'Pure' science and Marxism
In Ron Guignard's reply to Doug Lorimer (GLW #150) he makes the claim that the social sciences were "soft-pseudo sciences" (what is wrong with being soft by the way). Presumably the implication is that the "hard" sciences are somehow normatively neutral, value free, above politics!
A study of the history of science will reveal how the so-called hard sciences, in its organisational structures and theoretical developments, are a bog of organisational and ideological conflict.
Furthermore, the different methodological foundations of the physical and social sciences make it impossible to compere the two. You might as well compare chalk and cheese! (The one attempt to apply concept of the dialectic to the physical sciences was by Engels. They were the speculations that are best seen as Engels' particular contribution to Marxism.)
The claim that the "hard sciences" are more able to predict phenomena (given sufficient information) is another questionable proposition. If you look at the results of scientific research at universities you will find that scientific endeavour is largely an exercise in failure. The capacity to predict, which Guignard claims is the bedrock of his pure science, is probably governed as much by rules of probability as it is by any accumulation of knowledge. In any case, this emphasis on "prediction" is a foolish way to appreciate the contribution that Marx, and the social sciences in general, have made to the understanding of society.
Should we compare Marx's Capital and Weber's Economy and Society with the prophecies of Nostradamus? The primary function of the social sciences is to help us understand how society works. For the radical political activist the value of the social sciences is to help make and not predict the future.
However, I think it is necessary to question why "science", as a historically-constructed discourse and social practice, should be privileged over other historically constructed discourses and social practices.
One of the great contributions of post-modernism is its epistemological nihilism. It has forced those of us who are in the tradition of epistemological realism to question our presuppositions (all to the good), especially those that have elevated science to the status of god the father.
After post-modernism very little is left standing. We can no longer assume that science is a necessarily privileged social practice.
Marxism does have a problematic relationship to science. In a positive sense this is because Marxism goes beyond the specific social practice we have called science. In the negative sense it has a problematic relationship because of the ambiguities contained within Marxist epistemology (which have their reflection in the contradictory tendencies within Western Marxism beginning with Luckas).
The victory and privileging of science as a social practice in the 19th and 20th century Western world has compelled Marxists to claim that Marxism is a science. Why is it necessary to make this claim? Are we somehow privileged by this? Does it give comfort in hard times?
Perhaps we should all read or re-read the Lukacs of History and Class Consciousness. More than sixty years ago the great Marxist philosopher issued a challenge to all by describing science as an expression of processes which fragment and obscure the reality of bourgeois society. Lukacs counterposed Marxism to science.
I am trying to disestablish the idea that "science" or worse still "pure science" constitutes some sort of ultimate criteria that we can appeal to. I am afraid that judging Marxism's usefulness (and I suppose, the usefulness of those of us who belong to the Marxist tradition) will be a far more difficult and complicated task.
Jeff Richards
Prospect SA
[Edited for length.]
Children in distress
The recent UNICEF report "Progress of Nations" documented that: 9% of children in Australia are living below the poverty line (compared with 1.6% in Sweden); youth suicide in Australia is now the sixth highest in the industrialised world and Australia is one of the few industrialised countries that has not prohibited the intentional infliction of pain on children.
In view of this deeply disturbing record of Australia's treatment of our children it is perhaps not at all surprising that the Australian government is now more than 12 months late in submitting its report on the implementation on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In fact, the Keating government's record on how children are cared for in Australia makes a cruel mockery of Bob Hawke's claim that "no Australian child [would] live in poverty by 1990".
Addressing the neglect of our children should be the first priority of Australian parliaments rather than the puerile name calling engaged by Mr Downer and Mr Keating.
It is now urgent that the federal government complete its report to the United Nations but even more importantly, that urgent action is taken to lift our children and young people out of the poverty and despair caused by the government's economic rationalist policies.
Senator Sid Spindler
East Melbourne Vic
Evans and the UN
Gareth Evans has been mooted to become the next secretary-general of the UN.
As one of the most coldly inhumane monsters on the world stage at the moment, its probably a most appropriate job — in the vein of Kurt Waldheim the nazi war criminal to the same job.
