M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us Thu Dec 3 08:47:35 MST 1998
Previous message: M-TH: SV: Workers Action & Libel Next message: M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> 12/03 3:32 AM >>> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Rob Schaap wrote: >I mean, what's your take on how to get past this catch-22 (if I read your >last sentence correctly)? On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Angela wrote: >how is it possible to assert standpoint theory as a higher form of >objectivity, since the standpoint itself is conditioned. The point, I think, shows that idealism is subordinated to materialism in Marx's scheme, but that idealism is still relevant, particularly in a future state. ________ Charles: Andy, on this aspect, I have often thought that with the discovery of Marxism we have an objective understanding of how history develops. But with that discovery comes the potential to free ourselves as a whole species ( international working class as the human race as a total) from the unconscious control of the movement of human society by those objective forces. In other words, the impact of Marxism on its subject matter is to begin to turn it into its opposite. It is a step toward conscious control of the development of society. Consciousness determining being. This is a version of the general scientific issue of the impact of the scientists' activity on their object of research. _______ One cannot change the contradictions of the social totality by thinking oneself passed them. Such idealism cannot change society, of course. But it is more than this: the character of society itself is a barrier to the perfection of such an idealism. So it is not that a people could never direct the development of society as a democracy, but that it is not possible now, under these conditions. Thus one must act to resolve the contradictions of the real world. Once these barriers have been resolved, cognition can move towards maximal objectivity. It will probably always be with a degree a refraction, since it is doubtful that contradiction can be totally eliminated. ___________ Charles: Contradiction is universal. It is the basis of change and everything changes, so there is always contradiction. There will be contradictions in communism. But they will be new contradictions. And perhaps because the general consciousness of the population will be dialectical in communism, we will be more conscious and become aware more quickly of the new contradictions and resolve them quicker. There will be new challenges. ________ Thus I believe it is more useful to speak in terms of maximal, or strong objectivity. This is why Marx lays so much stress on praxis and criticizes those who only speculate: because human action is objective activity, we effect the world only when we act. __________ Charles: And the ultimate test of the truth is in practice or action Marxism unites epistemology and ethics ( what we do). How do we know reality or the truth (the question of epistemology) ? By the test of theory in practice, which Engels defines as experimentation and industry. I say practice or action is ethics because it is what we do. Praxis is both ethics and truth test in Marxism. ________ Although we act with intention as individuals, under the present conditions mass consciousness is still emergent from the sociomaterial conditions. Once the barriers are removed, then mass consciousness will direct the development of the sociomaterial conditions. But because Marx's epistemology is at once standpoint and critique, it makes a choice of comrades, fights for a social class, but also, with critique, accomplishes two things that allow the partial (I would argue maximal) transcending of standpoint: (1) critique permits the dismantling of ruling ideas and employs the methods of science to catch a glimpse of the totality and thus achieve a higher order of objectivity; (2) communists operate with a valued endpoint or alternative in mind: communist society. This endpoint, however unelaborated in its specific structure, is one in which, according to the logic of Marx's epistemology, cognition can achieve maximal objectivity because contradictions will have been eliminated or substantially minimized. This communism is a real movement through whose action the future state will be objectified. ________ Charles: Marx says practical-critical , or revolutionary, activity. This activity is at once critical and practical. It criticizes the world in changing it. It proves its knowledge of the truth or reality of the world by its ability to change it. Engels said the proof of our knowledge of a thing is our ability to make it ( i.e. change it). _________ I disagree that standpoint, as I understand it, has a necessary parallel in identity politics as I think you, Angela, mean this term. Standpoint is inevitable: one must stand somewhere. ________ Charles: Have you heard the joke about when somebody asked somebody what they are doing here and the other answered that everybody has to be somewhere ? ____________ The recognition of standpoint is a move towards stronger objectivity because the myth of neutral knowledge is revealed as just that: a mythology. In fact, it is liberal bourgeois mythology. Identity politics, if it were objectively founded on standpoint, would simply be the recognition of one's own reality. However, some, perhaps many, identity politics forms are based on fragmented, incomplete, and false consciousnesses. What Marx seeks to resolve is the existence of set group identities. The realization of communism raises social formation to the level of true general interests, a single unified identity. But one must, in a class-divided society, with gender, racial, and myriad other divisions, recognize those divisions, recognize where one stands, in order to struggle with and against identity. Identity is a fact given. The social system is a structure with locations determined by the nature of the relations that create and sustain them. The fluidity of identity over time is because of the fluidity of the social structure over time. But this simply means that the identity given by the location one occupies is not eternal, unchanging - it does not mean that identity is not given. Blacks in white society do not have a choice in being defined as black if their phenotypic characteristics identify them with blackness in a system of racialized relations. Black identity from the point of view of blacks is the process of understanding the identity that were given by a racist society, taking that identity over and using it as a weapon against white supremacy. What Marx does argue, and I think this is where you have erred in your criticism of my argument, Angela, is that human beings do not have an essence inherent in each being, but rather that the essence of human beings is the totality of social relations that intersect a given location. In no fashion does my argument represent a Weberian pluralist form. The difference is crucial. Whereas Weber believes that social groups are the aggregations of people with common preferences and sentiments coming together to compete with other social groups on the terrain of a neutral state that will, through compromise, fashion the general will, Weber does not believe in the underlying objective class structure. Weber, therefore, believes that the state can represent the general will, as do other pluralist theorists, and so neglects the actual division of society into social classes and other antagonistic groups that make the idea of general will under capitalism, in reality, completely impossible. Your argument is backwards in that you have ascribed a position to Weber that he does not hold, and I suspect this is so because you have taken pluralism as having something to do with standpoint. It does not. Marx, on the other hand, understands that interests of different groups rest on a material basis: the objectivity of social class divisions. This means that no general will can be had, and that the state fashions one class's rule over the other social classes. Standpoint is the recognition that a worker is not a capitalist and that therefore the worker cannot share the capitalists interests. I think you are little confused on what standpoint means, at least from the perspective of Marxism. Standpoint is not a choice, but a real location. Either you recognize your standpoint or you are falsely consciousness. Indeed, you must recognize your standpoint to move towards objectivity, especially correct practice. At the same time, however, critique permits one to transcend their standpoint and to see longer-range goals and to identify with other social groups that share similar burdens. Finally, individuals generally do not occupy one social location, but many, so one's standpoint is probably to a degree manifold. ___________ Charles: Nice one , Andy. John Henry Detroit This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
