Amusing Scrotum
3rd January 2006, 04:32
I didn't really want to post this in Opposing Ideologies, because I would prefer to discuss it from a "left" perspective only. However if an admin or mod wishes to move this thread, then go ahead.
Anyway I ran across this piece earlier -- The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing by Lee Harris (http://www.policyreview.org/dec02/harris.html) -- obviously it has its standard twaddle, bashing America is "immoral" etc. etc.
However the writer (unlike most critics) seems to have actually read Marx, and better still understood him and he makes some interesting points....
Originally posted by Lee Harris: Marx’s political realism+--> (Lee Harris: Marx’s political realism)What is interesting here is that, once you accept the initial premise about the falling rate of profit, the rest does indeed follow realistically. Now, this does not mean that it follows necessarily or according to an ironclad scientific law; but it certainly conveys what any reasonable person would take as the most probable outcome of a hypothetical failure of capitalism.[/b]
(Italics his, emphasis mine.)
The author does make an interesting point here. He says that we (Marxists) "accept the initial premise about the falling rate of profit". Basically we "accept" this as an act of faith (well almost).
What makes this "acceptance" all the more troubling is that there has been only one indication of this process (the depression in the thirties). Which therefore means that the whole Communist project can be reduced to a hope, on which we only have one (small) fragment of evidence in support of this hypothesis.
Which basically makes (certainly zealous) claims of Marxists being "scientific" Socialists, somewhat dubious.
Therefore I was wondering whether there is any kind of "counter-argument" to this? ....and if there is a lack of one, does this create a (huge) hole in Marxist theory?
Lee Harris: America as “root cause”
The Baran-Wallerstein revision of the classical immiserization thesis into its global context was far better adapted to fix what was wrong in Marxist theory than the revisionist notion of relative immiserization discussed above. For, as we have seen, what was needed was real misery, and not merely comparative misery, since without such misery there would be no breakdown of capitalism: no civil war, no revolution, no socialism. And who can doubt that great real misery exists in the Third World?
I picked this paragraph, not because of its importance, but because of the way it (effectively) mocks post-Marx "immiserization theory." The article itself goes on in detail, and does a reasonable job of pocking holes in these "revisions" of Marxist theory.
However that the theories themselves can be mocked (pretty effectively) in such a short piece, does raise some interesting points.
Namely, have Communists themselves been good enough at looking critically upon post-Marx Marxist theory? ....Marx himself has been subjected to relentless criticism from not just the "right" but the "left" too, and the revolutionary left (Communists and Anarchists) as well. This of course, should happen.
However have post-Marx Marxists been subjected to same levels of investigation? ....I suspect not. Especially those who would be considered "academic" Marxists. It seems to me that there is a tendency for the "left" to accept a certain amount of waffle as long as it "cloaks" itself in Marxist terminology.
Therefore my question is, do you think that the left has failed to live up to its own label (ruthless criticism of everything)? ....and what do you think that the future left can do to avoid falling into this "trap" again?
It seems to me that with regards the second part of that question, the left should be less willing to accept any (bourgeois) academics into "our" camp (willingly). After all, they are trying to make money (and a name for themselves) just like everyone else.
Doing this however, does have its drawbacks. "We" risk losing a lot, but in my opinion the benefits of being just as hostile towards the "left" bourgeois as we would be towards the "right" bourgeois. Would project a certain (proletarian) image and legitimacy, and also help "us" avoid the traps of "pseudo-academia."
Anyway I ran across this piece earlier -- The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing by Lee Harris (http://www.policyreview.org/dec02/harris.html) -- obviously it has its standard twaddle, bashing America is "immoral" etc. etc.
However the writer (unlike most critics) seems to have actually read Marx, and better still understood him and he makes some interesting points....
Originally posted by Lee Harris: Marx’s political realism+--> (Lee Harris: Marx’s political realism)What is interesting here is that, once you accept the initial premise about the falling rate of profit, the rest does indeed follow realistically. Now, this does not mean that it follows necessarily or according to an ironclad scientific law; but it certainly conveys what any reasonable person would take as the most probable outcome of a hypothetical failure of capitalism.[/b]
(Italics his, emphasis mine.)
The author does make an interesting point here. He says that we (Marxists) "accept the initial premise about the falling rate of profit". Basically we "accept" this as an act of faith (well almost).
What makes this "acceptance" all the more troubling is that there has been only one indication of this process (the depression in the thirties). Which therefore means that the whole Communist project can be reduced to a hope, on which we only have one (small) fragment of evidence in support of this hypothesis.
Which basically makes (certainly zealous) claims of Marxists being "scientific" Socialists, somewhat dubious.
Therefore I was wondering whether there is any kind of "counter-argument" to this? ....and if there is a lack of one, does this create a (huge) hole in Marxist theory?
Lee Harris: America as “root cause”
The Baran-Wallerstein revision of the classical immiserization thesis into its global context was far better adapted to fix what was wrong in Marxist theory than the revisionist notion of relative immiserization discussed above. For, as we have seen, what was needed was real misery, and not merely comparative misery, since without such misery there would be no breakdown of capitalism: no civil war, no revolution, no socialism. And who can doubt that great real misery exists in the Third World?
I picked this paragraph, not because of its importance, but because of the way it (effectively) mocks post-Marx "immiserization theory." The article itself goes on in detail, and does a reasonable job of pocking holes in these "revisions" of Marxist theory.
However that the theories themselves can be mocked (pretty effectively) in such a short piece, does raise some interesting points.
Namely, have Communists themselves been good enough at looking critically upon post-Marx Marxist theory? ....Marx himself has been subjected to relentless criticism from not just the "right" but the "left" too, and the revolutionary left (Communists and Anarchists) as well. This of course, should happen.
However have post-Marx Marxists been subjected to same levels of investigation? ....I suspect not. Especially those who would be considered "academic" Marxists. It seems to me that there is a tendency for the "left" to accept a certain amount of waffle as long as it "cloaks" itself in Marxist terminology.
Therefore my question is, do you think that the left has failed to live up to its own label (ruthless criticism of everything)? ....and what do you think that the future left can do to avoid falling into this "trap" again?
It seems to me that with regards the second part of that question, the left should be less willing to accept any (bourgeois) academics into "our" camp (willingly). After all, they are trying to make money (and a name for themselves) just like everyone else.
Doing this however, does have its drawbacks. "We" risk losing a lot, but in my opinion the benefits of being just as hostile towards the "left" bourgeois as we would be towards the "right" bourgeois. Would project a certain (proletarian) image and legitimacy, and also help "us" avoid the traps of "pseudo-academia."