post modernism vs marx - another anti essentialist attack

[peaccenicked]

http://homepages.tesco.net/~theatre/tezzal...ostmarxism.html (http://homepages.tesco.net/~theatre/tezzaland/webstuff/postmarxism.html)
The battle for essentialism is not dead.
and
Meikle, Scott (1986), Making Nonsense of Marx, Inquiry [29 (1):29-43]

Meikle: Making Nonsense of Marx

Abstract

Elster's understanding of Marx is reviewed in three areas: the theory of value, the theory of history, and dialectics. In each area Elster goes astray in quite superficial ways, not instructive ones. There is a simple underlying reason in almost every case, viz. that Elster fails to confront the distinction in the philosophy of science between the methods of atomism and essentialism. Since Marx was an essentialist, Elster's attempt to assimilate Marx to the atomist tradition has as much serious interest as attempts to show that Kant was a utilitarian, Hegel a classical empiricist, or whales fishes. The conclusions are that the book is an unsympathetic treatment of Marx, that it is lacking in scholarship and balance, and that the standard of argument is unusually poor





(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:07 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:16 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)

[El Che]

Fairly acessible piece, but not very interesting really. And as for the reference Marxist essentialism within the article i can only say, that it is not "essentialism" per-say.

The critiques obviously misunderstand Marxist theory if they dont realise the fundamental oposition of classes is inherit to the economic system its self, not a political cosideration as such. Furthermore it is a dictomy, an opposition, observed at the "micro-level" of capitalism`s production process, it follows that class opposition can not be placed in the political arena(dismissed as political, as if we could maybe reconsile classless society with capitalism, which is pure nonsense), for down to the micro-level its roots are economic. How this stuff is essentialist is beyond me... It is simply the correct interpretation of Marx and the assumptions of his theories, which are infact verified.

It like i say, if the terms (concepts, words) used in the discussion are not regidly defined then its better do something else.

By the way peace what do u think of points 2) and 3) ? Are u familiar with the critiques them selves?

[peaccenicked]

You have to clarify. I prefer simple minded ness to
obfuse indirectness. I cant see any basis o0n which you have drawn your conclusions. All you say is negated within any reasonable reading of this part of the text.

"Within such an analysis, therefore, the workers under postmodern capitalism are reduced from a class which embodies the potential supercession of our postmodernity, to one more group within its inventory of miserable oppressed suffering under the deadening relations of capitalism. What is needed, therefore, is not a post-Marxism of any description, but rather a re-reading of Marx that stresses the forms in which the class struggle may effectively advance in contemporary society. "
This is at the bare bones of the anti essentialist critique.
Old fashioned simple minded essentialism

[El Che]

There you go again with your essentialism.... My god man i cant imagine the confusion thats going on in your head.

To me its very simple, i consider Marxist method directly opossed to essentialist method. I know not what essentialist marxism is, and you have not helped me with that for your discourse is nebulous and foggy. You say it the quest for ever more deep meanings and philosophical atitude towards philosophy etc. To me its a method, method that holds no common ground with Marxism.

And on the issue of your quote, i say and maintain that a capitalist society can never be a classless society. For that notion is in conflict, at any level, with the fundamental process and social relations of the same.

[peaccenicked]

"To me its very simple, i consider Marxist method directly opossed to essentialist method. I know not what essentialist marxism is,
You talk about my confusion.
There is no indication whatsoever in the article that I can see and the quote that indicates at all in any way whatso ever that capitalist society is a classless society.
the expression 'clutching at straws' comes to mind.

[El Che]

I am refering to Laclau & Mouffe`s critique! hmm maybe u didnt read and/or understand your own article.

"Here, then, we are looking at the labour process in general through its capitalist formation. It remains to be seen if, in an analysis of contemporary society, it may be looked at in any other way. (For the moment, though, we may note that if it may, which would imply the existence of labour processes that are not shaped by capital's formation, then Laclau and Mouffe's project may have some validity, since any struggles which these processes might contain would not be determined by the opposition wage labour-capital, i.e., would not be part of the class struggle.) "

[El Che]

Laclau and Mouffe's comments on the antagonisms within the labour process can be construed only as criticisms of a theory which denies the existence of those struggles, not as a coherent critique. I believe that the inadequacy of their attempted critique may be traced to the confusion identified earlier over the relation between a "general law of development" and the specific laws of capital. It is this confusion which results in the projection onto Marx of an assumed submission of all elements within the labour process to a "general law of development." Even if it were true that Marx assumes that the labour process is a neutral one (which would reduce his critique to an "objectivist" Marxism which only locates struggle within the superstructural forms "in which men become conscious of this conflict"

So in other words, the antagonisms (class antagonisms, wage labor) within the labour process are a result not of the laws of capital, the nature of capitalism, but rather a result of "general law". If this were true it would follow that it would be possible to abolish these antagonisms and preserve capitalism, hence the need for post-marxism....

