Plekhanov, Georgi. "Materialism or Kantianism <http://leninist.biz/en/1976/GPSPW2PP/Materialism.or.Kantianism-I>," in /Selected Philosophical Works/, Vol. II (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), pp. 398-414.
______________. "Materialism Yet Again <http://leninist.biz/en/1976/GPSPW2PP/Materialism.Yet.Again>," in /Selected Philosophical Works/, Vol. II (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), pp. 415-420. Who started this fight, I do not know. Curious so much energy was devoted to generic philosophical issues. Presumably I would have to read more widely to see exactly how this relates to a debate over historical materialism. One can see a precedent for Lenin's later polemics, concerning (1) the battle against phenomenalism, (2) political accusations connected with these philosophical debates. Certainly, the partisans of historical materialism held ground--I don't know else who would have done this at the time--against phenomenalists and dualists, and that is to be applauded. Beyond that, there's the question of what Plekhanov and others may have botched at the same time. ______________. "On Mr. H. Rickert's Book <http://leninist.biz/en/1976/GPSPW3PP/Rickert>" [review of: H. Rickert, /Sciences of Nature and Sciences of Culture/] (1911), in /Selected Philosophical Works/, Vol. III (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), pp. 481-486. Here one sees Plekhanov attacking Rickert's treatment, as well as the dichotomy, of the /Naturwissenschaften/ and the /Geisteswissenschaften/. Plekhanov refutes the reduction of historical materialism to natural-scientific materialism and to economism. He also engages in an argument about Condorcet. Apparently, even Tonnies couldn't take Rickert's distortions. However, after blasting Rickert and his sympathizers, Plekhanove still hasn't specified the exact relationship between the natural and social sciences. Obviously, he sees both a unity and distinction--which was the superior perspective of Marxism--but there remains a question of what the lawfulness of social science consists of. ______________. "On W. Windelband's Book <http://leninist.biz/en/1976/GPSPW3PP/Windelband>" [review of Wilhelm Windelband, /Philosophy in the Spiritual Life of Nineteenth-Century Germany/] (1910), in /Selected Philosophical Works/, Vol. III (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), pp. 419-423. Windelband has recognized that philosophy is a reflection of the state of culture or society, and that the masses have entered history. But . . . Contemporary social life in Western Europe has, in fact, been given a "completely new cast" as a result of the "masses moving forward". But the //author forgot that this onward movement of the popular masses has encountered, and continues to encounter, strong resistance from the upper classes. Once having forgotten this, naturally he also lost sight of the fact that the resistance of the upper classes to the onward movement of the masses was bound to find its reflection in the whole course of Europe's intellectual development, and especially in the history of literature, art and philosophy. Consequently, he has given a quite incorrect interpretation of that preaching of individualism which brought fame to the name of Friedrich Nietzsche. Windelband says: "Thus, we are undergoing a levelling down of historical distinctions, and the establishment of a uniformity of life, about which not one of the previous ages in human history had the faintest notion. But from this there now emerges the grave danger that we shall thereby lose what is most valuable, that which, strictly speaking, first constitutes and at all times constituted culture and history, viz.: the life of personality. The sense of this danger pervades deep down the whole spiritual life of the last decades, and bursts out from time to time with passionate energy. Alongside this outwardly magnificently developing material culture there is growing a fervent need for one's own inner life, and together with the democratising and socialising life of the masses there is springing up an ardent opposition of individuals, their upstriving against suppression by the mass, their primitive striving to disburden their own personality" (pp. 142--43). The question arises: how can "individuals" be suppressed by the "mass" who themselves are suppressed in class-divided capitalist society? It would be a waste of time searching in the book under review for the answer to this inevitable question. Windelband does not want to understand that in so far as modern individualism, which found its most brilliant representative in the person of Friedrich Nietzsche, is a protest against the forward movement of the /mass/, it voices not fear for the rights of /personality/, but fear for /class privileges./ These of course are only snapshots of the ideological tenor of the time. Anyone who wishes to reexamine for the umpteenth time the vicissitudes of 2nd International & Russian Marxism needs to look at the entire movement of ideas in this time frame, and not to remain content with singling out the the philosophical shortcomings of the Marxists of this period. I venture to guess that the failure to articulate the relationship between ontology and epistemology (with a failure to get clearer on epistemology) is a fault line of such argumentation. It's not enough to argue for "monism". Plekhanov was at least perceptive about what the right-wing anxiety over leveling was about. _______________________________________________ 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