In ope-l 3757, Paul Cockshott returned to one of his major themes - so-called
science vs. so-called ideology --- in order to disparage the attempt to
understand Marx's work in and for itself. I think this argument has become
nothing more than an excuse to avoid issues Paul doesn't want to face, to
avoid having to confront and discuss evidence, to privilege his particular
projects and methodology without having to justify them rationally.
I have reached this conclusion because Paul's own thinking and research is
driven by ideology.
For instance, in ope-l 2742, he wrote "Economic theory in general is such a
bugbear, but it was none the less worthwhile for 19th century socialists to
engage in a critique of it. ... Unless one can provide an alternative to the
policies advocated by the market's supporters, market economics will dominate
political discussion."
In ope-l 2785, he wrote "The point is that there are only two alternatives
known for controling and industrial economy - the capitalist market mechanism
or socialist planning. IT IS THE JOB OF POLITICAL ECONOMISTS TO PRETTIFY one
or the other of these mechanisms, to attack the other, and if possible suggest
possible improvements to the one they favour [emphasis added]."
Beneath the vertically integrated labor coefficients, their correlations to
prices, the critiques of those who seek to understand Marx's work in and for
itself, the attacks on "scholasticism" and "ideology," and all the rest, lies
this thoroughly ideological project.
Let he who is without ideology cast the first aspersions.
Andrew Kliman