Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ratex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!ratex!mck
From: mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Carnes on Marx
Message-ID: <998@ratex.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 18:51:37 EST
Article-I.D.: ratex.998
Posted: Mon Mar 25 18:51:37 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 06:30:49 EST
Organization: Squids R Us
Lines: 41


     The works of Marx and Engels are rather like the Bible, in that enough
is said about enough things that the Marxist, like the Judeo-Christian, can
always find a quote that seems to substantiate h(is|er) interpretation.
This does not necessarily mean that the quote is taken out of context; it
often reflects inconsistency in the writings (in Marx's case, this
inconsistency is largely because his thoughts evolved -- changed; I will
leave it to the Christian to tell us whether Yahweh was irrational or
merely changed his mind alot).
     To arrive at the interpretation of Marx given by Mr Carnes, we must
ignore Hegel's *Logic* and *Philosophy of History*, ignore Engels' *Anti-
Duhring* and *Dialectics of Nature*, and, indeed, take it that Marx
trivialized the definition of 'dialectic' to the point that its essence
vanishes in the rhetorical mists.  It is quite true that much of Marx's
work is independent of Dialectical Materialism (I have read it suggested
that Marx treated the subject mostly to keep Engels happy), but this does
not make the problem go away (similarly, much of von Mises's work is
independent of his Kantianism, but this flaw remains nonetheless).
     The resultant interpretation reminds me of U.S. military policy in
Viet Nam, where villages were 'saved' by their destruction.  Carnes's
interpretation amounts to little more than the claim that an understanding
of a state-of-affairs requires an understanding of prior history.  Not an
earth-shaking (or even remotely original) theory.  And a theory of limited
use at that.  If reality CANNOT be understood without an understanding of
prior history, then unless we can start at a point where the universe was
created *ex nihilo* (say, the Judeo-Christian 4004 BC), we can never
understand anything (note the implicit contradiction). (Current physical
theory, with its Big Bang of some billions of years ago, cannot even
explain why the universe is not omnisymetrical!)
     Carnes gives us an example of Marxist thought by reiterating the
Marxist model of Capitalism:
>           the capitalist takes a sum of money and spends it on raw
>materials, instruments of production, and sells the resulting product for
>an amount greater than he laid out originally, resulting in a profit.
Given Carnes's reiteration of this notion, I will reiterate what is wrong
with it: It (ironically) fails to recognize the intertemporal effects on
value (this is ironic because the history-oriented Marx has adopted a
static theory of value).

                                        Hoo hah!
                                        DKMcK