[peaccenicked]

"Laclau and Mouffe's critique of Marxism targets what they understand as its ontological privileging of the working class as the agent of historical transformation. Such privileging, they claim, is an unacceptable form of "essentialism" given the plurality of subjects opposed to the dominant order in contemporary society. Although not explicitly specified in these terms, the diminishing role of "productive labour" which is often identified with the development of a postmodern capitalism, where productive labour is understood as the activity of the industrial proletariat which valorizes capital, may be cited as a determining influence on Laclau and Mouffe's onslaught against working-class "essentialism." If productive labour is no longer of central importance to society, then society's producers may no longer be accorded a privileged position, either in its emancipation or subsequent operation"
the quote you give clearly refers to marginalised forms of the labour process ie forms outside capitalist prodution ie small commodity production,ie proceses isolated from the general form.
Not any notion of a classless society.

[El Che]

peacenicked, i didnt say that they introduce the notion of classless society. What i say is that they identify class atagonisms not with with labour process but rather as something natural, external to capitalism, general law of development. What i also say is that if this were true, then capitalism would no longer be a theoretical obstacle to the ideal of a class less society, but its me saying that. As the writter demonstrates this is based on there superficial analises of the production process. Do you not agree with me?

(Edited by El Che at 3:17 pm on Feb. 15, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Your complaint is true of Laclau and Mouffe
but not the author who merely agrees with marx
that "The productive forces.... of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general."
A concept which is neutral within itself.
class contradiction is the source of all contradiction in society it is a social relationship mediated through the labour process.
The author nowhere negates this or tries to replace
this with anything external to the terms which capitalism is understood by Marx.

[El Che]

Of course not for the author defends the correct point of view. However he only refutes one point, i was wondering if you have studied Laclau and Mouffe `s thesis... If so perhaps u could adress the other to points not touched by the author. No need for great dept, this is not an academic enviorment, mearly informal discussion.

[peaccenicked]

"Empiricism which lies at the root of modern science, in structuralist anthropology in the 'synchronic' study of a society at a given moment in time; leaves the 'diachronic' study of human evolution at the mercy of particularity and individuality at the expense and even denial of universality. Ultimately logically this can lead to the equation of universality and totalitarianism which is in reality as absurd as equating the ideas of early christianity, even those of St. Francis of Assisi, with the might and terror of the Spanish Inquisition. "
I wrote this oer five years ago and I have had very little time to update my critique of post modernism but i will
look to see if anything is worth commenting on or instuctive.

[Rosa]

Modern science's empiricism says only about probability of something, and it NEVER uses the word "100% secure". So, really don't see how you can connect it with totalitarism.(?)

[peaccenicked]

I dont but post modernists do though not empiricism
but "universality"

[Rosa]

universality is the word that modern science never uses. (as I'm informed, and am informed)

[TheDerminator]

Just did a google search

universal laws science

Just three words.

353,000 results from the search!

Er um.

Try it yourself, empirical proof!

No universality in science, flush that one toilet!

You are badly informed.

Try breathing without oxygen for 24 hours you will become one hundred percent sure of something! Try it under your own labaratory conditions!

Works all the time!

derminated.

[peaccenicked]

I think we are all agreeing here that the post modernists are wrong.

[Rosa]

dermy: that's the vulgar empiricism you're talking about...and not the concept of science "without a head" (as Aristotle would call the sccience knowledge without a philosophy integrated in it, "The Ethic of Nikomah").The induction is not philosopically justified method for making universal conclusions (peaccenick: help me to express it in English: you know, if you know that all the crows you've seen are black, you are not approoved to conclude that "all the crows are black", Locke, wasn't it ?)