Systematic Dialectics and Practice

jones/bhandari djones at
Wed Apr 5 00:26:37 MDT 1995

Hans D wrote

>.  Once one has penetrated Bhaksar
>obtuse writing style, not only does his practicial import show
>trough, but he actually makes for very pleasurible reading.
>If I have mystified Smith; in my struggle to understand him, and
>incorporate him in the world of my own thoughts and commitments; I
>especially recommend his article in *Marx's Method in Capital: A
>Reexamination* ed. by Fred Moseley, Humanities Press, New Jersey,

I would  like to emphasize that I only said that some of Bhaskar's
arguments *seemed* uninteresting to me.  However I know very little about
the philosophy of science, and Bhaskar's arguments may well be
enlightening. I do know that there was a provocatively titled critique  of
Bhaskar in Capital and Class by Richard Gunn.  What was the title? Who
needs a philosophy?  Something like that. I must say that I do not remember
as interesting  Bhaskar's entries in the Dictionary of Marxist Thought

I appreciate Hans' post and read them carefully.  In terms of interpreting
and developing Marx's advances (e.g., the discovery of the duality of
labor, the theory of accumulation and crisis, capital's law of motion, the
theory of commodity fetishism), Bhaskar's work does not seem as if it will
be very helpful.  Whether it will prove essential for a science of society
I do not know.

I agree with Hans' recommendation of Tony Smith's entry in Fred Moseley's
ed. volume.  Smith explains his systematic dialectics very well here, as
well as bringing out its political implications.   I have been comparing
Smith's treatment of Marx's argumentative strategy with Postone's.  It
makes for a very interesting comparison, about which I may post at some


     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list