Louis Proyect wrote:
. For example, only 4 years ago Joel Kovel wrote a lengthy piece in
CNS that argued that Marxism is weak on ecological questions because it
lacks a spiritual dimension.
I always have thought that the Unconscious was the Holy Ghost in 19th-c
positivist disguise. That
There are different meanings to the word "materialism" Please clearify what you
mean.
Rod
Louis Proyect wrote:
Carrol Cox:
with any precision in *Poverty of Philosophy*; and (b) most of what I
would think of as historical materialism can be defended independently of
any particular view
I wrote:
actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms historical materialism
and dialectical materialism. They aren't Marx's terms.
Mine replies:
Really? Marx says in Preface to the French edition of Capital (Tucker
ed, p.301) the following:
"My DIALECTIC METHOD is not only different
Carroll writes"
I blow hot and cold on the usefulness of the term "dialectical
materialism," but even when I warm to it I don't like to see it posited
as *the* philosophical basis for "historical materialism."
Right. "a" philosophical basis for Marx's materialist conception of
history
Those interested in the issue of Naturdialectik or what has
been known since Plekhanov as "Dialectical Materialism'
may want to read my paper on 'Marx's Ecology:
Synthesizing Dialectics of Praxis and Nature" at
http://www.egroups.com/files/red-green/
To read it, you'll have to subscribe to the
Engels uses "materialist dialectics" in _ Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical
German Philosophy_.
CB
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/24/00 10:31AM
I wrote:
actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms historical materialism
and dialectical materialism. They aren't Marx's
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/24/00 11:04AM
Carroll writes"
I blow hot and cold on the usefulness of the term "dialectical
materialism," but even when I warm to it I don't like to see it posited
as *the* philosophical basis for "historical materialism."
Right. "a" philosophical
In my view, while Marx's work before the mid-1850s focuses
on a socio-historical theory of knowledge, which necessarily
removes Philosophy from its privileged place in a hierarchy of
knowledges, Marx's remarks in later life (see his conversations
with Alexei Voden and Liebknecht's reminiscences)
I wrote:
actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms historical materialism
and dialectical materialism. They aren't Marx's terms.
Mine replies:
Really? Marx says in Preface to the French edition of Capital (Tucker
ed, p.301) the following:
"My DIALECTIC METHOD is not only different
and "historical materialism" in letters to Joseph Bloch
Mine
Engels uses "materialist dialectics" in _ Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of
Classical German Philosophy_.
CB
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/24/00 10:31AM
I wrote:
actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/23/00 10:34PM
In a message dated 5/23/00 9:56:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I blow hot and cold on the usefulness of the term "dialectical
materialism,"
but even when I warm to it I don't like to see it posited as *the*
philosophical
basis
I wrote:
yes, it's true that the actual revolution in Russia turned into the kind
of sh*t that he and Engels predicted would occur if a revolution
occurred in a poor country (in the GERMAN IDEOLOGY).
Mine wrote:
by the way, do you have any evidence to your claims from German Ideology?
At 12:38 PM 5/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
Jim Devine:
Also, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas argued that the active participation and
enthusiasm of the people could substitute for the narrowly-defined forces
of production.
Not true.
okay, but what was true?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Devine:
Also, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas argued that the active participation and
enthusiasm of the people could substitute for the narrowly-defined forces
of production.
Not true.
okay, but what was true?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Lou
okay, but what was true?
Sandinistas were pragmatists. They sought to develop what can be accurately
called a "mixed economy" despite the Reaganite charge that they were
Communists. The important difference between their attempt and failed
attempts such as Arbenz's in Guatemala is that the
It doesn't differ as far as I can tell.
At 02:21 PM 5/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
This methodology does not seem terribly clear to me. how does it differ
from historical materialism to be brief?
Mine
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/23/00 11:53AM I'm
following critical-realist methodology, in
in any case, a self-identified Marxist would instead use historial
materialism. If this methodology has the same connotations with h.m, then
why to substitute h.m with a different name?
Mine
It doesn't differ as far as I can tell.
At 02:21 PM 5/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
This methodology does
Mine wrote:
in any case, a self-identified Marxist would instead use historial
materialism. If this methodology has the same connotations with h.m, then
why to substitute h.m with a different name?
actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms historical materialism
and dialectical
Mine wrote:
in any case, a self-identified Marxist would instead use historial
materialism. If this methodology has the same connotations with h.m,
then
why to substitute h.m with a different name?
actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms historical
materialism
and dialectical
Jim Devine wrote:
I made two errors in this thread. (1) it's not "historical materialism"
that meshes so well with critical realism; rather, it's "dialectical
materialism," which is interpreted as the philosophical basis for
"historical materialism." (2) It wasn't Roy Bhaskar who expressed
In a message dated 5/23/00 9:56:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I blow hot and cold on the usefulness of the term "dialectical
materialism,"
but even when I warm to it I don't like to see it posited as *the*
philosophical
basis for "historical materialism."
Even
21 matches
Mail list logo
