Wayne Price’s “Anarchism and the Philosophy of Pragmatism”—An Exchange

Editors’ Note: Wayne Price’s “Anarchism and the Philosophy of Pragmatism” was first published on www.Anarkismo.net and then sent to The Utopian for possible republication. It is included in The Utopian no. 13 (2014). On reading the original, Ron Tabor initiated a correspondence with Price about the way Price had summed up Tabor’s ideas about materialism (see the second paragraph of Price’s essay). Price responded, and a lively correspondence on a variety of topics followed. We print this below, starting with Price’s introductory note and continuing with each person’s messages in order.

 

[In the original published version of the article, I had written: “Ronald Tabor (2013) rejects materialism for the belief that ‘the fundamental reality of the universe consists not of matter but of ideas’ (p. 263).” I have since changed this because it is inaccurate. This formulation is what Ron is discussing below as misrepresenting his position.--WP]

***

Wayne,

I've scanned your article (I’ll read it more thoroughly later) with interest. A couple of small points.

1. You misrepresent my position. I did not argue in my book that I believe that the fundamental reality is mathematical; I contend that this is science's implied belief. Personally, I am agnostic on the question, broadly arguing that we don't know what the fundamental reality is, but that we cognize it in two ways, as material and as ideal.

2. Pierce called his philosophy "pragmaticism."

3. James' version of pragmatism is very close to what you called opportunism, whatever works is true, with a very broad definition of what it means to "work." Hence, his views on religion: if it works for an individual, it is true for him.

4. Are you familiar with some of the Marxist polemics against pragmatism, e.g., by such US figures as Harry K. Wells and Howard Selsam?

Ron

***

Ron,

1) I am sorry I misrepresented your position. It was not my intention. I will cite your correction in the comments section.

I do not feel that there is, in principle, an "unknowable" fundamental reality, only that we cannot fully and completely know every aspect of reality. I agree with the pragmatists that it is better to refer to "naturalism" than "materialism," let alone "idealism." This is simply to recognize that there is an independent reality which is not supernatural. I think our big difference on this topic is that I accept that the independent reality has its own structures and patterns of processes which we can approximate (or at least cope with) and you do not seem to. You seem to regard all "laws" as solely human-made-up out of imagination rather than as tools for dealing with the actual bumpiness of reality, as part of our dialogue with external reality. Your position is close to that of Rorty's anti-foundationalist/anti-representalist approach, btw.

2) Peirce originally used "pragmatism" in his conversations, then later changed it to "pragmaticism" because he disagreed with some of James' extensions of the idea.

3) This is true about James, who at least seemed to imply that what works is what makes you happy, if there is no contradictory evidence. Which is why I focus on Dewey (even though James is so much a better writer).

4) No, but I have read George Novack.

Solidarity,

Wayne

***

Wayne,

1. I believe there is a reality that is independent of us and that has its own structures and processes. What it “really” is I doubt we will ever know. We tend to cognize it in the form of two modes or attributes, matter and ideas.

2. I do not believe we invent the “laws of nature” simply out of our imagination. They are attempts to synthesize (induce) what at any given time we perceive to be the facts, which change as science and technology progress. (We currently do not know what 95% of the universe -- “dark matter” and “dark energy” -- is.)

3. I believe these “laws” (whatever they precisely are) do enable us to “cope” with reality, to shape and in some sense and facets to control it. Whether they “approximate” reality is another question, which I suspect may be beyond our powers to discern.

4. I reject Marxism’s attempt to solve the contradiction between a theory of knowledge based on praxis, which leads to something like pragmatism (which, as you know, Marxists reject), and a theory of knowledge which asserts that absolute knowledge is possible (even if only asymptotically), between which Marxism vacillates as convenient. It is the latter (the Platonistic, Spinozistic, Hegelian versions of idealism) which I believe to be the fundamental epistemological tenet of Marxism (hence the vehement polemics against pragmatism) and which renders it, along with its call to establish a centralized revolutionary dictatorship, totalitarian.

Ron

***

Ron,

I don't know what it would mean to know what reality "really" is. I don't think it is a meaningful question. We learn about this piece of reality and that piece of reality, in context, and connect the dots, in practice, the best we can. But I don't think that there is an unknowable ding-an-sich which is "underneath" or "behind" knowable reality.

