You certainly cannot understand Marx without understanding the Young Hegelian milieu. The Second International Marxists never understood it and Engels' pamphlet on Feuerbach did not provide sufficient information and perspective.
As for Lenin's MAEC, these issues have been argued endlessly. MAEC serves a limited function; it combats an overall positivist philosophy based on a misuse of the natural sciences, ubiquitous in Lenin's time, but it doesn't address more sophisticated issues about the relation of subject and object (in relation to social formations). However, that doesn't mean Lenin was wrong about his arguments for philosophical materialism in the most general sense. Natural science materialism, like natural science itself, gives us the floor of a world view, but not the ceiling. Unfortunately, Lenin, like Engels before him and Marx slightly before him, was institutionalized in a manner that created a solidified doctrine that Marx never intended, and that was open-ended even for Engels. Lenin was an innovator and opposed ossification but also contributed to it. There is nothing new in anything that has been said so far in this discussion. I find CeJ's take on this matter rather eccentric, and it's if he thinks he's revealing something that none of us encountered before. One thing that would be useful, given how much this stuff has been rehashed, would be a more complete picture of the ideas circulating towards the end of the 19th century and among whom. The rebellion against psychologism, the lineage of Frege and Husserl, the positivism and vulgar evooutionism, social physics and social darwinism, revolutions in mathematics and logic, the influence of Nietzsche, the distillation of an intellectual entity known as Marxism, the birth of modern sociology and social theory (Weber, Durkheim, Simmel, etc.), traditions passed through Dilthey, neo-Kantianism, etc. etc. There was a lot going on, but there is also a fragmentation of knowledge to consider, a fragmentation that has yet to be overcome. Even "Marxism" remains fragmentation; I doubt there is a single person around with an intimate familiarity with all the schools of thought that marxism has generated or fused with. Now if only I could find a copy of THE POSITIVIST DISPUTE IN GERMAN SOCIOLOGY. -----Original Message----- >From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Mar 18, 2008 8:50 AM >To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu >Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Iyenkov on Hegel > > > >>>> CeJ > >Engels and later Lenin (and Lenin had real revolutionary practices to >get a grip on) end up with their materialist drawers tied into >idealist knots dealing with Marx's conception of 'materialism' >vis-a-vis the physical sciences. > >^^^^ >CB: If you are more specific we can argue this. It's been argued on >Marxism-Thaxis before. > >^^^^ > > Lukacs and Korsch address the issue >without having read Lenin by the time they did their work. > >^^^^ >CB: That's a bit of a shortcoming. > >^^^ > > > Althusser, >at least in the translations I have had to work with, is not a >pleasant read, but he is a thorough-going thinker in a philosophical >sense. > >Part of Marx's 'obscurity' on the issue for people who come at >philosophy and social thought with a naive positivism and an almost >blank-slate pragmatism is Marx's own fault and the fault of >circumstances. He wasn't paid to be an academic -- a philosophical >scientist in the way Hegel or Schopenhauer were. Much of the time Marx >writes like a literary gentleman displaying his wide literary learning >to widely learned literary gentlemen of his era. He eschewed >'philosophy' as the concern of the metaphysicians, even though his >thought contains ontological and epistemological positions (for >example, that 'reflection' view of mind and the material world). > >It would be hard to say he created a whole new approach to the social >sciences and economics, UNLESS you can understand and appreciate the >continental traditions (some of them not strictly philosophical, >though they take 'philosophy of science' type positions on their >'science') that use him as one of their main starting points. > >^^^^^^^ >CB: Most people don't find it hard to say. A lot of people say he sort >of invented social science. > >^^^ > >Part of the difficulty would be his materialism is not intuitive and >in a series of steps over time developed out of Hegel, the guy who had >been condemned as metaphysical nonsense ( dismissed by Feuerbach, >condemned by Schopenhauer). > >^^^^ >CB: Schopenhauer is not a materialist. > >^^^^^ > >Marx's unintuitive materialism doesn't equate to someone like Hobbes >(though Dilthey is an interesting point of contact, for example see >Dilthey on Hegel's idealism). Nor does it anticipate or give rise to >functionalism, physicalism and behaviourism (outside the Soviet Union) >so much as it helps give rise to and integrates with the 'ideational' >and 'textual' concerns of the continental traditions in formal, >psychological and social sciences. Why do you think Popper put Hegel >and Marx together in his attack on 'pseudo-sciences' that lead to >'totalitarianism'? >^^^^^^^ >CB: Cause he was doing anti-communist/anti-Soviet hack work . > >^^^^^^^ > > >But Marx was a mere footnote in many approaches to >political economy and sociology long before Popper ever got around to >him. > > > >CJ > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
