure.
 
In addition to everything else, it is intellectually lazy: let's just
assume that Marx was right and go from there isn't a scholarly approach.
It is also art of a larger problem for Marxians - uncritical acceptance of
authority.
 
Of course, everything that is written above about Marxians also applies in
to many, if not most, socialists who object to being called Marxists. Indeed,
they are often the _worst_ offenders!
 
In solidarity, Jerry_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Jun 6 07:41:52 2009