Results 1 to 20 of 40
Is Marxism Compatible with Pragmatism?
Just wondering what people think about this. I'm of the opinion that it is, for the most part. From what I know of Marxism and from what I understand of pragmatism, I don't see them as mutually exclusive philosophies.
A quick summary of pragmatist thought can be found here:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/pragmati/
Pragmatism has been criticized as one of the relativist philosophies, and is closely associated with postmodernism, some like Richard Rorty, falling into both camps (pragmatism and postmodernism).
But pragmatism is different from postmodernism it seems to me in one crucial way. Whereas pragmatists see truth as contingent on the applicability of a certain theory, proposition, point of view or whatever, postmodernists, I think hold that all points of view are equally valid. I may be oversimplifying things, but you get the idea.
Now I will say that what I am proposing is not full on pragmatism (at least not yet). What I am suggesting is metaphysical pragmatism, or the notion that the utility of a particular stance on metaphysical questions determines its truth value. So for example, I'm not saying that the truth value of a statement like, "the moon is made of cheese" rests on how useful that statement is, because that is not a metaphysical question, rather, it is an empirical one. On the other hand, questions like do we have free will, is there objective morality, or even the skeptical concern that we can never know anything, are metaphysical concerns that can only be resolved through pragmatism. In any case, pragmatism has been the best answer I've ever heard in response to these questions.
As for Marxism, since Marxists don't concern themselves too much with metaphysics (correct me if I'm wrong), they simply presuppose an external material world that is determinant of the historical process, I don't really see how either philosophy contradicts the other, indeed they seem to compliment each other and, well, all joking aside, pragmatism could be useful for the dissemination of Marxist principles.
Of course, there is one tiny little snag. I believe Marx did make a distinction between theory and practice, whereas pragmatists don't recognize such a distinction. Thus:
So, anyone wanna pat me on the back for being so original and innovative. Or maybe you want to scold me for being so far off the mark. Or maybe you just want to shut me up, because you've heard it all before.
I welcome your comments!
AKA El Vagoneta
[FONT=Courier New] This is a website to help you quit smoking[/FONT]
http://rananets.blogspot.com/ <---Radical News Aggregator beta
bump, interested
I think pragmatism has been rightly pilloried as anti-dialectical approach to reality. In the US, pragmatism has a major cred. Where it usually goes is to abandoning revolutionary politics, which, after all, are not practical. In fact it is only when you have a situation that is almost revolutionary where Marxist politics makes sense. Pragmatism usually hews to formal logic -- which is fine, but not enough to properly analyze most historical situations.
I don't think Marxism and pragmatism can ultimately be reconciled, despite the qualities that they share. For me pragmatism constitutes the essence of a tremendous problem that confronts all workers of the world: An excessive willingness to adapt to reality. Pragmatism is not alone in this, of course, but I believe it is nevertheless guilty. I would recommend this paper that sort of outlines the conflicts between the two. It's main point is that the SEP leadership has done nothing at all to combat pragmatism: http://www.permanent-revolution.org/.../mwhh_ch04.pdf
I guess those are my thoughts in a nutshell. I wish you luck in your philosophical endeavors. And just as an aside, I don't think Marxists can afford to completely neglect metaphysics. In order to do battle against a philosophy one has to study it vigorously. Those who simply "presuppose an external material world that is determinant of the historical process" runs the risk of falling into the trap of reductionism.
Pragmaticism, I think, can be of more help in regards to revolutionary strategy, than Marxist theory.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
I think they are more than compatible. David McLellan puts forwards the idea that Marx is an instrumentalist. There's a quote somewhere about Marx talking about "materialism" (in the sense he actually meant it) saying it's an irrelevant "scholarly question" as to whether phenomena actually exist or are a part of our mind. Quite a traditional pragmatist way of transcending irrelevant "realist"/"non-realist" metaphysics, showing that theories on it aren't useful and don't expand our understanding of the world and so are unimportant. The same idea of theories for a use is expressed in his idea that "philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it".
I think there is good grounds to see him Marx as an instrumentalist then, with much in common with pragmatism.
To the OP I think so, and the more the better.
