Comments on: … is the scope and application of Marx’s Capital? http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2008/08/25/is-the-scope-and-application-of-marxs-capital/ A working notebook Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:20:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Nate http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2008/08/25/is-the-scope-and-application-of-marxs-capital/#comment-2771 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:14:24 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2008/08/25/is-the-scope-and-application-of-marxs-capital/#comment-2771 hi NP, Trout, Thanks, both of you. I like how Troutsky put it - being a marxist does not mean one is only a marxist. It would be interesting to try and chart the times and places when people within the marxist tradition have tried to make marxism a theory of everything. I remember reading once, maybe somewhere in Gramsci (I've not really read him, just poked around a bit) some comment about how the whole 'the revolution is inevitable' thing is basically just a way for people to try to hang in there. That seems to me the sort of overstepping the bounds of the proper scope of marxism (not that I know what that is, but I think when I see it I do know what is NOT the proper scope) from within the marxist tradition that people outside the tradition can use to justify wholesale rejections of marxism. As opposed to rejecting bad arguments which not all marxists hold. NP, I had in mind exactly this when I mentioned the primacy of class - primacy "in the contextualised way that we have to make grounded political decisions about what sorts of actions we’re going to make". take care, Nate hi NP, Trout,
Thanks, both of you. I like how Troutsky put it - being a marxist does not mean one is only a marxist. It would be interesting to try and chart the times and places when people within the marxist tradition have tried to make marxism a theory of everything. I remember reading once, maybe somewhere in Gramsci (I’ve not really read him, just poked around a bit) some comment about how the whole ‘the revolution is inevitable’ thing is basically just a way for people to try to hang in there. That seems to me the sort of overstepping the bounds of the proper scope of marxism (not that I know what that is, but I think when I see it I do know what is NOT the proper scope) from within the marxist tradition that people outside the tradition can use to justify wholesale rejections of marxism. As opposed to rejecting bad arguments which not all marxists hold. NP, I had in mind exactly this when I mentioned the primacy of class - primacy “in the contextualised way that we have to make grounded political decisions about what sorts of actions we’re going to make”.
take care,
Nate

]]> by: troutsky http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2008/08/25/is-the-scope-and-application-of-marxs-capital/#comment-2770 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:24:57 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2008/08/25/is-the-scope-and-application-of-marxs-capital/#comment-2770 The search for The Grand Thoeory of Correctness-About-All-Things" is not useful.Marx (helped)build upon a living, dynamic system of thought to be applied to historical and present (in his time)situations. The future, he allowed, might require revision, as it obviously has. I am appalled at the lack of respect he gets from the Left-Left and at how lonely i feel the instant I declare myself a "Marxist"( as if that were ALL that I am!) The search for The Grand Thoeory of Correctness-About-All-Things” is not useful.Marx (helped)build upon a living, dynamic system of thought to be applied to historical and present (in his time)situations. The future, he allowed, might require revision, as it obviously has. I am appalled at the lack of respect he gets from the Left-Left and at how lonely i feel the instant I declare myself a “Marxist”( as if that were ALL that I am!)

]]> by: N. Pepperell http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2008/08/25/is-the-scope-and-application-of-marxs-capital/#comment-2722 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:38:48 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2008/08/25/is-the-scope-and-application-of-marxs-capital/#comment-2722 Hey there - I'm so ill at the moment it's not even funny... So I won't comment substantively, other than to say: yes, exactly. This is <em>precisely</em> what I think is required: a much more specific sense of what this sort of theory can <em>do</em> - which necessarily means a clearer sense of what it <em>can't</em>. And as I keep chanting, mantra-like, to my students: the boundedness and the limitations of a thing, are precisely what it useful - these aren't weakenesses, they are locations - locations from which it becomes possible to move in important directions - but that don't have any claim on all the possible movements we want to make... This is probably utterly incoherent - sorry - just... I'm really not coherent right now, and have to teach anyway, so that's sort of making things worse. I've written (much too occasionally - but I just haven't had time) about interpentetrations between the sorts of thing I think Marx does well, and issues relating to gender dynamics. I don't think this necessarily has to be thought in terms even of what is "primary" - other than in the contextualised way that we have to make grounded political decisions about what sorts of actions we're going to make - i.e., "primacy" needn't be thought in ontological terms... But I'm making no sense... Sorry... Maybe when I've glued myself back together and don't feel like my brain is floating several feet outside its skull... :-) Take care... Hey there - I’m so ill at the moment it’s not even funny… So I won’t comment substantively, other than to say: yes, exactly. This is precisely what I think is required: a much more specific sense of what this sort of theory can do - which necessarily means a clearer sense of what it can’t. And as I keep chanting, mantra-like, to my students: the boundedness and the limitations of a thing, are precisely what it useful - these aren’t weakenesses, they are locations - locations from which it becomes possible to move in important directions - but that don’t have any claim on all the possible movements we want to make…

This is probably utterly incoherent - sorry - just… I’m really not coherent right now, and have to teach anyway, so that’s sort of making things worse. I’ve written (much too occasionally - but I just haven’t had time) about interpentetrations between the sorts of thing I think Marx does well, and issues relating to gender dynamics. I don’t think this necessarily has to be thought in terms even of what is “primary” - other than in the contextualised way that we have to make grounded political decisions about what sorts of actions we’re going to make - i.e., “primacy” needn’t be thought in ontological terms…

But I’m making no sense… Sorry… Maybe when I’ve glued myself back together and don’t feel like my brain is floating several feet outside its skull… :-)

Take care…

]]>