Ajit Sinha quotes Marx in some ways praising the British colonization of
Hindustan. This reminds us that no-one can be understood outside the
historical context in which he or she wrote (i.e., Victorian Britain for
Marx). But we knew that. This also tells us once again to avoid an
uncritical adulation of any individual and to instead seek to synthesize
truth from many sources -- even if one thinker's (Marx's) contributions
dominate -- and even if it risks Ajit's accusations of "follow[ing] itse
bitse bits of a thousand philosophers and creat[ing] your mumbo-zumbo
philosophy par excellance."
He continues: >This is a serious problem with teleological theory of
history, as well as the Marxist theory of praxis, which accepts the
teleological theory of history.<
I'm not convinced that Marx was a teleological fellow (especially if you
look at all of his writings during his "Marxist" period as he became less
abstract), but even if he was, one can get a lot from his thought simply by
dropping the teleology. (The last thing I want is some silly scholastic
argument about whether or not Big Chuck was a teleologist and
hair-splitting about the meaning of "teleology.")
>As long as one holds that historical and dialectical materialism is the
'true' theory and the road to truth..., then many crimes against humanity
can be justified in the name of history and human destiny. A Stalin can
always justify killing millions of innocent people in the name of history
and human destiny.<
It sure seems like a lot of folks have committed crimes as bad as, or worse
than, Stalin's without embracing any kind of teleological theory. Did Pol
Pot embrace teleology or was he more of a follower of French Structuralist
Marxism? (At some point immediately after PP's take-over, the REVIEW OF
RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS had a little story about this, praising him, to
its shame.)
Actually, it doesn't matter whether or not Stalin was a believer in
"historical and dialectical materialism" or PP was an Althusserian, since
all the Big Oppressors of human history were total opportunists, doing
anything that increased or preserved their own personal power and the power
of their immediate supporters. They used all sorts of fancy slogans to
justify their policies. They never hesitated to revise the received
doctrine to fit with their current policies. Unfortunately for the left,
some of the BOs used Marxist jargon in their rationalizations. The case of
the left-sounding BOs seems that of practice dominating theory. (We have to
remember that Marx favored workers' democracy, not dictatorship by the
minority. The latter is Blanquism.)
>Same goes with the philosophy of praxis (2nd and 11th Thesis on
Feuerbach). It asserts that it would prove the correctness of the theory by
practice. If the practice involves crime against humanity then that must be
committed to prove the truthfulness of the theory (both Paul and Jim should
take a note of it). That's why I think the Gandhian concern for
compatibility between means and end is important.<
The "Jim" above is yours truly. I for one would never reduce the validity
of all issues to "does it work in practice?" Logic, other kinds of
empirical evidence besides practice and experience, and methodology not
only help develop theory but help us interpret practice. The lessons of
practice are not obvious without further reasoning.
BTW, I've always interpreted the "unity of theory and practice" as
involving the compatibility of means and ends (derived from my reading of
Albert Camus's THE REBEL before I got into Marxism). I'm sorry if this fits
with Ajit's charges of eclecticism.
As is my usual practice, I'll leave the discussion of the "true" meaning of
the 2nd and 11th theses on Feuerbach (not to mention the other ones) to
others. But I can't see Stalinism in the Theses and doubt that either JS or
PP had them in mind when they became BOs.
I strongly doubt that these Big Educators of Their People read Thesis III,
which among other things tells us that the educators are educated
themselves and Feuerbachian materialism "necessarily arrives at dividing
society into two parts, one of which is superior to society." Marx was
criticizing those thinkers who see themselves as somehow "above" society
and able to stuff their "Truth" down people's throats. Instead, Marx sees
the oppressed as the main source of the abolition of the oppression,
collective self-liberation as it were.
>On the question of whether India was inherently a stagnant society or not:
It seems to me that Marx, following Hegel, does want to come up with a
'materialist' theory, as opposed to Hegel's 'idealist' theory, of
stagnating nature of Indian society. The theory of Asiatic Mode of
Production was a poorly designed theory to achieve this end. He relies on
Bernier's travel accounts for his information about India and the idea that
there was no private property in land... Bernier's accounts are quite
superfecial and incorrect has been argued by many Indian Medieval
historians. So this aspect of Marx's thesis does not hold much water. <
One thing I notice about reading Marx (or about his work) is that his views
on lots of things were superficial at start but that he continued to rake
in new information and to change his mind, most often for the better. For
example, as is well known, he changed his mind on the possibilities for
revolution in Russia as he got more information and developed new
theoretical conceptions. There seems no reason to eschew Marx's strategy of
bringing in new sources of information to inform theory.
The "Asiatic Mode of Production" theory has been rejected by most Marxists;
Marx himself had a very sketchy theory that seemed, strangely, to include
both China and India. But I'll have to bow to the expertise of those who
know about the controversies about Marx's "AMP."
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
