mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (03/26/85)
The works of Marx and Engels are rather like the Bible, in that enough is said about enough things that the Marxist, like the Judeo-Christian, can always find a quote that seems to substantiate h(is|er) interpretation. This does not necessarily mean that the quote is taken out of context; it often reflects inconsistency in the writings (in Marx's case, this inconsistency is largely because his thoughts evolved -- changed; I will leave it to the Christian to tell us whether Yahweh was irrational or merely changed his mind alot). To arrive at the interpretation of Marx given by Mr Carnes, we must ignore Hegel's *Logic* and *Philosophy of History*, ignore Engels' *Anti- Duhring* and *Dialectics of Nature*, and, indeed, take it that Marx trivialized the definition of 'dialectic' to the point that its essence vanishes in the rhetorical mists. It is quite true that much of Marx's work is independent of Dialectical Materialism (I have read it suggested that Marx treated the subject mostly to keep Engels happy), but this does not make the problem go away (similarly, much of von Mises's work is independent of his Kantianism, but this flaw remains nonetheless). The resultant interpretation reminds me of U.S. military policy in Viet Nam, where villages were 'saved' by their destruction. Carnes's interpretation amounts to little more than the claim that an understanding of a state-of-affairs requires an understanding of prior history. Not an earth-shaking (or even remotely original) theory. And a theory of limited use at that. If reality CANNOT be understood without an understanding of prior history, then unless we can start at a point where the universe was created *ex nihilo* (say, the Judeo-Christian 4004 BC), we can never understand anything (note the implicit contradiction). (Current physical theory, with its Big Bang of some billions of years ago, cannot even explain why the universe is not omnisymetrical!) Carnes gives us an example of Marxist thought by reiterating the Marxist model of Capitalism: > the capitalist takes a sum of money and spends it on raw >materials, instruments of production, and sells the resulting product for >an amount greater than he laid out originally, resulting in a profit. Given Carnes's reiteration of this notion, I will reiterate what is wrong with it: It (ironically) fails to recognize the intertemporal effects on value (this is ironic because the history-oriented Marx has adopted a static theory of value). Hoo hah! DKMcK
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (03/27/85)
> To arrive at the interpretation of Marx given by Mr Carnes, we must > ignore Hegel's *Logic* and *Philosophy of History*, ignore Engels' *Anti- > Duhring* and *Dialectics of Nature*, and, indeed, take it that Marx > trivialized the definition of 'dialectic' to the point that its essence > vanishes in the rhetorical mists. It is quite true that much of Marx's > work is independent of Dialectical Materialism (I have read it suggested > that Marx treated the subject mostly to keep Engels happy), but this does > not make the problem go away (similarly, much of von Mises's work is > independent of his Kantianism, but this flaw remains nonetheless). The importance of the dialectic to Marxism has long been a topic of debate. Because the dialectic is often so strongly connected to either the idealism of Hegel or the natural materialism of Engels, I much prefer the term ``Historical Materialism'', which has fewer trappings associated with it. For me, the best statements of Marx's method of exploring the world are contained in the *Theses on Feuerbach* and the Introduction of the *Grundrisse* (sort of a first draft of the *Capital* project). What is so exceptional about Marx is that he treats humans NOT as simply products of their surroundings NOR as magic ``you are what you shape yourself to be'' humans (the vision of Ayn Rand). Humans are not treated as little automotans maximizing profit nor as individuals completely free of societal constraints. Hence the stress on social relations, on the necessity of understanding the manner in which individuals are woven into the fabric of society; it is necessary to focus both on individuals and on their interconnections in order to understand humans at all. This balancing of ways of looking at the world, the rejection both of pure idealism and pure materialism, sets up a tension in Marx's work, leading to contradictions when his work is viewed as a whole. But human relations themselves are often inherently contradictory. Thesis II: "The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a *practical* question. Man must prove the truth, that is, the reality and power, the this- sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely *scholastic* question." [the rejection of idealism] Thesis III: "The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of other circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. Hence, this doctrine necessarily arrives at dividing society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionising practice." [the rejection of pure materialism] > The resultant interpretation reminds me of U.S. military policy in > Viet Nam, where villages were 'saved' by their destruction. Carnes's > interpretation amounts to little more than the claim that an understanding > of a state-of-affairs requires an understanding of prior history. Not an > earth-shaking (or even remotely original) theory. And a theory of limited > use at that. If reality CANNOT be understood without an understanding of > prior history, then unless we can start at a point where the universe was > created *ex nihilo* (say, the Judeo-Christian 4004 BC), we can never > understand anything (note the implicit contradiction). (Current physical > theory, with its Big Bang of some billions of years ago, cannot even > explain why the universe is not omnisymetrical!) We could get into some really heavy philosophy of science discussions here. While Marx may not seem that original in stressing the importance of history in understanding today, remember the extremely scientistic age in which he was working. Looking at the world thru sociologically colored glasses was not particularly in vogue then. While Marxism emphasizes the understanding of the totality, it's obvious that no one can shove ``totality'' in their head. Understanding of the universe will always be a partial affair (prior to attaining nirvana, or course). > It (ironically) fails to recognize the intertemporal effects on > value (this is ironic because the history-oriented Marx has adopted a > static theory of value). > DKMcK OK, we'll bite. Please explain the intertemporal theory of value, in five thousand words or less. jeff m