====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
2009/12/27 Mark Lause <markala...@gmail.com> "This "method" is entirely consistent. Determined not to be distracted by those petty everyday considerations--like the actual subject under discussion--the argument levitates (dialectically, of course) into generalizations that mean absolutely nothing to any materialist without those very considerations Dogan scorns." Mark, you are abviously not familiar with methodological questions and debates. To be conserned with everday issues is entirely different from "everyday understanding" of the world, society and the state. The former that is sometimes called the "eveyday life" is an essential part of any consistent Marxist theory and practice. The latter refers to the methodological debate about how society can be grasped in its entire relations and be presented. Remember Marx criticised classical political economists for relying on everyday understanding when they described market relations. But he was very much concerned with daily issues. So please do not confuse these two different issues. I dealt with some of these issues in my paper: "Rosa Luxemburg, the legacy of classical German philosophy and the fundamental methodological questions of social and political theory". I quote here a relevant bit. If you are intersted in you can go and read more to stop this communication in dark: "In this way the bourgeois science declares the “timidity of empirical feeling to the only principle of the research method” and undertakes an “industrious atomising work”. This approach creates a picture of social life that lets appear social relations like in a mirror that is broken to thousands of pieces. In her paper Im Rate der Gelehrten (“At the Council of Intellectuals”), in which she attacks Werner Sombart’s misuse of Marxian theory, she says: “this atomising work” is for bourgeois scientists “the safest way to dissolve theoretically all general social connections and to let disappear ‘scientifically’ capitalist forest behind many trees.” However, to do this, bourgeois scientists have to get rid of the Hegelian ‘burden’. But according to Luxemburg this is as vain as trying to stop time and progress of history, because generally speaking in science as well as in the development of society there is no way back. As I have already pointed out she thinks that the development and progress neither in society nor in science can be stopped." Read further: http://dogangocmen.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/rosa-luxemburg-and-classical-german-philosophy.pdf . Finally, I think I spent enough time in this debate and will not reply any post anymore. Dogan Göcmen http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/ ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
