Louis Proyect wrote:
> > I'm going to return to Brenner after I've had a chance to review some of
> his articles from the Columbia Library. I will say one thing now that sort
> of helps me put him into a framework. In a footnote in Blaut's book,
> Brenner is cited in Roemer's collection "Analytical Marxism" which rang a
> bell for me. Of course. Of course. Brenner is an analytical Marxist--how
> could I have forgotten. [snip]
In other words you agree completely with me: the facts of Brenner's
texts as such tell us nothing about Brenner. We have to put them in
a framework: i.e., establish a theoretical basis for interpreting them.
But then, as is so often the result when theory is spontaneous or
unconscious rather than conscious, you go off half-cocked in
your search for a framework, and assume that the first (of
a potential infinity) of frameworks that pops to mind is the
only possible framework. Remember that the really obnoxious
element in Justin's politics was his espousal of "market
socialism," his game playing with various philosophical points
being subordinate to that. *And*, remembering that and
turning to the current issue of *Monthly Review*, you will
find Ellen Wood denouncing market socialism, and doing
so through recourse to Brenner. So I guess by using the
same spontaneous play of associations that you use, we can
now accuse you of being a market socialist.
We can make the criss-crossing of names and tendencies even more
glaring. You may remember that both you and I among others a couple
years ago argued against what we called "productivist marxism,"
and which is also called "technological determinism." Now on pp. 54-55
of *The Retreat from Class: A New 'True' Socialism* Ellen Wood
attacks Laclau and Mouffe and their interpretation/critique of marxism.
Her footnote to her quotation from L & M is as follows:
It is worth noting that Laclau and Mouffe are quoting from G.A. Cohen,
not from Marx. This practice of interpretation by proxy is followed
consistently throughout their account.
p. 55 n. 15
So now we have Brenner (and thus possibly Wood) associated with
Cohen and market socialism in your post, yet we have Wood herself
claiming that use of Cohen to interpret Marx is incorrect (and she
elsewhere attacks, through a recourse to Brenner, all versions of
productivist marxsim or technological determinism). Quite a tangle.
The 'moral' I think is that you are not going to be able to line up
the sides in this debate in two neat camps. The lines crisscross.
I think it not irrelevant at this point to quote from a recent post
of Michael Hoover's:
"ps: I'm gonna take a bit of credit for Lou P and Doug H reconciling,
may it be more than temporary."
I hope so too -- and it will be if everyone remembers that philosophical
positions do not necessarily line up with political positions. Some of the
participants in this debate over colonialism are I guess not communists,
but most of us are. I think that Jim Blaut's empiricism clashes with
marxism -- but it is also as certain as anything can be that Jim Blaut is
a comrade. This debate is important, but it does not provide a dividing
line between friends and enemies. (I have argued that one of the few
major issues that does is that of u.s. foreign intervention -- i.e.,
friends are those who condemn humanitarian intervention, enemies
are those who support it. And even that marker is not quite perfect.)
Carrol
