Message-ID: <343915AF.5E4058B1@cats.ucsc.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 09:45:36 -0700
From: Christian <harlowc@cats.ucsc.edu>
Reply-To: harlowc@cats.ucsc.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Marxian Theory: Continuing Validities
References: <1.5.4.16.19971006065442.3747f83e@pop.uvm.edu>
	 <199710061659.MAA25375@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> <199710070509.BAA06962@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thomas,

Jokes on you. ....and spare me the weak attempts at sarcasm. Or is your style of
argumentation really that pathetic as to lash out with ad hominen distractions?

Thomas F Brown wrote:

>
>
> Hey Christian, nice formatting job.
>
> First, you don't like the word "implemented"? Fine, choose another.
> I'm not here to quibble on semantics.
>

That formatting problem is on your end.  Semantics?  I hardly think so. Furthermore,
the difference between "implementation" and the dynamic historical process of
capitalist incorporation is so great as to not necessitate any further
demonstration.  While I will not stoop to stupid attempts at humour that you did, I
will say that such imprecision is sad to see from you Thomas.

> Second, I specifically stated that capitalist development is highly
> correlated with higher economic standards of living.

Oh is that what you "specifically" stated?  Well lets see:

>Capitalism also raises the economic standards of living wherever it is
> implemented.

Looks like your going to have to be a little more specific next time you specifically
say something.


> In other words,
> more people have more access to more goods in more developed capitalist
> societies.

In other words?  This sentence demonstrates a serious lack of analytic focus.  How is
it related to your first point:  "Capitalism also raises the economic standards of
living wherever it is
> implemented."  Now youve decided to limit your point to the most developed areas of
the capitalist world-system.  Thats a much smaller spatial unit then "wherever
capitalism is implemented."  Because the simple fact is capitalism has not provided
the consumers paradise to the underdeveloped and developing regions of the world
(including underdeveloped regions in core countries).  Your truism is no truism at
all, it is a spatially and temporally specific factoid.


> This is a simple statement of fact, and I don't intend it
> to carry any normative implications. If you want to critique the
> process, feel free. I offered it only as an example of a counter-
> Marxist truism, to demonstrate the fundamental shallowness of
> arguing by truism.
>
> >You say that your problem with "some Marxi
> >st
> >theory" is that it is not a powerful enough analytic tool.
>
> You're attacking a straw man. I said exactly the opposite.
> Read the sentence below. I am beginning to wonder about
> your eyesight.
>
> >> Personally, I find both Marxism and Libertarianism to be quite powerful
> >>theories, and I also find them both to be laughably irrelevant utopian
> >>political programs.
>
> >Liberterianism: i agree.  Marxism: disagree.  There is nothing inherently utopia
> >n
> >about utilizing marxian analysis to understand your political situation.
>
> Again, you exhibit a major problem with reading comprehension. I said
> that the Marxist political program is irrelevant and utopian, not the
> Marxist analysis.

Care to enlighten us as to what the "marxist political program" is?  I also find your
division between theory and political practice pretty naive.  Theory and Praxis
(explanation/action if you will) are bound together in the political process, are
they not?

>
>
> >  In the
> >face of neoliberalism and poststructural analyis, I find a marxist based perspec
> >tive
> >to be one of the last relevant sociologies available for the politically aware
> >sociologist/activist.
>
> Your choice, but it seems to me the position of an intellectual
> ostrich to select only one theoretical perspective, based on
> normative inclinations, while rejecting everything else out
> of hand. All of those theories have something worthwhile to
> offer. A well-informed social scientist should select an
> analytical approach according to the problem at hand.

Whose the ostrich?  I don't reject other theories out of hand, come on get real you
don't even know me and nothing in my post says such nonsense.  My appreciattion and
use of marxian theory is one of many theories that I understand and employ in my own
research.  Why do you assume that it is based on "normative inclinations"?


> Does being "politically aware", whatever that means, imply
> that a scientist should abandon all attempts to attack
> a research problem from as objective a position as possible?

If thats what you think I meant, then you need to go back and read your Weber or
Habermas again.

Best,

Christian