G'day Simon,
Thaxis had a pretty good go at the 'materialist conception of history'
interpretation question a little while back - which may explain the paucity
of responses to this question. Not surprisingly, some of us defended the
necessary social basis of HM and some didn't. But those who didn't
(amongst whom yours truly was not numbered) saw their defence of diamat as
Leninist, Engelsist AND Marxist. So, if you do manage to kick-start a
thread here, it'd probably be about how Marxist Lenin was - which is rather
a round-about way (and potentially no way at all) to get to the
philosophical guts of the HM v DM issue.
So why not tell us exactly what you see as wrong with the DM case - either
as philosophy in general or guide to practice in particular? That way, you
give us something more productive upon which to chew.
Waddya reckon?
Cheers,
Rob.
>Dear Russ,
>
> This was something I thought I would have to demonstrate after hours of
>painstaking argument, given the state of play here re Leninism. Maybe if i
>rephrased the question, to be absolutely clear: if you go along with Russ
>and myself, and assert that Marx never used the "dialectical materialism"
>concept, are people prepared to stick with Marx or deny him in favour of
>Lenin and Engels?
>
>Simon
>
>----------
>>
>>
>> >Towards this, I suggest a debate on the real issue behind all of this -
>> >historical materialism vs dialectical materialism.
>>
>> Only the former can be found in Marx's writings.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>>
>> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
>>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
