At 08:44 25/05/00 -0700, Jim D wrote:
>I don't want to get into quote-mongering (or to rehearsing old debates
>from Marxism-thaxis -- BTW, what in 'ell is "thaxis"?)
Marxism-thaxis is one of the life forms in virtual marxism-space, which had
its own evolutionary history, birth, childhood, adolescence, and
maturation. Whether it goes on to be a white dwarf or a red giant is beyond
the individual will of any one individual. But I will leave Rob Schaap as
one of the co-moderators to give you more personal details.
>It's probably true that Marx made a lot of analogies between society and
>non-human nature without the qualification that nature-like processes in
>society only "seem" that way.
>
>However, in terms of his own theory of commodity fetishism (i.e.,
>alienation), it makes the most sense to interpret Marx as seeing
>nature-like processes as not really being natural. Further, capitalism's
>laws of motion (which seem nature-like) are the products of capitalism,
>which itself is a product of human struggle, as seen (for example) in the
>discussion of primitive accumulation at the end of volume I of CAPITAL.
We are broadly on similar wavelengths on these questions. I took the
subject up, not because I disagree strongly but because I think those who
are consciously committed to dialectical materialism as a core issue in
marxism, need to debate to strengthen our position and to learn how to
explain its relevance to more sceptical but serious participants.
The difference of nuance here may be around the status and meaning of
Marx's writings about alienation.
I am perhaps a little less committed to the centrality of the concept of
alienation. Marx emphasised this in the earlier forties when he was
settling accounts from left-Hegelianism and emphasising the polarities
inherent in a dialectical approach. Judging from the number of references
in his collected works there was less interest in dialectics from the later
40's till he renewed his interest in the later 50's in conjunction with
scientific discoveries. Volume 1 of Capital is (among other important
things) his most dialectical work. It was of course written after Darwin
had finally published his Origin of Species.
I am hesitating therefore at your proposition
>in terms of his own theory of commodity fetishism (i.e., alienation), it
>makes the most sense to interpret Marx as seeing nature-like processes as
>not really being natural
I would say the processes that Marx describes are natural, in that they are
part of nature, just not overtly transparent to the human mind.
An important sub issue here is the understanding of Marx's concept of
"commodity fetishism". I have become convinced by Hans Ehrbar, who runs
regular textual readings of Capital with the German text in parallel, that
in Volume 1 Marx was not describing the idolatry of commodities in
commodity society. He was describing the strange idol-like power of
commodities to express the social character that lies within their nature.
This is where he goes into the different "determinations" of value
(presumably the Hegelian ways of expression, with which he coquetted).
I feel it important to say that marxism, marxism-informed socialism, will
not wipe away every tear, will not abolish every contradiction, and that
our present problems and battles are on a continuum of the contradictions
of the rest of the natural world. I am looking for bridges with the partial
consciousness of the ecologists and of those concerned about the
psychological damage of modern life. I do not think commodities as such can
be abolished within a century but I do think that the social control of
land and of finance capital could proceed much more rapidly than we
currently expect providing we can catch the wave of concern about what is
happening in the world. I am looking for a revolutionary process that will
not abolish all aspects of "alienation", since producers of commodities
will still have to part with their commodities.
You might agree with large amounts of this. I make the points here not to
prolong the thread under an inappropriate title but to illustrate where I
am coming from and why these shades of presentation seem to me possibly
important.
I feel those marxists who have emphasised the concept of alienation are
open to the criticism of having lost the plot about how this connects with
revolutionary change. I would not dismiss them - I think some important
things have come out of the Frankfurt school about how to keep an
intelligent marxism alive in triumphant bourgeois consumer democracy.
However this approach is not quite sharp enough to see the connection with
qualitative political change. Similarly I want to sharpen the civilised
critique against those who wish to preserve a concept of Marx's historical
materialism but reject a concept of dialectical materialism.
I am with you of course that there are qualitative changes in the nature of
the dialectical dynamics in human society compared to those of the
non-human universe. But I want to emphase the *continuum* of many features
of the dialectical process that are indepenent of the conscious will of
humans. It is absolutely crucial to marxism that it is not ultimately a
moral set of conscious codes imposed on the political process just as every
other party thinks it is trying to impose its conscious codes. There is an
underlying subnersive dynamic that is essentially a *natural* process. We
are at best riding a wave that has laws of motion of its own. If we ride it
well the result could be revolutionary on a global scale earlier than we
think.
Chris Burford
London
