--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgive the many typos in my previous post. I forgot to mention a book that defends a version of Lenin's reflection theory: Ruben, David-Hillel. Marxism and Materialism: A Study in Marxist Theory of Knowledge, new and rev. ed. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press; Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1979. A problem with this sort of literature, and with much of philosophy, is that a lot of energy is expended to review prior material and prove one or two important points, but when it's all done, one has travelled very little distance. This is of some interest from a philosophy of science standpoint and the hassling out of old controversies about Lenin, materialism, etc. But when one is done, one has not gotten very far, and actually, very little of this has anything to do what marxism was for, which is about understanding society (as part of changing it, of course). ^^^^^ CB: Well, lets discuss this point. From Marx and Engels' standpoint, understanding and changing capitalist society must include understanding and changing natural sciences. To build on Engels, who was sublating Kant, Marxists must be involved in the process of changing the knowing of things-in-themselves into the knowing of things-for-us, we the People as a Whole, the whole human species. ^^ I reviewed this book a couple of months ago, but the material is not at hand now. ^^^^^ CB: Will take a look, hopefully ^^^^ However, I did put a couple of interesting excerpts on my web site: David-Hillel Ruben on Materialism & Praxis http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/ruben-dh-1.html I often feel embarrassed about returning to these hackneyed issues time and time again. This stuff has been left behind, but since people haven't learned . . . . One more remark about the essays from the book SCIENCE AND MORALITY (a colleague will soon scan the whole book): as much of an imposture as Soviet Marxism-Leninism was, there were people who labored under it who produced some good work, which either gets lost in the shuffle or buried completely. Some of these folks from the '60s to early '80s had something to say, even of relevance to the sexy concerns of intellectual consumers in the west. Ilyenkov, Lektorsky, and a few others were interested in incorporating subjectivity and praxis into the scientific world picture. So much obligatory garbage is contained in the Soviet literature it takes effort to extract the usable material. Most of the marxist-Leninist rhetoric was refuse; what's worse was when Soviet boot-lickers in the western bourgeois democracies (note publications of Gruner publishing co.) imitated this style of argumentation. I have spent a fair amount of time extracting the usable from the offal. -----Original Message----- >From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain at autodidactproject.org> >Sent: Mar 18, 2008 3:04 PM >To: marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu >Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Iyenkov on Hegel > >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. > _______________________________________________ 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
