Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!

[Steve Gabosch]

On CB's first comment on SOCIO-history, I certainly completely agree, and 
think Ilyenkov would, too.


On CB's second comment, about the subject matter of Marxist psychology, I 
think it is true that a dialectical materialist psychology must begin with 
sociology and social psychology, and the study of the individual must be 
based on sociology and social psychology - and as CB I think implies, 
cannot be developed without it.  But in response to the phrase "For Marxism 
there is only social psychology, no individual psychology separate from 
social psych" I want to add the thought that the task of comprehending the 
individual cannot be *reduced* to the study of social psychology - that the 
individual constitutes a higher "level" or "domain" of complexity and 
requires a study of the laws of development and so forth associated with 
that realm - generalizations and observations that are not identical with 
those of social psychology, and require their own scientific study, 
etc.  An analogy would be the study of chemistry compared with biology.


- Steve




At 12:23 PM 6/10/2005 -0400, you wrote:



>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/05 07:48AM >>>
>
>>from page 283:
>>"A consistently materialist conception of thought, of course, alters the
>>approach to the key problems of logic in a cardinal way, in particular to
>>interpretation of the nature of logical categories.  Marx and Engels
>>established above all that [the] external world was not given to the
>>individual as it was in itself simply and directly in his contemplation,
>>but only in the course of its being altered by man: and that both the
>>contemplating man himself and the world contemplated were products of 
history."




CB: "History" here being critically SOCIO-history, i.e. not just the 
individual doing the logic , but many people.  A key Marxist modification 
of the notion of logic is that it is not the product of an individual 
brain, or the qualities of an individual organ, but the product of many 
people's experiences, including people who are dead at the time the 
particular individual in question is doing the logic. "History" here 
refers to people who "are history", i.e. dead.


Not just practice, but SOCIAL practice. Not just the result of one human's 
interaction and alteration of nature, but of many people's interaction and 
alteration of nature.





>>
>>from page 285:
>>"Psychological analysis of the act of reflexion of the external world in
>>the individual head therefore cannot be the means of developing logic.
>>The individual thinks only insofar as he has already mastered the general
>>(logical) determinations historically moulded before him and completely
>>independently of him. And psychology as a science does not investigate
>>the development of human culture or civilisation, rightly considering it
>>a premise independent of the individual."

CB: "does not" or "does" ?  For Marxism there is only social psychology, 
no individual psychology separate from social psych.





>>
>>from page 286-287:
>>"In labour (production) man makes one object of nature act on another
>>object of the same nature in accordance with their own properties and
>>laws of existence. Marx and Engels showed that the logical forms of man's
>>action were the consequences (reflection) of real laws of human actions
>>on objects, i.e. of practice in all its scope and development, laws that
>>are independent of any thinking. Practice understood materialistically,
>>appeared as a process in whose movement each object involved in it
>>functioned (behaved) in accordance with its own laws, bringing its own
>>form and measure to light in the changes taking place in it."
>
>
>___
>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



___
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


___
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




___
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

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst

[Steve Gabosch]

Hi Victor,

If I am getting your first point, that Bakhurst incorrectly takes "Diamat" 
as serious theory, then you are speaking to what I referred to (perhaps too 
softly) as Bakhurst's "tendency to see Stalinism as a form of 
Bolshevism."   I see this as a grave error.  It sounds like we may have 
agreement on this. Trotsky's discussion of Stalinism's tendency to play 
fast and free with theory, using it for its narrow bureaucratic and 
political needs of the moment, zig-zagging here, there, everywhere, 
transforming Marxism into an obscurantist dogma, and using the consequent 
... manufactured crap ... to justify the work of its massive murder machine 
and other crimes against the world working classes and toiling masses - 
seems very relevant here.  When it comes to either Lenin or Stalin, 
Bakhurst is no revolutionary Marxist, and his philosophical analysis indeed 
suffers.  As I think you are pointing out, he does attempt to treat some of 
the production of the Stalinist apparatus in the ideological department as 
"serious" intellectual  work.  It is not.


I have not read Bakhurst's thoughts on the reactionary writings you 
obviously speak of facetiously.  If your point is to compare Mein Kampf 
etc. with the  "theoretical" work of the Stalinist school of "crap" - 
falsification, dogma and tripe -  I agree with the comparison, and accept 
your point.  This whole category of reactionary writing - fascist, 
Stalinist, etc. - can be considered the product of reactionary Bonapartist 
regimes.  It is the opposite of scientific work.


(BTW I am not offhand remembering Rosenburg, please refresh).

But back to Ilyenkov, I do think Bakhurst, up to a point, grasps and 
explains Ilyenkov's concept of the ideal, as well as certain central ideas 
in Vygotsky's program, in a valuable way.  Debates we have had on Ilyenkov 
seem to center on our interpretation of the concept of the ideal, and what 
ideality actually is (I identify ideality with the general notion of 
meaning).


But I am open to a serious critique of Bakhurst's shortcomings.  His 
liberal/social-democratic view of the relationship of Leninism and 
Stalinism does give me pause.  Perhaps I am being entirely too soft on 
him.  If you like, fire away!


- Steve

PS  Tell us more about your old man!



*
6/8/2005  Victor wrote:

Steve,
Doesn't it make you wonder? A philosopher who regards the Diamat and 
all that utter rubbish as theory to be comparable to the works of Marx, 
Lenin, Deborin and Ilyenkov?  It's Propaganda, certainly, theory, never!


I'll never forget my old man's colourful reaction to Stalin's perceptive 
contribution to linguistics, and he didn't even finish High School!


Do you think D Bakhurst classifies the classic philosophic work, Mein 
Kampf, Rosenburg's brilliant meanderings about race and destiny, and 
Mussolini's masterful contributions to human thought as serious theory?


Oudeyis

- Original Message - From: "Steve Gabosch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx 
and thethinkers he inspired" 

Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 0:36
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!


I continue to enjoy this thread, but will be gone for some days and it 
will probably be a little while after that before I can reengage.  I will 
think about the position Charles and Ralph have taken on the relationship 
of the brain to the origins of humanity.  I think Engels' argument about 
how labor created the human hand applies also to the brain, language 
organs, bipedalism, etc. so I will try to make a case for that.  And I 
have been enjoying the exchanges between Ralph and Victor, especially on 
the issues of the role of practice in science, the nature of scientific 
thought, and the big question, just what is nature - and can humans 
really "know" what nature is in any fundamental ontological sense.  I 
recently read the book by Bakhurst that Victor mentions, and have a 
different take on it.  Briefly put, I disagree with Bakhurst's negative 
assessment of Leninist politics, his tendency to see Stalinism as a form 
of Bolshevism, and his general opinion of dialectics.  But I agree with 
many of his insights into Ilyenkov and Vygotsky.


Oops, got to get packing.  See you all again soon.

- Steve



___
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




___
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




___
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