I read the paper you linked, and I found it interesting. For one thing, I was surprised at how closely American Marxism, particularly of the Trotskyist variety, was linked to pragmatism. And by this, I am pointing out an historical fact outlined in the article of the overlap between members of certain schools of pragmatist thought, and Marxists closely aligned with Trotsky and the SWP. But it is also of note is how many of these same philosophers eventually turned into some of the most reactionary advocates of liberal reformist politics. I've actually read some of Sydney Hooks Cold War era works, and was pretty taken aback by its often spurious and seemingly misrepresentative attacks on Marxism. I found the paper's focus on the social, cultural and political context in which pragmatism took root quite useful and elucidating.
That said, I took issue with the article in that it takes for granted the issue of dialectics. I understand that it was a chapter in a book, that may or may not at other points expand further on the issue of dialectics, but as a person who is not totally convinced on the issue, I found it rather unhelpful. Similar was its treatment of Trotsky, as if stating that Trotsky was against pragmatism or that pragmatism is incompatible with the dialectic method was enough argument to convince someone outside of these traditions. As someone who fits this description, I can tell you that it was not.
Further, I did not feel that the question I originally posed was sufficiently answered, for the very reasons I described above. As edifying as the historical context in which pragmatism developed is, I would have been much more satisfied if the paper had focused on, and elaborated on this particular point:
Indeed, there is something to be said about the individuals who espouse a certain philosophy, also how that philosophy is put into practice, and even the historical context in which the philosophy developed, but there still needs to be a coherent argument against the ideas expressed in the philosophy itself. I found the article's lack of engagement with the ideas of pragmatism somewhat lacking. Thus, the only real objections to pragmatism that I gathered from the article were simply, Trotsky didn't like it and it is anti-dialectic. As to why Trotsky was opposed to it, and how it was anti-dialectics (let alone, why I should accept dialectics in the first place) was not adequately treated in the paper sufficiently in my opinion.
That is not to say that the article completely ignored these issues. It does raise the point that pragmatism is a philosophy that stresses adaptation to existing conditions. The point is made clearest when it describes layman pragmatism with academic pragmatism and draws a connection to the two. In essence, pragmatism opposes principles, that we should focus on what can be achieved, not what should be achieved. This is a valid criticism in my opinion, one that I am not unfamiliar with, and in fact I am currently grappling with such a problem in my own local organizing, with an organization whose leadership has a particularly reactionary political stance, openly aligning itself with aspects of the liberty movement (google it if you're unfamiliar with it), but whose work involves a direct challenge against certain forms of political authority that I also find problematic. Their open, unsectarian, almost apolitical way of presenting themselves has invited contributions and sometimes praise from a few people whom I regard as highly advanced theoretically and in practice, through their organizing efforts, and indeed, these individuals have expressed similar concerns. So I am not unfamiliar with the conflict of pragmatism versus principles, both intellectually and from experience.
Yet the question I posed dealt specifically with pragmatism as an answer to metaphysical questions. It seems to me, from the above quoted passage, and Desperado's comments, which I am not unfamiliar with, but which didn't occur to me until it was brought up, that there is some convergence between Marxism and pragmatism, at least when answering questions of this sort. And thus, even after having read all 28 pages of that paper, I feel as though my question remains unanswered.
I appreciate your contribution nonetheless.
AKA El Vagoneta
[FONT=Courier New] This is a website to help you quit smoking[/FONT]
http://rananets.blogspot.com/ <---Radical News Aggregator beta
The SEP and it's predecessor the Worker's League, as part of Healy's IC, made a weird fetish of "dialectics" and waged war against "pragmatism." In their hands, this amounted to vapid and remarkably obtuse arguments, always leading back to the idea that Healy himself was the only fount of true dialectics. Pragmatism became something to tar opponents with, basically just an epithet. It never really had much to do with actually promoting dialectical materialism nor combating pragmatism.
If you want to do some interesting reading about pragmatism, Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism contains material on the fight in the SWP, then Trotskyist, between Trotsky/Cannon and an opposition that could be characterized as deeply "Pragmatic."
I do not know very much about the Worker's League. But the point of the article I linked is that the SEP completely abandoned the issue of pragmatism altogether. The authors were in a polemic with the SEP. I am aware of what Healy had done and I can tell you that Steiner and Brenner (the writers of that book chapter) do not reside in the same camp as him at all. Throughout the entire work, they derive a lot of their arguments from Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism (which I have read already). I only tell you all this because it sounds like you're dismissing what I linked out of hand, and lumping in the authors with Healy and his "fetishization" of dialectics. I could be misunderstanding you yet again, though. If so, I'm sorry.