Of course I reject any sort of belief in Absolute Knowledge, or even almost-absolute knowledge. We gather as much info as we can to make "warranted assertions" and have the faith to act on them (which is one, reasonable, interpretation of James' Will-to-Believe).

Well there are all sorts of Marxists. They are all over the place, not to mention those who ain't Marxists but who might say that they are "influenced by Marxism." Of course most Marxists who study the subject are anti-pragmatism, just as you assert. A few have regarded themselves as pragmatists (the early Sidney Hook, Christopher Phelps who was in Solidarity I think). Many more pragmatists would say they are influenced by Marxism (Cornell West, Jurgen Habermas), although as I wrote they are generally reformists (what else?). The worse for them.

As I point out, Dewey was very influenced by Hegel, in his nondualism and dynamism, but strongly rejected all the determinism.

WP

***

Wayne,

Well, I'm glad we agree that there is no absolute or almost absolute knowledge.

Ron

***

Ron,

Certainly. Such "fallibilism" is at the heart of pragmatism.

If you have any comments after reading the whole thing, I would be interested.

Note that the section on Sidney Hook, et. al., is not written to argue that it is possible to be a pragmatist and a Marxist (not my interest) but that it is possible to be a pragmatist and a revolutionary.

WP

***

Wayne,

I finally got a chance to read your piece. Overall, I think it is very good and a very important contribution to the discussion within anarchism and within the left more broadly. I do not agree with everything in your article, of course, but as far as I can tell, it is a very clear and accurate discussion of pragmatism, its several versions and proponents.

I do believe your piece might have been a bit better had you spent some more time explaining what you mean by pluralism in philosophy: what this means and why you are for it, that is, why you believe anarchism implies a pluralism of philosophies, rather than a “correct” anarchist philosophy that is required of anarchists. I’m not sure many people in the movement understand what you mean and why you think (as I do) that it follows from anarchism. I get the impression that the anarchist milieu is full of people who are as ideologically dogmatic as people in the Marxist milieu and who argue, in effect, that their version of anarchism is the only correct one and that all anarchists should think and act just as they do.

I also think that it might have been worthwhile to explain why it does not bother you (if I interpret your piece correctly) that on some issues you find yourself in agreement with pro-capitalist liberals, such as Dewey. This seems to bother a lot of leftists, such as the neo- (or quasi-) Marxist, Slavoj Zizek, who appears to be so hostile to the “current liberal democratic consensus” that the use of any club against it, including Stalinism and Maoism, is justified. We and the liberals both believe in pluralism; we just don’t think a system in which a few people are fabulously wealthy and powerful while the rest of us are relatively poor and powerless is very pluralistic.

(On a personal note, I do not feel the need to argue for any specific positive philosophy. At the moment, I consider myself to be an eclectic and a moderate skeptic, a kind of agnostic, on philosophical questions. To me, philosophy is best understood as an art form, one that expresses the personalities, styles, and values of its various proponents. I think things can be learned from many of them, but that no one philosophy is correct. I therefore see no reason to call myself, say, a pragmatist or to say that I am close to pragmatism.)

That being said, I think you hesitate to draw the full implications of your commitment to philosophical pluralism/philosophical anarchism. To me, it means that we have to give up arguing for anarchism using anything -- science, philosophy, or a supposedly scientific philosophy -- as authoritative. Science can inform our arguments; it cannot make them, let alone prove them.

This means, first, that we have to give up all desires to argue that socialism/anarchism is inevitable or even highly probable. If there is no philosophic truth, or if philosophic truth is not discoverable, than we cannot establish as scientifically determinable what history is, what its meaning is, and what its necessary outcome will be. We can only assert our opinions (or our tastes) on these matters, and ultimately we can only argue why we think socialism/anarchism is both possible and desirable, not that we think it is inevitable, highly probable, or even somewhat probable.

I take this line of argument farther than you do. You still believe that humanity is faced with either “socialism or barbarism.” (I see this as Marxism’s shamefaced admission that its fundamental claim, that socialism is “necessary” or “inevitable,” is false or at least not demonstrable.) I do not.

