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 <http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/neokantianism_biblio_1.html> 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 Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