@Que: I am very glad that you read the article, though I am disappointed (in the paper, not you) that it did not satisfy you in the end. I agree with your noted points of weakness regarding the dialectic in the chapter, though I would recommend chapter 6 as a possible antidote to them. You may encounter the same problems, though, I don't know. Really, I would read the whole thing, but since you're looking for something specific it may end up doing more harm than good. And I agree that there should have been more engagement with the ideas of pragmatism, though I must say the "willingness to adapt to reality" and "no principles" is always what I run up against. I admit that I need to read more regarding pragmatism. I wish that I knew more so that I could properly engage with what you have posted.
Could you expand on that? As far as epistemological pragmatism goes I don't follow you. Obviously there's the apparent conflict between political pragmatism and principle, although for me that's really resolved in that I am convinced demanding the impossible, world revolution etc etc. is the only practical answer - they're not just lofty utopian principles. (I don't claim they will be achieved, but if change is to happen I see that as the only way.) It can't completely resolve the tension we feel between the way the world is and the way it ought to be, but nothing can. It focuses on what we can change (although in no way denies or ignores the sadness of that we can't). There will always be "bad" in the world which we can't correct and will have to live with, even in a world where we have the full potential of our labour unleashed.
Pragmatism is lacking on this moral plain, the "should", the purpose. It judges things through use, results, achieving - but leaves blank to what use, to what ends. Even on the simple plain of natural science for example, my instrumentalism and pragmatism can't tell me why I should be trying to understand the world. I see it as a method or a tool, but you need to already have some other idea of end goal or purpose to use it. Again, I see similarities in Marx - he rarely talked about purpose, or the "should" - he wrote science (in the broadest sense) not ethics. I don't think you can negatively judge pragmatism (or Marx) on this, although it's clearly not an all encompassing complete philosophy which will give you the meaning of life and resolve everything.
I personally try to fill this empty patch with existentialist philosophy and a lot of strife, but don't think if it can ever really be definitely resolved.
Last edited by Desperado; 5th August 2012 at 17:59.
Desperado, when we are talking about epistemological pragmatism, I think it deals with the problem of a lack of an archemedian point of certainty. This lack of absolute certainty poses a lot of epistemological problems, but I will deal with the problem of skepticism to make my point. The skeptic argues that we can never know anything. The entirety of our experience, notably among them the methods we use for verification, could all be illusions of some form or another. It is my view that the problem of skepticism cannot be adequately resolved through any means, since they necessitate a process of verifying that itself may be flawed, illusory. Thus, in principle, I would very much like to know for certain specific things like, this is a hand in front of me or I am not a brain in a vat being programmed my experiences through a computer, however, since it is impossible to verify these claims with absolute certainty, a pragmatist argument might say that the methods of verification available to us are the only way to arrive at any sense of truth.
AKA El Vagoneta
[FONT=Courier New] This is a website to help you quit smoking[/FONT]
http://rananets.blogspot.com/ <---Radical News Aggregator beta
This supposes that pragmatism would have had anything to do with revolutionary politics first place, which is patently false. No pragmatical philosophers evolved from revolutionary positions into reformist or liberal ones; they always started as non-revolutionaries.
Luís Henrique
Indeed, pragmatism always works within the present system and its established values and is inherently conservative.
For a paradigmatic pragmatic personality, how about Barack Obama? He has made it his lifework to bring persons and groups to the center, which is way over on the right in the US.
Marxism must be pragmatic in the sense that it must begin with the established reality, but it must then find the seeds of the new, revolutionary reality within the old society and grow them. Marx and Engels saw these "seeds" as the social relations and organization capitalism engendered among its workers. The proletariat is to grow these social seeds into the grassroots-democratic socio-economic system of communism.
What the hell, let's do it! My red-green best.
I think you are right that I was dismissive of the article -- I only read a bit of it and it looked like a lot of the shit being produced by the IC in the 70s and 80s. The thing about IDOM, is that the fight around pragmatism vs. dialectics, is actually centered around ongoing significant events, and not some abstract bloodless theoretical argument. I will try to actually read most of the article when time permits. Apologies for spouting off.
