carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (04/05/85)
In article <> gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) writes: > >reading your weekly diamat lessons has brought back fond memories of my years >in Moscow and my old Marxism-Leninism teacher... Please don't associate me with "diamat," the dreadful catechism taught in the Soviet Union. Also, I am not a Leninist, nor, in the current state of my knowledge of Marx, do I think that Marx's theories imply Lenin's. But I'm very glad to have a replanted Eastern European joining in the discussion. Please note that however highly Marx is regarded in the USSR, it was founded by Lenin, not by Marx. >1. To the extent Marxism is a science, it must be judged on the basis of > the falsifiable predictions it makes that are a) true and > b) non-trivial. That is *one* criterion for scientific knowledge. Whether it should be regarded as the only criterion is debatable. > The record of Marxism in generating such predictions is dismal. > ... What is at issue here is the predictive power of the theory he > left behind. Well, you will have to argue with Nobel Laureate Wassily Leontiev, who described Marx's predictions of the increasing concentration of wealth, the elimination of small and medium-sized enterprise, technological change, the growth of fixed capital, and the business cycle as "an unsurpassed series of prognostications fulfilled, against which modern economic theory, with all of its refinements, has little to show indeed." [in *Marx and Modern Economics*, ed. David Horrowitz.] But let's get down to cases. So far both of us have simply made assertions without discussing specifics. > Rejecting such criteria for the truth of the theory inevitably leads to > the 'voodoo Marxism' of Lukacs who stated (I am translating from memory): > 'Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that all of the factual > assertions of Marxism are proven false, the dialectical method will > still stand as the supreme ... etc.' I suspect that Lukacs was right if he meant that the dial. method is one of Marx's enduring contributions. You imply that Marx's factual assertions and theoretical views are NECESSARY CONSEQUENCES of his dialectical method, but this is very questionable: the dial. method is not a machine that you turn on, and out come theories. I don't think Lukacs meant that Marx's theories could generate false predictions and still be regarded as satisfactory. > In fact [Marx's] published writings and private > correspondence reek of contempt for democracy, non-violent > solutions, compromise, pluralism or a minimum tolerance for the > convictions of others. Let's see the evidence for this. If Marx was an anti-democrat, how do you square this with his views on the Paris Commune and his emphatic rejection of Blanquism? At any rate, this is basically an ad hominem argument which recalls the Marx-was-a-monster demonology of the Right. [Quote from Thomas Sowell:] >'Despite the massive intellectual feat that Marx's *Capital* represents, the >Marxian contribution to economics can be readily summarized as virtually >zero ... *Capital* was a detour into a blind alley.... This is where Sowell remembers that he is a neoconservative and gets silly. He appears to be unaware of the large amount of research now being done in various economics departments which derives, to a greater or lesser degree, from *Capital*. If this is a blind alley, it's one of the longest on record. >'Instead, the >massive volumes of *Capital* have become a quasi-magic touchstone - a source >of assurance that somewhere and somehow a genius "proved" capitalism to >be wrong and doomed, even if the specifics of this proof are unknown to >those who take their certitude from it.' Whether or not this is true of some who call themselves Marxists, it says nothing about those who have devoted years to the study of Marx. In this latter group, I don't think that anyone with intellectual integrity can claim that Marx can be swallowed whole today. For a specific instance, there is a great deal of debate today about the nature of Marx's value theory and whether it is to be regarded as the baby or the bathwater. Now what I am trying to do on the net is to argue for those aspects of Marx's thought which I believe to be useful in understanding (and changing!) society, such as the dialectical method and the theories of alienation and of exploitation. Nor do I believe that Marx said the final word on these subjects: he laid the foundations. The notion that Marxism is something other than an antiquated superstition not to be mentioned in polite society appears to boggle the minds of many readers of this newsgroup. My Closed-Mind Detector starts beeping when I read articles that make sweeping McKiernanesque refutations-by-handwaving of Marxism in its entirety. If I didn't know better I would think that some people do this as a substitute for understanding actual Marxist positions and refuting them by such pedestrian methods as logic, arguments, and facts. Say it ain't so. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes