Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 01:52:18 -0400
From: tombrown@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Thomas F Brown)
Subject: Re: Marxian Theory: Continuing Validities
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
Message-id: <199710080552.BAA06915@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>

Christian wrote:
>That formatting problem is on your end.

Perhaps. My  mail reader is one of those old-fashioned ones that expects
no more than 80 characters or so per line. I thought that most folks were
still conforming to that standard if they wanted to be readable to all.

>> 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 specifi
>cally
>say something.

Okay, fair enough criticism. The first time I made a causal argument,
and the second time I left that out. But please remember--I offer this
statement(s) only as an example of a counter-marxist truism. It's one
that you are going to have to rebut, as a good Marxist polemicist, in 
whichever of the forms someone puts it. 

>> 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.  H
>ow 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 are
>as of
>the capitalist world-system.  Thats a much smaller spatial unit then "wherever
>capitalism is implemented."  Because the simple fact is capitalism has not provi
>ded
>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.

I didn't limit my point to the "most" developed societies. I used the
word "more", implying an incrementalist perspective rather than a
categorical perspective. The fact is that advancing economic development 
is correlated with rising economic standards of living, and many other 
rising standards as well. And economic development in the modern world is 
correlated with a capitalist social order, or at least one
that is more so than socialist. And any good free-marketeer will
use this association as evidence of capitalism causing standards
of living to rise.

There are a number of ways to rebut that truism from a
Marxist perspective, but I'm going to leave that to you.
And then, if you like and I'm not bored yet, I'll give you 
the free-market truism that rebuts the rebuttal. These utopian 
ideologies--marxism and libertarianism--have been clashing together 
for years. It's almost like a dance. I'm always glad to see people
who still take it seriously. The world needs that kind of
passion, even if it is a little scary and dangerous in
the wrong hands.


>Care to enlighten us as to what the "marxist political program" is?

I think that most of us on this list are probably already pretty familiar
with the basic outline. I would find it tedious to recapitulate.

  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, ar
>e
>they not?

I wasn't referring to the political process. This list is for
discussion about sociology. I was talking about social science
in which the ideal of objectivity mandates separating theory
and ideology as much as possible.

>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.

Sorry if I misread you. You did say that Marxism is "one of the last
relevant theories", and seemed to dismiss two entire families of social
theory in the process. What are the remaining relevant theories?

  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"?


It might have something to do with you going off on the evils 
of capitalism. That's usually a dead giveaway.


>> 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.

First, I was just tossing out a question for discussion, one that I
think is potentially of general interest to the list. I didn't
intend to imply anything about your approach, because I really don't
know what you mean by "a politically aware sociologist".

Second, I don't see how reading Weber and Habermas is going
to help me understand what you intended to say. Perhaps you
could just define what you mean by "politically aware sociologist",
and then we could get into my discussion question if you like.

PS: Say hello to Paul Lubeck and Wally Goldfrank for me. Do you hang 
much with Jim O'Connor? He's a great old Marxist, one of the best.