It's perfectly okay. I hope you are able to read it soon. Just for future reference, the article is merely a chapter of the polemic. Another focuses on their coverage of the Iraq war, and later Healy's bastardization of the dialectic is discussed at length and is compared with North's obfuscation of it. They actually have a very nice document on their website by former party member David Bruce, written in the thick of the fight against Healy. I recommend it highly.
I also do not think that IDOM is necessarily "centered" on the "significant events", but on the methods used to treat them; I've never seen theory as being significantly divorced from practice. Thus, Trotsky's struggle against pragmatism was concerned first and foremost with keeping the party's theoretical health in check, lest they shift towards the right as the Comintern did. We both know what the SWP's neglect of these issues led to. This is why I find Trotsky's "gangrene" remark to be so important. For that reason I do not think that theoretical concerns should be looked at as "bloodless" or "abstract". If that was really the case, then the causes of the SEP's degeneration would be utterly inexplicable. Denouncing their political line is one thing. Taking a hard look at what shaped it is quite another.
Well, yes, taken out of context. There have been fights in revolutionary organizations around this issue, however. In this case I mean the SWP US in 1939-1941. It was a revolutionary organization, but there was an opposition led by James Burnham, Max Shachtman and Marty Abern that basically came out against dialectics and in favor of pragmatism. It is worthwhile to read about -- Not only in Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism, but also James Cannon's Struggle for a Proletarian Party. Burnham went over to the bourgeoisie very quickly. Shachtman took his time, about twenty years to go all the way over. Abern died in the late 40s.
There was a direct connection between Trotsky and pragmatism, in that John Dewey, the great pragmatist, indeed pretty much the founder of pragmatism as a philosophical school, was also the head of the Dewey Commission, which exonerated Trotsky of the charge that he was an agent of Hitler made by the Stalinists. So naturally you had some very direct connections between Trotskyists and pragmatists.
Which led to much philosophical butting of heads, with Dewey attacking Trotsky's concept of revolutionary politics, which he saw as basically not so much wrong as impractical, pragmatist that he was, and Trotsky attacking Dewey's philosophical ideas, which he saw as very dangerous for the American Trotskyists.
Which, from a pragmatic perspective, turned out to be absolutely true, as pointed out above.
So, that Trotsky disagreed with Dewey ought not by itself to convince anyone other than a Trotsky cultist such as, well, the SEP. But Trotsky's arguments vs. pragmatism, in In Defense of Marxism and Their Morals and Ours, that's another matter.Especially the latter pamphlet, which is part of a direct debate between Trotsky and Dewey. In fact, the copy I own includes Dewey's answer to Trotsky. So folks interested in Marxism and pragmatism should go there first.
Here's Trotsky's pamphlet
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...als/morals.htm
And here's Dewey's answer, which was first published in the American Trotskyist journal.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...als/morals.htm
So, what then is Trotsky's basic problem with pragmatism? This he goes into at some length in In Defense of Marxism, in the chapter entitled A Petty-Bourgeois Opposition in the Socialist Workers Party.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...m/09-pbopp.htm
Here's the core of Trotsky's argument:
***************************************
It was absolutely necessary to explain why the American “radical” intellectuals accept Marxism without the dialectic (a clock without a spring). The secret is simple. In no other country has there been such rejection of the class struggle as in the land of “unlimited opportunity.” The denial of social contradictions as the moving force of development led to the denial of the dialectic as the logic of contradictions in the domain of theoretical thought. Just as in the sphere of politics it was thought possible everybody could be convinced of the correctness of a “just” program by means of clever syllogisms and society could be reconstructed through “rational” measures. ‘so in the sphere of theory it was accepted as proved that Aristotelian logic, lowered to the level of ‘common sense,” was sufficient for the solution of all questions.
Pragmatism, a mixture of rationalism and empiricism, became the national philosophy of the United States. The theoretical methodology of Max Eastman is not fundamentally different from the methodology of Henry Ford – both regard living society from the point of view of an “engineer” (Eastman – platonically). Historically the present disdainful attitude toward the dialectic is explained simply by the fact that the grandfathers and great-grandmothers of Max Eastman and others did not need the dialectic in order to conquer territory and enrich themselves. But times have changed and the philosophy of pragmatism has entered a period of bankruptcy just as has American capitalism.
