|
What if instead of contradictions of economic systems there were truth gaps? P1: Either capitalist economic systems are contradictory or they are not. P2: A fact about economic systems is that the rule of excluded middle cannot be used to prove claims about them. P3: Anything not provable is neither true nor false Conclusion: P1 is neither true nor false. Marxists have good reason to object to P2 and P3 because their ontological commitments lead them to a different conclusion:with statements of the form 'X or not X' X can be true. Not X can also be true at the same time. There are 'true contradictions'. In traditional thinking, everything follows from a contradiction. So you can prove anything (unless there are additional constraints). The trouble is that it can seem unorthodox and irrational to embrace 'true contradictions'. One contraint to allow for 'true contradictions' might be that 'true contradictions' only apply to linguistic phenomena like laws (or thought). This would allow an idealist to say that there are 'true contradictions' in the world. This must be more complex for a dialectical materialist as seemingly contradictions emerge from productive forces ('real' stuff) interacting with ideological superstructures(also 'real' but causally weaker???). These contradictions...are they still just linguistic entities? Dialectic might be seen as a set of constraints to allow contradictions to materially exist but to prevent contradictions from being used to prove everything. Or when Marxists talk about contradiction it might just be hyperbole when what is really meant is the behavioral and social realities of conflict and struggle, with the notion that when two set of social practices clash, some set of social practices emerge. The trouble I find with all this is that Marx and Marxists seem to alternate between different conceptions of 'contradiction.' If contradiction means just 'conflict', then it's hard to see why for any given waxing or waning of productive forces that this would imply any progress to a less exploitative economic system. It seems like Marxism, as a science of history, could simply descriptively explain why different economic systems occurred. On this view obtaining socialism isn't very comforting because if the prevailing class struggles gently caress up the productive forces you could end up back at capitalism or feudalism rather than achieving communism. Or you could just oscillate between capitalism and earlier economic systems...forever. Envisioning contradictions as material conflict doesn't give one a reason to be a Marxist, even if one accepted it was a natural law of history. So sometimes Marxists go the Hegelian route and use contradiction as a real aspect of the world. Socialism will, *with necessity*, arise from the contradictions internal to capitalism. Why do the contradictions of capitalism result in progress towards socialism rather than the productive forces withering and regressing towards feudalism? Implicitly I think there is a Marxist idea here that the 'Spirit' of history tends towards economic organizations that reduce exploitation. That is, there is no real reason society progresses...it just will. Embracing contradiction can also be a powerful rhetorical tool as it's not particularly important to engage with critics who point out contradictions. This also fits into a broader rhetorical approach Marxists use where they claim to reject orthodox rationality and are unwillingly to play rhetorical ball with people who question their form of dialectical critique. This isn't to say there is nothing worthwhile in Marx. I agree with Marx that labor under capitalism is alienating, as Kant would say, we are used as 'mere means'. His analysis of key pitfalls of various economic systems are often profound in their intricate details. But do we really need to accept Marxist materialist analysis in order to justify socialism or yet unimagined forms of liberated economic organization? Why do we need to rationalize harms like objectification in some Hegelian analysis of a master and slave? Why do we need to have a science of history that, like many 19th century attempts at science, involves mainly retrograde explanation with vague predictive claims? Just like enlightenment era philosophers retreated from the dogmas of Aristotle and middle age scholasticism, perhaps it's time that political philosophers retreat from Marx and his intellectual inheritors. CSPAN Caller has issued a correction as of 20:03 on May 30, 2019 |
#
¿
May 30, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
uncop posted:The contradiction manifests in an emergent pattern of movement that does not resemble either of its parts but follows from their interaction, and its resolution leads to either new contradictions of the same type as the Moon flies until it ends up in the orbit of some other celestial body, or its resolution as the it crashes into such a body and creates a new one with different physical properties. And obviously the crashing or Moon into the Earth would not be working toward some ultimate goal defined by a "spirit of history" even if it was necessary and therefore eventually happened. I think this is a justified reading of Marx. But I'm glad scientists don't refer to interactions of forces as contradictions. I suppose my ultimate point is that Marx and many Marxists throughout history haven't done themselves many favors in terms of explaining their own theories. Sometimes metaphorical usage of words can go very wrong.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2019 15:22
|
|