> Date sent: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:38:33 -0800
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: re:state-war
> Ricardo D writes:
> >... a key contending issue here - including the war issue - is: who
> absorbs who? Do we incorporate Weber into Marx or vice versa? <
>
> I don't see Marx as absorbing Weber, since I think it's important to
> separate Marx and his writings (which cannot absorb Weber) from Marxian
> political economy (which can). However, that's a very small point. More
> importantly, I think that MPE can learn from Weber, as long as it rejects
> his philosophical idealism (not to mention a lot of his politics).
"that MPE can learn from Weber" implies precisely that M can absorb W
(aborb does not mean everything, obviously).
> RD:>Now, if the overarching theme in W is rationalism (or more specifically
> rational capitalism), he also tries to explain other things like the
> origins of the rational-bureaucratic state, which he sees as part of this
> rationalization...<
Jim:
> I would argue (if I had the time & patience) that the kind of "rationalism"
> promoted by capitalism is different from other kinds of rationalism
> (feudal, classical, socialist, etc.)
W would agree that capitalism excels in formal rationalization.
I think one thing to do is start
> treating "rationalism" more as a dependent variable and not some
> extra-historical force. I bet Max W. can be interpreted as agreeing with this.
Why is the choice for rationalism between "dependent variable" and
"extra-historical force", whereas the assumed-independent variable
here cannot be accused of being an extra-historical force? And, if
rationalism is "dependent", how does the assumed-independent variable
exist without any form of human reason?
> RD:>The inescapable fact for marxists is that without Lenin no October
> Revolution.<
>
> Lenin shaped the nature of the Rev, no doubt about it, just as Napoleon had
> a big impact on the recasting of Europe after the French Revolution (as I
> said). But Lenin was was highly constrained by (1) the Russian situation of
> the time, (2) the organization he led. Like all "great individuals," Lenin
> was also a product of his time. You'll note that he changed his opinions a
> lot as "material conditions" changed. The Lenin of WHAT IS TO BE DONE? or
> TWO TACTICS OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY is quite different from that of STATE AND
> REVOLUTION. (My anarchist friends accuse him of being an opportunist.) This
> suggests that even though "Great Individuals" shouldn't be ignored, the
> "Great Individual" theory of history should be dropped.
> If Lenin had died before 1917, it's also quite possible that some other
> great individual would have arisen to pick up the torch. Krupskaya?
The weakness of your argument here is quite evident when we are left
with the choice of dropping the "great individual theory of history"
so we can pick up Krupskaya! Besides my statement on Lenin does not
mean I support a great individual theory of history; rather, until
you find a convincing alternative to Lenin that could have led the
October revolution (or was it a coup?), then you are free to drop the
great individual theory; this theory is your problem, not mine.
> _Of course_ Brenner "prioritizes" class relations (partly because their
> role had been largely ignored by previous scholars on this question). I
> didn't say otherwise. But that's not the same thing as "reducing all issues
> to class relations." This is nothing but semantics ("I'm a patriot, you're
> a nationalist, he's a chauvinist" becomes "I think class relations are
> important, you prioritize them, she is a class-relations determinist")
> which means that there's nothing really to discuss.
Just remember the citation from R.Williams.
ricardo
> in pen-l solidarity,
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
> http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
> "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
>
>