************************************************
He goes on to give an excellent pithy summary of just what this dialectics stuff is all about--and then goes on to link it up to just what the argument in the SWP was all about, namely the nature of the Soviet Union.
Briefly, he argues that the Soviet Union is a contradictory phenomenon, and therefore cannot be understood without dialectical logic, that formal logic combined with empiricist unwillingness to look beyond the end of one's nose--i.e. pragmatism, makes it impossible to understand that walking contradiction, the USSR under Stalin.
Now, Healyites such as the SEP and Megaman turn this all into some sort of abstract idealist battle of Marxist philosophy vs. pragmatism and other isms, in intellectual outer space.
Failing to remember Lenin's mantra which he picked up from Hegel, expounded in Lenin's famous Philosophical Notebooks, namely "truth is concrete."
-M.H.-
The SEP's degeneration, which began long before the WL changed its name, has absolutely nothing to do with Healy or North's tortured ultraformalist and obscurantist philosophical maunderings.
It is material. It has to do with who financed it. "Follow the money" as they said in the Watergate days.
And here I'm not even referring to that Detroit printing press. Way back in the '70s, when Healy was taking money from Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi, etc. etc., and in return doing stuff like photographic Iraqi dissidents for the benefit of the Iraqi secret police kidnapping, torturing and murdering them, did North raise any objections? Why yes--after Healy got caught in a sex scandal and his WRP exploded and the WL was no longer getting financed by Healy. Not before!
The WL and now the SEP are simply political bandits, whose politics is detemined by where they get their money.
When the WRP and WL were financed by Saddam and Qaddafi, as far as North's WL was concerned they were the vanguard of the Arab Revolution, and anyone who criticized them was a counterrevolutionary. Now that North's SEP is financed by his non-union Detroit printing company, unions are counterrevolutionary.
It really is just that simple.
-M.H.-
"Just that simple"? I couldn't disagree more. While I agree that "following the money" is not without value, doing so is insufficient by itself. In assessing a party's degeneration, focusing only on who funds them or who is being funded by them does not help advance Marxist criticism or theory. Following such a path runs the risk of succumbing to reductionism, especially if we do not confront the very serious philosophical issues that are involved with the SEP's degeneration. I don’t believe your approach helps us understand it any better.
Objectivism, North’s philosophical outlook, in part involved an olive branch to pragmatism. If you really regard the issue of the abandonment of the study of dialectics--which is at the heart of Steiner and Brenner's critique of the SEP--as "having nothing to do" with the "material", then you are already in solidarity with North. He too said that we should simply pay attention to the “political line” along with "practical" and "material" matters (money, in this case). And an examination of the possible philosophical implications in all of this? Nothing more than a red herring. Or, as you said, “has absolutely nothing to do with [it].” According to you, North and Healy are simply reactionary because of their personal corruption and disrespect for orthodoxy, and that’s it. I find this to be an incredibly threadbare argument against philosophical concerns.
The political outlook of a party or an individual is not an island, nor does it simply rest in who they get their money from; I regard that thinking otherwise is vulgar economic determinism. Their outlook also rests in their ability to assimilate, or break from, (or more importantly, carefully examine) the ruling ideologies of their time. Every political position stems in some way from philosophy. Hence Paul Ryan and Ron Paul’s infatuation with Ayn Rand, or Hitler with Count Gobineau. Marxism is no different in this sense, except it can allow us the ability to learn from the mistakes of our predecessors—as well as provide us with a plan to action. I find this to be the chief strength of In Defense of Marxism.
But unfortunately you do not seem to have any interest in this kind of analysis; the language you used regarding the philosophical implications of the SEP’s degeneration was, in my opinion, highly toxic and bordering on caricature: “ultraformalist and obscurantist philosophical maunderings”. Honestly, they come off as inflammatory rather than accurate. Do you truly regard the work S&B have done as useless to future generations? Should we throw caution to the wind and simply “follow the money”? If we do this I believe that in the long run we will assist in the burial in Marxist criticism and theory, rather than its advance. As I said before, “If this was really the case, then the causes of the SEP's degeneration would be utterly inexplicable. Denouncing their political line is one thing. Taking a hard look at what shaped it is quite another.”