Robert Wood
Surry Hills NSW
Cuba blockade
Granma reports that on August 3, 1992, the Wall Street Journal revealed that since 1988, ultraright groups within the Cuban community in Miami have been handing US congressman Robert Torricelli increasing sums of money to push "initiatives" against the Island, a mission he crowned with the Torricelli Act, strengthening the blockade against Cuba.
Torricelli has publicly announced that the NAFTA trade agreement allows Washington not only the right, but the responsibility, to "look at" decisions made by the Mexican government and its people. He organised two hearings in the State of New Jersey, in particular to examine the situation in the Mexican state of Chiapas. Washington journalists described his demands as "crude and meddling".
Torricelli went to the Mexican state of Chiapas to examine the situation of the cheap labor there which provides for imperialist profits, and to look into the election details. His presence was immediately denounced by the Zapatista Army.
Granma suggests that this infamous US person was virtually, metaphorically, burnt at the stake. In fact, his effigy was burned by demonstrators in front of the US embassy, Mexico City. Many of the demonstrators were also members of the "Va por Cuba" solidarity group, who took the opportunity to voice their affection and concern for Cuba.
Former Mexican foreign minister, Fernando Solana, warned that he could be declared persona non grata "because it is a very sorry state of affairs when a foreigner who has never been a friend of Mexico, comes to visit with the delusions of being an election overseer". The main political parties, PRI, PRD and PAN, voiced agreement on this issue, describing the visit as "another of his offensive, interventionist attitudes, well-known through-out his political career".
So who is this Bob Torricelli? Moralist, selectively-passionate defender of democracy and human rights, or, as Granma suggests, a run-of-the-mill merchant of US policy who sells his legislative power to the highest bidder?
Contrary to Bill Clinton's position, Torricelli places no limits on fundraising by US candidates to finance their election campaigns.
In 1990, he spent $500,000 compared with his adversary's $35,000. In 1988, he put up $400,000 against his opponents' $57,000. According to US press reports, his main friendly supporters are from the areas of construction, industry, finance and medical products. The president of one company revealed that at its request, Robert Torricelli presented three bills that could benefit the company's business.
John Clancy
Sutherland NSW
[Edited for length.]
T-shirt
On the last day of the Network of Women Students Australia conference, a T-shirt produced by the student group Left Alliance appeared which featured a picture of Naomi Wolf with a gun target on her head. The slogan that adorned the t-shirt was: "Yuppie feminism for the easily impressed; I'd rather be a revolutionary then an equal opportunist".
This T-shirt design represents an elitist and sectarian approach to feminism. For a start, putting a gun target over Wolf's (or anyone's) face is a reactionary way of dealing with political debate within the progressive movement. The message on this T-shirt allies Left Alliance with people in extremely right-wing/anti-feminist circles who would like to see Naomi Wolf dead for her contribution to popular feminist writing.
Secondly, Left Alliance has ignored the real impact of Wolf's writings. Her first book, The Beauty Myth, is a world away from her second book, Fire with Fire against which the T-shirt is presumably directed. In The Beauty Myth, Wolf gives a powerful account of the role that the beauty industry plays in oppressing women. This book was an instant international best seller because it spoke to millions of women about the way their own self confidence and esteem was undermined by the beauty industry. The Beauty Myth popularised feminism for women all around the world.
Fire with Fire had an entirely different impact. It was not nearly as widely read or as popular, and its message was aimed at promoting the interests of a few rich women rather than changing the living conditions of the majority of women.
Most people associate Naomi Wolf with The Beauty Myth and the positive impact it had in making women and image a political issue. These people would be mystified as to why others, who purport to be feminists and presumably committed to ending violence against women in this society, would want to have Wolf shot.
Thirdly, the message behind this T-shirt is misdirected. When abortion remains on the criminal code, when women are still paid less then men, when lesbians are still harassed for their sexuality, when sexism still distorts the lives of all women, I could think of a million more political slogans to adorn a feminist T-shirt.
Zanny Begg
Sydney