Steve, Well-met. First time I came across Ilyenkov was in Mandel's. Mandel wasn't very enthusiastic about his work - more or less regarded Ilyenkov as just another Stalinist apologist. In the course of reviewing Marxist theory and its relation to Vygotsky's work, about two years ago, I happened upon several writers who regarded Ilyenkov as "the Marxist philosopher who fully integrates Vygotsky's works into general theory." Through the good services of MIA and its extensive archive on Ilyenkov it's possible to do a very thorough personal examination of Evald's writings. Then I ran into P Jones articles (yeah the same ones you've read) and shortly thereafter joined the XMCA CHAT site.
As you may recall, from my earlier messages, I regard Peter Jones strong distinction between ideal objects and instruments of production etc. to be most consistent with Marx's theory, and a more useful explanatory tool for the kinds of work I do than the Bakehurst-Cole formulations. P. Jones does a very good job showing that Marx and Ilyenkov make a strong distinction between social tools and tools of production, but he's considerably weaker in demonstrating the importance of this distinction for the general theory of political economy. In the general theory the distinction between instruments and subjects of production (which together comprise the "means of production" and as means of production joined with "labour" comprise "forces of production) and "relations of production" (which are all those social relations that concern social production, exchange, and distribution of material wealth) is a critical feature of the dialectical analysis of capital. After all it is the continual contradiction between ever developing forces of production and the mode of production ( The method of producing the necessities of life which is a unity of the forces of production and "relations of production") that generates the normal revolutionary state of political economic systems. You may recall that one part of my recent critique of Paul Adler's article -----------was that he did not consider the importance of the revolutionary (if you are a proletarian you would probably rather call it "counterrevolutionary," though in the larger picture most "counterrevolutionary" strategies usually turn out to be as productive of revolution as "revolutionary" ones do) role of the "personal contract" in the preservation of capitalist relations of production under conditions of the growing socialization of labour in the productive process. The "personal contract" is a strictly social instrument that represents an extensive collection of social relations ranging from the mutual obligations between employee and employer, to the laws concerning rights of labour and property, to the rights and obligations of citizens of the US of A guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America etc. etc. While Adler presents a very convincing argument concerning socialization of labour, his analysis is incomplete because he misses the critical changes in the social relations of production that have evolved through the capitalists' efforts to preserve the modes of production of their necessities of life So the importance of the distinction between instruments of production and the ideal objects that are the instruments of social relations of production goes far beyond the issue of their immediate referents or of the particulars of their construction and form. Yours, Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Gabosch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and thethinkers he inspired" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fw: [marxistphilosophy] EvaldIlyenkov'sPhilosophy Revisited (Ralph Dumain) > Hi Victor, > > I have been lurking on Marxism-Thaxis now for a few weeks. Jim's > discussion of Evald Ilyenkov's Philosophy Revisited got my attention, > too. Hi, Jim! Thanks for your post on that book, you are always expanding > my horizons, as does Victor. > > On another discussion list last summer, I noticed some comments you made, > Victory, about Ilyenkov and Peter Jones and the concept of ideality. I am > glad you posted here on this topic. > > I am still a newcomer to Ilyenkov, but I am excited by what I have read of > his so far. The compilation of essays in the book Jim discusses indeed > look intriguing. > > I spent some time last year with a couple different versions of an essay > Peter Jones wrote on the concept of the ideal - perhaps this is the essay > of his in this compilation. Ilyenkov's essay "The Concept of the Ideal" > was a key reading in one of the components of an internet course the xmca > discussion list sponsored last spring, along with relevant writings from > David Bakhurst and Peter Jones, who had different takes. This course had a > big influence on me in seeing how Marxism and activity theory are > connected. Ilyenkov was for me a turning point, along with Bakhurst. > > One conversation-starter in this line of inquiry on ideality, sort of like > the old saw "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it > make a sound?", is the question, 'does an artifact such as a hammer have > ideality (or, do representations only have ideality?)'. > > I found the Jones viewpoint very challenging on several levels. First, he > answers the above question 'no', that artifacts such as hammers do not have > ideality. Second, Jones makes the claim that Ilyenkov also answers > 'no'. My reading of Ilyenkov's essay, following Bakhurst's writings on the > subject, is that Ilyenkov answers very clearly, 'yes', and provides a > compelling line of reasoning in support of this position. It is a wider > and deeper look at the relationship of the material and the ideal than I > had previously considered. I especially appreciated the implications of > Ilyenkov's theorizing for cultural-historical psychology and psychology and > philosophy in general. > > This discussion of materialism and ideality sounds like it would be of > interest both here on Thaxis and also on xmca. I am not quite prepared for > it right now - I would like to re-read the above materials, and try to see > if I can find a copy of the compilation Jim talks about. I am also just > getting a sense of the discussions about Soviet philosophy such as on the > site Jim provides a URL to, so I have some homework. But it could be a > worthy topic sometime down the line. Thoughts? > > - Steve > > > > > At 08:04 PM 1/19/04 +0200, you wrote: > >Jim, > >Thanks for the reference. > >I'm well acquainted with Bakehurst and Jones's writings on Ilyenkov, but > >much less familiar with the works of the Japanese School. I expect reading > >it will be an interesting experience. > >Regards, > >Victor > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Jim Farmelant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 12:45 AM > >Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fw: [marxistphilosophy] Evald Ilyenkov'sPhilosophy > >Revisited (Ralph Dumain) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, this book is hard to come by, and I do not have my own > > > copy, > > > but I did manage to get a look at a library copy. I've put up the table > > > of > > > contents and other basic information: > > > > > > Evald Ilyenkov's Philosophy Revisited > > > http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/ilyenkv2.html > > > > > > Just a few stray notes on the contents: > > > > > > Bakhurst's article focuses on Ilyenkov's aesthetics, which are profoundly > > > > > > humanistic though prejudiced against much of modern art. > > > > > > Zweerde's specialty is Soviet philosophical culture. In this article, he > > > > > > discussed how Ilyenkov interacted with Soviet philosophical culture, in > > > terms of his own interests and original manner of expression, and both > > > how > > > he was curtailed by the Soviet regime while still permitted to function, > > > and what this can tell us about ideological life in the USSR. > > > > > > Silvonen's comparison of Ilyenkov and Foucault is based on Ilyenkov's > > > conception of ideality--his conception of the relation of mind and > > > matter/body--and a comparison with Foucault's notions. > > > > > > Vartiainen makes use of Nonaka & Takeuchi's ideas about knowledge > > > creation > > > and M. Polanyi's notion of tacit knowledge, and presents a schema > > > involving > > > conversions between explicit and tacit knowledge. > > > > > > Knuuttila combines Umberto Eco's semiotics and Ilyenkov's ideality. > > > > > > The articles on the logic of Capital in relation to ideality (Jones, > > > Chiutty, Honkanen) are fascinating and merit close study, as does this > > > facet of Ilyenkov's work. > > > > > > Honkanen discusses Ricardo, mathematical modelling, Uno and the Japanese > > > school, and the history of historical vs. logical approaches to Capital. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! > > > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! > > > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > > > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
