This is too much! Now I've got another distraction from my more important work of answering Wojtek's earlier missive on rhetoric. ;-) I had written: >The key question is whether or not Marx's sins, errors, and omissions are organic parts of his theory, so that their removal causes the whole edifice to come crashing down. < Wojtek answers: >>Well, that seems a rather odd proposition about someone advocating the unity of theory & practice. It seems that the sharp distinction between the private and the public, on which the defence of the "theory's merits" regardless of the personal sins or virtues of the theorist hinges, is rather bourgeois -- it is a cornerstone on which the separation of the "private" and "company" time -- and thus the expropriation of the product from the producer -- rests. < You don't understand. Restating the "key question": it's whether or not Marx's theory and practice were united in a complete and utter way, a one-to-one mapping if you will, with the theory itself being totally a coherent whole. If it is such, removal of one element (Marx's allegedly abysmal activity vis-a-vis Lenchen and her child) would cause the rest of his theory and practice to look like a bucket of excrement. I'm an advocate of the unity of theory and practice (though I haven't said so on pen-l in quite a long time, so you must have ESP). But that doesn't mean that Marx or anyone else has actually attained such unity. I would say that Marx, like myself and all other leftists that I know of, did not totally unify t & p. (Marx should not be treated as some sort of demigod.) His theory of surplus-value, for example, was in no way based on his personal life and sexist attitudes, just as his personal life and sexism did not reflect his theory of surplus-value. One can thus toss out his personal life and sexist attitudes -- and keep his theory of surplus-value. I wouldn't doubt that Marx's personal attitudes toward women affected his attitude toward the role of women in the First International (which he was active in), though I have no evidence one way or the other on this question. Knowing this problem (if it exists) allows us to improve on Marx's theory and practice. My original point is that we should judge everybody not only by our own standards but according to the standards of his or her time. The better thinkers are those whose ideas can be removed from the context of their times leaving something that can help us nowadays. The mediocrities are those whose ideas are simply reflections of their times. BTW, just because something is "bourgeois" doesn't mean that it should be destroyed root and branch. Sometimes the problem with bourgeois ideas is that they are _incomplete_ rather than being totally and utterly wrong. I think I'll delay replying to Wojtek's other missive. I've got too much to do. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
