Marx, again
I'm not sure that the idea that criticism needs an end, or a point to be more clear, is particularly Modernist. In fact, I think it's prety much present in every form of criticism, even post-modernism, which to my mind is primarily concerned with overthrowing and exposing those "grand narratives" that inform ideology. There is a difference between expecting something to fulfill some reasonable or unreasonable purpose, to do something, and expecting it to contribute to some grand narrative or ideology. In any case, I don't have a problem with criticism that has no point. There is no point to life or literature.
What concerns me, and where I think you can help me, is the implicit contradiction I find in the notion of specifically Marxist criticism without a point, because I cannot seperate Marxism from its "point"--that is, communism and revolution. I want to know what value you think Marxism has without the ends that, to my way of seeing things, are built into the philosophy. (Marx's critique of capitalism, for example, sees it as a progression towards a certain point. Can you disentangle the critique of capitalism from the notion that it will develop in the way he says it will?) I know you believe strongly in this value, and I would like to hear the how and why of it, if not now than at some point in the future.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by "economistic" and I am flabbergasted by the idea that good Marxism is not concerned with historical inevitabilities. (Maybe we are confusing "good" and "orthodox"--which would make sense based on our respective knowledge of the subject.)
So to clarify my intitial post: I was perturbed by the idea that a book which was designed to serve a certain purpose can be useful in a way (a very vaque way--a further annoyance but one that doesn't concern us anymore perhaps) that doesn't serve that original purpose. Now, on the one hand, I am being intentionally extreme on this point, but on the other I want to ask serious questions about the value of this sort of thing, of using systems of thought to ends that are not their own.
To use a poor (and loaded) analogy, what is the value of Christianity without heaven?
What concerns me, and where I think you can help me, is the implicit contradiction I find in the notion of specifically Marxist criticism without a point, because I cannot seperate Marxism from its "point"--that is, communism and revolution. I want to know what value you think Marxism has without the ends that, to my way of seeing things, are built into the philosophy. (Marx's critique of capitalism, for example, sees it as a progression towards a certain point. Can you disentangle the critique of capitalism from the notion that it will develop in the way he says it will?) I know you believe strongly in this value, and I would like to hear the how and why of it, if not now than at some point in the future.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by "economistic" and I am flabbergasted by the idea that good Marxism is not concerned with historical inevitabilities. (Maybe we are confusing "good" and "orthodox"--which would make sense based on our respective knowledge of the subject.)
So to clarify my intitial post: I was perturbed by the idea that a book which was designed to serve a certain purpose can be useful in a way (a very vaque way--a further annoyance but one that doesn't concern us anymore perhaps) that doesn't serve that original purpose. Now, on the one hand, I am being intentionally extreme on this point, but on the other I want to ask serious questions about the value of this sort of thing, of using systems of thought to ends that are not their own.
To use a poor (and loaded) analogy, what is the value of Christianity without heaven?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home