[OPE-L:8442] Re: Re: History

From: Howard Engelskirchen (hengels@zoom-dsl.com)
Date: Fri Feb 07 2003 - 01:53:25 EST

History as science, of course, not as a collection of facts and events but
as a study of modes of production, their life processes and transitions.

Only a single science, I take it, because knowledge is a social product and
as a social product is a product of history.  This is not to say that
consciousness defines what can be known.  Like labor, the production of
knowledge is a process in which both nature and humans participate, and
nature has priority.  But Marx would not exempt, as Mannheim did, the
physical sciences and mathematics from the sociology of knowledge.  (For
example, and I certainly do not meant the question in a simplistic or
reductionist and mechanical sense, why do rates of change become significant
enough in mathematics to be independently discovered in England and on the
Continent at just the time the production of relative surplus value begins
to emerge as a practical problem?)  Also, generally reliable scientific
methods have shown over the past two centuries a systematic tendency in
human biology and genetics to ratify existing patterns of racial and social
power and subordination.  What scientists can imagine, the conceptual
resources they deploy, can depend on, e.g. the amplitude of anti-imperialist
struggle.  Capital has been a powerful stimulus to the study of nature, but
a comparable flowering of the human sciences no doubt depends still on a
future free from the deformations of oppression and exploitation.  From that
perspective, once attained, Marx's point would no doubt be easier to see.

In solidarity,


----- Original Message -----
From: "gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:43 AM
Subject: [OPE-L:8435] Re: History

> Re the following from [8431]:
> > "We know only a single science, the science of history" (Marx, _The
> > German Ideology_,  Progress Publishers, p. 28).
> Is history, though,  the "only" science?   Indeed, is it a "science"
> at all?   Why or why not?
> Solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 00:00:00 EST