Re: [OPE-L] rosa luxemburg

From: Dogan Goecmen (dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Thu Mar 29 2007 - 16:03:57 EDT


 Gerry, 
 very very briefly. From dialectical point of view there may be indeed tension between scietific impartiality and political partiality, though this is not a contradiction as may be observed in bourgeois social and political philosophies. But Rosa says this is not a conceptual tension of hers or of Marx's. It is a real tesion arising from social relations in capitalism. Agreement between impartiality and partiality is supposed to emerge in communism because there is no contradiction of interests and therefore there no reason for partiality in view. I will get back to you when I come back.
 
 Thank you,
 Dogan
    
 -----Urspr├╝ngliche Mitteilung----- 
 Von: glevy@PRATT.EDU
 An: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
 Verschickt: Do., 29. Mrz. 2007, 21:34
 Thema: Re: [OPE-L] rosa luxemburg
 
  Hi Dogan:

You cited Luxemburg in her paper "Back to Adam Smith" [Zuruck auf Adam
Smith] as claiming that *impartiality* is fundamental to the scientific
method and that the 'methodological principle' of impartiality
is related to the 'ethical principle of honesty' (bottom of page 3).

Did she claim, though, that the theory advanced by Marx, Engels, and
Marxists --  including herself --  was based on this 'methodological
principle' of impartiality?

Isn't there necessarily a (for lack of a better term) tension between a
theory which claims to be impartial and at the same time is said to
represent a particular revolutionary and class perspective? Isn't a
'partisan impartial scientist' an oxymoron?

In solidarity, Jerry
   
________________________________________________________________________
Kostenlos: AOL eMail
2 GB Speicherplatz sowie erstklassiger Spam- und eMail Virenschutz.
Sichern Sie sich Ihre pers├Ânliche eMail Adresse noch heute!


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT