I tried checking the text at leninist.biz, but I found the Plekhanov 
volume impossible to navigate. I wish someone would make this correction 
for me, because I would like to use this quote.

It looks like I already did some preliminary spadework, viz. . . .

Neo-Kantianism, Its History, Influence, and Relation to Socialism: 
Selected Secondary Bibliography 

There I link to 6 articles by Plekhanov on Kantianism. That entire 
period in philosophy, and for decades to come in continental European 
philosophy, was dominated by the Neo-Kantian influence. These debates 
are a small part of the overall picture.

On 12/30/2010 11:14 AM, Ralph Dumain wrote:
> I was thinking of the philosophical backwardness prevalent in the Second
> International. I do like this quote from Plekhanov, however:
>      Strictly speaking, "/partisan science/" is impossible, but,
>      regrettably enough, the existence is highly possible of
>      "/scientists" who are imbued with the spirit of parties and with
>      class selfishness/. When Marxists speak of bourgeois science with
>      contempt, it is "scientists" of that brand that they have in view.
>      It is to such "scientists" that the gentlemen Herr Bernstein has
>      "learnt" so much from belong, /viz./ J. Wolf, Schulze-Gävernitz, and
>      many others. Even if nine-tenths of scientific socialism has been
>      taken from the writings of bourgeois economists, it has not been
>      taken in the way in which Herr Bernstein has borrowed from the
>      Brentanoists and other apologists of capitalism the material he uses
>      to "revise" Marxism. Marx and Engels were able to take a /critical/
>      attitude towards bourgeois scientists, something that Herr Bernstein
>      has been unable or unwilling to do. When he "learns" from them, he
>      simply places himself under their influence and, without noticing
>      the fact, adopts their apologetics.
>      Georgi Plekhanov, *Cant Against Kant, or Herr Bernstein's Will and
>      Testament* (August 1901)
>      http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1901/xx/cant.htm
> There must be a transcription error here: "so much from *belong*":
> doesn't make sense.
> On 12/30/2010 10:49 AM, c b wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Ralph Dumain
>> <rdum...@autodidactproject.org>   wrote:
>>> This is a commonplace analysis of Descartes&   critique of the whole
>>> epistemological tradition that came out of this. However, the disavowal
>>> of scientific realism is childish. Speaking of childish, It's worth
>>> contemplating the symbiosis between Rosa's juvenile Wittgensteinianism
>>> and sectarianism. He differs from Henry Ford in declaring that, not
>>> history, but all philosophy, is bunk. And if this doesn't show you that
>>> the British far left--if that's what he is--is not at the end of its
>>> rope, what does?
>>> Now I'm reminded that I need to take a look at Plekhanov&   see if he's
>>> as bad as I'm told he is.
>> ^^^^^^^
>> CB: Well, Plekhanov opposed the 1917 October insurrection. That's
>> pretty stupid sectarian.
>>> On 12/30/2010 10:10 AM, c b wrote:
>>>> That project was exemplified in Descartes' Meditations, and it laid
>>>> two demands on any account of knowledge and the means to knowledge,
>>>> demands that set the standard and defined the adequacy of any account.
>>>> There had been urgent reasons for making those demands but the reasons
>>>> were historical rather than philosophical and came from the
>>>> individualistic model of humanity that played such a pivotal role in
>>>> the era's project of eliminating feudalism's remnants in thought and
>>>> social institutions, and the project of justifying the conceptions and
>>>> arrangements that were replacing them. That story needs to be
>>>> elaborated, and will get some elaboration in the next chapter. What is
>>>> important here is that those demands have been accepted since without
>>>> serious critique or examination of alternatives.
>>>> The first of the demands, describable as a "democratic" or
>>>> "individualistic' one, was that a method be found that was available
>>>> to each separated individual to apply privately and severally in the
>>>> search for knowledge. The second, relating to the knowledge thus
>>>> found, was that the method would lead all who conscientiously applied
>>>> it to the same, objective and timeless true view of things.
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> CB: This point on "individualistic" method is a good one. This is how
>>>> I define positivism.
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:

Reply via email to