Ideology and class

To save you any further hassle from the moderator LB, I've transferred my last reply to you in the Chomsky forum to this new thread.

The methodological individualism that lies at the root of his linguistics is a different beast.  This is an analytical tool, not a social or political statement.

[my bold]

So, 'methodological individualism' is not political?

What is interesting about this is thatmethodological individualism is often at the root of theories proposed by those with pro-capitalist sympathies(often but not always).  And it is not difficult to see why that should be so.  It can certainly be linked with the political ideology of bourgeois individualism.  But while it has political implications…

[my bold]

So, 'methodological individualism' is political?
 

…methodological individualim itself makes no value judgements and  has no political content.

That's an astonishing statement, Hud.  

No value judgements or political content? You don't think the theory is related to social classes and their historical development, and their ethics? Simply astonishing. 

Blimey!  You are hard work, LB, There is a difference berween an analytical tool and the political uses to which it is put (theory and practice).  Ideologies are not stable and the narratives that they are composed of swap allegiences very easily depending on the demands of the class environment.  Methodological individualism, in general aims to explain social phenomena as the aggregate of individual actions. Certainly it is used by neoclassical economics and so called 'anarcho-capitalists' to justify capitalism.   Chomsky, however, draws no such conclusions from it in his linguistics.  On the contrary, he goes out of his way to ensure that his linguistic theories have no social implications whatsoever.  If they do have any, let me know, because I can't see them.  And if Chomsky is aware of such, then he has made a good job of covering them up.  For Chomsky, methodological individualism is implicit in genetic theory and he resticts its application to that sphere.  Genes mutuate within individuals, one at a time; they do not mutate collectively within populations.  It doesn't matter what ideological perspective researchers come from, no-one who investigates such issues would seriously challenge that. Frankly, it would make no sense if they did.

…you will need to explain how someone with a commitment to working class politics…

Chomsky has a commitment to Communism, to workers' power, to the end of private property, the market and money, and to the democratic control of world production (including production of scientific knowledge and truth)?

I don't think so. Chomsky's 'methodological individualism' is the philosophical basis of his 'biological determinism' and his individualist, 'free-thinker', 'free association' Anarchism.  

His research, his selection parameters, which he employs to select his 'facts' (see my post 67 about your incorrect method), and his 'evidence' and 'proof' about individuals having biological mechanisms which determine their ahistoric and asocial language abilities, are all totally at odds with anything whatsoever to do with our Communist politics, philosophy or method. 

If by 'methodological individualism' you are referring to Chomsky's reliance on the neo-darwinian synthesis and selfish gene theory as summarised, say by Dawkins then I disagree.  Methodological individualism in the realm of genetics does not lie at the root of 'biological determinism'  Quite the contrary.  It lends itself much more to a Marxist interpretation of society than the ideology of the previous functionalist school with its social selection theories.  

I'd agree that Chomsky's approach to politics comes from an anarchist tradition and is therefore 'individualist'  in a way that a Marxian thinker would reject.  In the political sphere, however,  Chomsky clearly states his belief that that in a class society like our own individual needs and interests get expressed through class structures; he acknowledges, class action and class ideology, and puts a particualr focus on how class ideology is disseminated through the media. He has stated his support for a revolution against capitalism by a mass of the population.  None of these ideas are contained within or remotely entertained by bourgeois or methodological individualism.   

(On a side point, I'd draw your attention to your Soviet-style use of authoritarian phraseology like 'your incorrect method'. Whether my method is 'incorrect' or not is for you to demonstrate, not to assume.   It seems your commitment to a democratic 'truth' depends on whether people agree with you or not!) 

 Y'know, that human and social activity, that the bourgeoisie pretend is an objective, neutral method to get at 'The Truth', and are supported in this myth by academics, who can see the threat, too, to their power, legitimacy and authority, when confronted with claims for democratic controls.

Many physicists since Einstein have been aware that science is based upon 'theory and practice', as Marx argued, and not 'theory alone' or 'practice alone' or 'practice and theory'. 

I'm beginning to think that you regard political philosophy as not being at the root of science.

You would be correct.  Capitalist interests inevitably influence the practice of science within capitalism and the direction that scientific enquiry takes.  A capitalist class discourse, moreover, influences the way science is presented to us.  But the capitalist class is also profoundly dependent on an objective science to maintain its profits, and cannot allow purely political motives to dominate scientific enquiry.  You only have to look at the disastrous effects of politically motivated science on a capitalist economy during the time of the Soviet state to see where that leads.  Another way of putting this is to say that within capitalism, science must be placed at the service of capitalist interests, but those interests require at least some degree of objectivity.  For this reason, your mechanistic interpetation of the principle you keep banging on about fails to engage with the actual needs and interests of the capitalist class.

A good deal of the current methodology of science could be usefully transferred to a socialist society with only surface modification.  The same is not so true of scientific practice within capitalism which is deeply influenced by capitalist interests and ideology.

What you appear to ignore is the fact that ideology is a fluid and promiscuous beast that can transfer its allegiences very quickly in response to social and class needs, and does so all the time.