To be honest, I am not even convinced that socialism/anarchism is possible, and I don’t think it is possible to prove that it is. To point to primitive communism as some kind of proof ignores the serious problem that while relatively small groups of individuals seem to have been able to live in relatively non-hierarchical societies, the human species as a whole has never been able to do so. The primitive groups fought with each other, often viciously, over scarce resources. We can certainly assert that if we can overcome scarcity, it might be possible for all humans to live in peace and harmony, but we cannot prove that this is the case.

(To be even more provocative, I don’t think it is possible to prove that socialism/anarchism is even desirable. For avowed elitists, such as Nietzsche, an egalitarian society would be disaster; it would wind up liquidating what is best in humanity. Without inequality, these people might contend, there would be no science and no art. We can certainly argue against this point of view. We cannot prove that it is wrong.)

I also don’t think it can be proved that, in the absence of establishing socialism/anarchism, we are heading toward barbarism. Actually, I think a good case can be made (and in fact has been made) that our global economic system is currently undergoing a long-term transition to more environmentally benign energy. According to an article in Scientific American a few months ago (which I believe I am remembering correctly), we are about 5% along the way. Previous transitions -- from wood to coal, from coal to oil -- each took about 60 years after an initial 5% had been reached. So, according to this view, at some time in the future, say, 2075, the transition to green energy will be more or less complete. (For whatever it’s worth, I found the article rather convincing.) So, here is a scientist arguing that we are currently undergoing a transition to renewable energy, and he does not believe (or at least does not say so in his article) that we are facing a global ecological catastrophe while this transition is being carried out. Can you or, say, another scientist, prove him wrong? I doubt it. I suspect he is likely to be correct, in which case, it seems to me that in the short and medium term, we will experience significant environmental difficulties, perhaps even some outright disasters, along with serious political problems (instability, locals wars, etc.) but not a collapse of civilization. Can you or anyone else prove the opposite? I don’t think you can.

Ultimately, we are left with a bunch of un-provable claims, which fact I believe we should honestly face. The history of the left is strewn with extreme contentions that have not been borne out: “Socialism is inevitable”; “Socialism or barbarism.” In the 1930s, John Strachey (then a Stalinist, before and after that a Labourite) wrote a book titled, “The Coming Struggle for Power.” In it, he argues that he does not “advocate” socialism; he “predicts” it. (Well, I’m still waiting.) In the post-World War II period, the Marxist left insisted that capitalism couldn’t develop the Third World; only socialism could. And yet, here we are in 2014. The system (and humanity) survived the Depression of the 1930s, Nazism, Stalinism, World War II, and the threat of nuclear annihilation, and, today, many countries of the Third World have made impressive progress toward industrialization. I believe we need to fully break with all forms of ultimatist thinking or risk being wrong time and again. Here’s my argument: we believe socialism/anarchism is possible; we think it would be a good thing; here’s why.

On smaller matters. You and I continue to disagree about what Marxism is and what it’s done. Beyond what Marxism is (I argue my case in my book, so there’s no need to repeat it here), I do not believe the Bolshevik Revolution brought the Russian workers to power. The Bolsheviks seized power using the soviets (and the Left SRS) as cover and utilized the soviets (along with the factory committees, the trade unions, and the cooperatives) as an apparatus to implement decisions that were made solely by the party’s central committee. Lenin was not a nice guy and not a democrat. He was a Marxist fanatic who, like the Jesuits who ran the Inquisition, believed he had direct access to the Truth (his interpretation of Marxism). He was utterly ruthless, willing to use the most dishonest, brutal, and manipulative tactics against people whom he perceived to be his opponents. (I believe that during the Civil War, he once said that it was better to kill 100 innocent people than to let one guilty person go free.) This is the logic of a theory that believes it has discovered and represents the Truth, that is, absolute (or almost absolute) knowledge.

One last point. You did misrepresent (or misunderstand) my position. On p. 263 of my book (the page you cite), I wrote: “for it (that is, for science - RT), the fundamental reality of the universe consists not of matter, but of ideas.” You omitted the “for it”. As I’ve mentioned, this is not my view; it is what I believe to be the underlying belief of science.

Thanks for writing your piece. I enjoyed it and believe it can only have a salutary effect on the movement.

Best wishes again.

