I wrote:
> >Frankly, I think the attribution of reductionist methods to Doug and Brad
> >(along with this totally inaccurate lumping of the two together) are really
> >not about how to use statistics at all. Rather, you have some political and
> >personal differences with Doug (I'll leave Brad out) that are expressed by
> >a false attribution of reductionist methods to him. I'd much rather hear
> >about these political differences -- in a way that clarifies what they are
> >rather than slinging invective. (Heck, we're all petty bourgeois, aren't
> we?)
Louis writes:
>Sorry, Jim. I regard this sort of thing as reductionist:
quoting Doug:
>Louis Proyect didn't quote:
>
> 1975 HDI 1998 HDI gain
>
>Argentina 0.781 0.837 +0.056
>Mexico 0.687 0.784 +0.097
>Thailand 0.600 0.745 +0.145
>China 0.518 0.706 +0.188
>Moldova 0.717* 0.700 -0.017
>India 0.405 0.563 +0.158
>----
>*1975 not available; figure for 1980
(end of quote)
My impression was that Doug was not engaging in "reductionism" at all,
since he didn't really draw any substantive conclusion from these data --
except that you were quoting these statistics selectively. Or maybe you
have a different definition of "reductionism" than I do. (Unfortunately,
it's one of those buzzwords/scare-words that float about the left. It's
like accusing someone of "essentialism" in a RETHINKING MARXISM crowd, even
though everyone is an essentialist in some sense of that word.)
In the context of this discussion, I would define "reductionism" as saying
that some phenomenon (such as how well the dominated classes of a country
are doing) can be seen by looking at a single statistic or set of statistics.
(Other kinds of reductionism: (1) macro phenomena can and should be
understood by looking at only micro phenomena, just as chemistry can and
should be understood simply in terms of physics. (2) politics, law,
culture, and ideology can and should be understood by looking only at
economic or socioeconomic phenomena, ignoring any role for the relative
autonomy of politics, etc.)
>... But in any case, I would urge other ways of understanding
>progress in those countries, which elude the HDI. Such as ecological
>impact, etc.
NO ONE on the list -- including Doug and the dreaded Brat -- would disagree
with this point.
> >Marty, like Doug, uses official statistics. Like Doug, he does so carefully
> >and critically.
>
>Doug is first-rate when it comes to the USA.
good! It's about time we see a nuanced discussion. But this avoids my
point: what are the _political_ points of difference between you and Doug?
(I don't want to know about the personal differences.)
> >Of course, Doug would never extrapolate from GDP in the way you suggest he
> >might. (BTW, I think that everyone is familiar with your political history,
> >Louis. It doesn't automatically make your conclusions right.)
>
>I refuse to reply to this on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.
an amusing way to avoid the question.
> >I've never seen that illusion in Doug's writings. Can you provide a quote?
>
>I refuse to reply to this on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.
again: an amusing way to avoid the question.
> >(1) if statistics fit his preconceived political conclusions, he accepts
>them;
>
>This is attributing motives to me. I demand an apology.
No, if you had quoted me in context, readers were note that I was _asking_
if this were your opinion.
> >(2) if they don't, he says they should be viewed in context (the research
> >done by independent Marxists, who BTW often critically use those
> >statistics) or simply rejects them because they come from a source he
> >doesn't like.
>
>Yes, context is everything. E.M. Forster: "Only connect"
EVERYONE on pen-l -- except maybe Brad -- would agree with the importance
of context.
> >If this is an accurate description, this describes the method of someone
> >who can preach to the converted but can't do serious analysis. It's a
> >little like the practice of most Chicago-school economists.
>
>I demand an apology. How dare you mention me and the Chicago-school
>economists in the same breath...
no, note the phrase "if this is an accurate description." If you want to
avoid Chicago-school method, my little outline tells you how to do so.
I wonder if the Doug vs. Louis political differences could be summarized as
follows. The Maoists used to talk about the "primary contradiction" within
the capitalist system, in an effort to set priorities for practice. For
Louis, the primary contradiction seems to be between the US (and other
imperial powers) and the poor and dominated countries (including internal
colonies such as Puerto Rico and Indian reservations). For Doug, the
primary contradiction seems to be that of class relations on a world-wide
scale (though he is quite conscious of the contradictions of gender and
ethnic relations). Is this an accurate description? I would guess that my
description of Louis' politics is more accurate, but who knows?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