Ron

***

Ron,

You are correct, I did misrepresent you because I misunderstood you, since I assumed you were yourself presenting a more-or-less scientific viewpoint of your own. I understand your agnosticism (rather like Maletesta's). Myself, I see the "fundamental reality" for us to be experience, which is created by the transaction of ourselves and external reality. While I too am agnostic about many things, I find it useful to start somewhere.

As for your rejection of Socialism or Barbarism (or other disaster), I can only hope you are right. I have not seen the Scientific American article you cite, but I did read the reports of the recent documents on world climate and on US climate, none of which are as optimistic. As our ancestors would say, "From your mouth to God's ears." I wonder if the Scientific American repost concluded that everything would come out all right because it assumed that the necessary social changes would occur to implement the required technological changes. (For example, the destruction of the oil and coal industries.) None of which denies the virtue of anarchism, unlike Marxism, in having a morally prescriptive aspect. Nor do I disagree with you, I think, about Lenin or even Trotsky, even if they were not Stalin as such.

Solidarity,

Wayne

***

Wayne,

The author of the Scientific American article seemed to assume that the transformation has been occurring and will continue to occur. He does not assume the oil and coal industries will be destroyed by social change but will be phased out. He does advocate what he describes as sensible policies for the government to follow, which means not trying to pick individual winners and losers.

In addition to the article, there is some other evidence that what's happening is percolating into the brains of the elite. Henry Paulson, the former head of Goldman, Sachs, and Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush, launched and now heads a foundation aimed at addressing pollution in China. The heads of some big companies, including Pepsico (if I remember correctly), now recognize that global warming is affecting their bottom lines vis a vis the prices of natural resources and the costs of manufacturing, particularly in place like Bangla Desh. And a retired hedge fund manager, Tom Speyer, has formed a super-PAC to encourage the election of pro-environmental, and to punish anti-environmental, politicians. It may not be much, but it is something. I am reasonably hopeful because I remember what Los Angeles was like when I lived here in 1970-71. There is absolutely no comparison between then and now as far as air quality is concerned.

Ron

***

Ron,

This is, of course, the kicker. Will the bourgeoisie and the national states follow sensible policies? I am not denying that this is abstractly possible and would, at least, slow down the environmental destruction. And it is what I want! But the ruling class has disappointed me so far, without denying the few straws in the wind.

Because:

(1) The oil industry is enormously powerful and rich on a world scale. It is not in their interest to slow down the use of oil. Yet nothing less will do (and the same is true for coal, which is also powerful if not on the level of the oil industry). Plus the drive of the formerly oppressed nations to increase their energy resources. (BTW, Lenin, in Imperialism, actually predicted that the colonies would industrialize while the imperial countries became parasitic, as I am sure you will recall.)

(2) Our whole industrial substructure is built on fossil fuels. Not merely transportation and heating, but also our food supplies (artificial fertilizer and pesticides) and everything made out of plastic and artificial materials. Not that this could not be re-done, but not without spending a lot of money and effort, including economic planning of one sort or another.

(3) Combine this with the gridlock in DC, plus national conflicts, based on the economic stagnation, and what do you get?

The reports from the scientists are frightening, while one of our two main parties actively denies that there is even a problem!

A related point: If I thought that the world society would or could gradually, over time, respond to pressures to make enough changes to avoid economic crashes and suffering, (nuclear) war, and ecological catastrophe--then I would not advocate a revolution. Revolution would be too risky, too costly in lives and resources, and too uncertain. It would be immoral to advocate a revolution, even if abstractly socialism would be better. Hell, societies will always be imperfect. So I agree with the anarchist point that a moral evaluation is essential, but I also think that without an objective (more-or-less) analysis which says that (as best as we can determine) capitalism threatens doom, I would not waste my time (still!) on revolutionary politics.

WP

***

Wayne,

I admire your faith (for such it is) and your perseverance. Looking at the world and the state of humanity, I do not see much hope for an anarchist revolution any time in the foreseeable future. In the various struggles of the present, I am astounded at the lack of any socially transcendent vision. Instead, the movements seem to be divided into two factions, each in their different ways accepting global capitalism as the reality: one faction wants to adopt Western political and cultural forms in toto; the other merely wishes to retain some of its traditional cultural forms as it accepts capitalist economic modernization. There are no significant forces that seek anything qualitatively better.

As far as the anarchist movement is concerned, I have been appalled at the combination of arrogance and ignorance. Very few people have read anything, very few people know anything, and very few people seem to have the desire to do any serious reading or study.

Given this, I have as much hope in the dynamics of the capitalist market, which (I hope) will eventually factor in climate change, and in the small but (hopefully growing) numbers of the capitalist elite who do recognize what is happening, as I have in the prospects for an anarchist revolution. If truly mass struggles do break out, I am more worried about the right-wingers and the Marxists than I am confident in the anarchists (which is why I feel that you are shooting your guns vis a vis Marxism in the wrong direction - at least until you wrote your piece on pragmatism). As an example, I can understand why so many of the Marxists (have you seen or heard Stephen Cohen on TV or the radio recently?) have taken the positions on Ukraine that they have (i.e., supporting Russia), but I find it hard to fathom why it has been so difficult for the anarchists to find it in their hearts and brains to defend the national sovereignty of such a new, fragile, and unfortunately-located country as Ukraine. Of course, I understand it intellectually, but that does not lessen my amazement. Right now, my political goals (aside from reading) are to maintain the Utopian and to write for it.

Ron

***

Ron,

When you refer to my beliefs as “faith” I would answer, “Yes, but…” That is, first, my belief that the world is in a dire way and needs revolution and restructuring is an objective evaluation of the facts. I may be wrong (I wish I was), but it is based on the reported virtually-unanimous opinions of climate scientists (whatever your Scientific American writer said). Plus on the (Marxist) economic analysis you and others developed in the 70s. Again: most of the (bourgeois) economic specialists agree that the state has not made the corrections necessary to avoid the same or bigger disaster (the Great Recession).

Wayne

***

Wayne,

I believe we are in substantial agreement on a lot of issues. Leaving aside the question of Marxism, I think we disagree on:

1. I do not consider the global situation to be as dire as you do. Mind you, I do not think it is good. In fact, I find it rather frightening, but I do not believe we are faced with barbarism if humanity does not manage to overthrow capitalism and replace it with libertarian socialism/anarchism.

2. I am less optimistic about an anarchist revolution than you are. I am not even sure if it’s in humanity’s capacity to create the kind of society we envision and advocate.

3. I think it is likely that capitalism (and with it, humanity) will survive the coming period, which I expect will be rather unstable and will involve considerable environmental destruction.

4. Even if all the above is true, I continue to advocate an anarchist transformation of society. I do so on two grounds, both essentially moral:

(a) I expect such as society would be able to address our current social and environmental problems far better than capitalism can.

(b) I believe such a society would be far more just to all its members than capitalism now is.

I also believe that if such a revolution is even remotely possible, it will have to entail the active support of the vast majority of humanity beings. If this turns out to be the case, it may be possible to carry out the social transformation in a relatively non-violent manner.

Once again, thanks for writing your piece.

Ron

***

Ron,

To wrap up some loose ends:  You wrote, "I therefore see no reason to call myself, say, a pragmatist or to say that I am close to pragmatism." I understand and respect that. However, a prominent philosopher, Hilary Putnam, wrote, "The heart of pragmatism [is] the insistence on the supremacy of the agent point of view."  That is, the rejection of a passive, spectator, reflecting, theory of mind, experience, and knowledge in favor of an active, inventing-and-discovering, view. I think you agree with this perspective. My paper makes clear that there are things with which I do not agree in pragmatism, particularly the reformism. I did not go into my views of its psychology, which is insightful in many ways (vs. behaviorism) but shallow in its rejection of the dynamic unconscious (psychoanalytic theory).

You regret that I did not go further into my reasons for accepting philosophical pluralism for anarchists.  That pluralism is based on fallibilism: that any belief may eventually be found to be false, that there is no knowable Absolute Truth, although there is a reality which does not depend on us for its existence. Therefore it is necessary to be open to learning from allsorts of views. To me, this even includes Marxism (and Hegelianism). While I do not accept either liberalism or Marxism as whole viewpoints (indeed, I am strongly opposed to both of them as total theories), I find aspects of them useful. There is no point in going into this here. You have explained your views on Marxism in detail in your book The Tyranny of Theory. I have responded in a review of your book, at http://anarkismo.net/article/26583?search_text=Wayne+Price.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Solidarity,

Wayne