Yesterday I mentioned the Berliner Instituts für kritische Theorie (InkriT) . . . http://www.inkrit.de/
and its project the Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism (HCDM), particularly its . . . <http://www.inkrit.de/hkwm-int/index-EN.htm>Section in English and various free downloadable articles. Now I wish to call your attention to one article: <http://www.inkrit.de/hkwm-int/aritcles/Dialectics.pdf>Dialectics (Wolfgang Fritz Haug) This article reveals this reference source to take a definite point of view rather than remain neutral, i.e. to reclaim Marxism from the Soviet debacle, in theory as well as in practice. Whether this particular effort is Germanocentric, in spite of its citation of literature from a panoply of languages and nations, I can't be sure, but there are East and West German authors cited that probably weigh more heavily in Haug's neck of the woods than they do in the English-speaking world, even among Communist parties. But this is not a complaint, it's a question of how various authors orient themselves in struggling with their intellectual heritage. I draw some inferences in what I take historical-critical to be in practice. Haug the evolution of a key concept, its different interpretations and mutual criticism of authors, and draws his own conclusions. I consider this legitimate as far as it goes, but I am not entirely happy with the result of such a detailed presentation, because in the end it, aside from lack of comprehensiveness in covering such an enormous topic, the underlying logical issues behind both the standard dialectical materialist formulations from Engels on and all the different approaches to dialectics remain underanalyzed. While the difficulties in extracting Marx's approach to dialectics from his scattered cryptic statements are explored, both Marx's epistemology and the dialectics of the critique of political economy remain under-discussed. By contrast, Roy Bhaskar's tripartite classification of dialectics in the first edition of A Dictionary of Marxist Thought at least delineates a typology of dialectic to be dissected. Haug's conclusion is a case in point of my issue: Dialectics would therefore be relevant for an orientation which combines agility and wisdom; although it does not give up its secrets in a methodological formulation, it would nevertheless be relevant as method in an elementary sense, understood as heuristics [Findekunst]. Both functions are connected to a conception of the world which allows a contradictory, moving context to be thought. Perhaps it is not too bold, in a Brechtian sense, to define the Sage as the quintessential location in which such dialectics may be observed (Benjamin, qtd in Ruoff 1976, 39). The ability to practise dialectics is, finally, an art. Being a dialectician means having the wind of history in ones sails. The sails are the concepts. It is not enough, however, to have sails at ones disposal. What is decisive is knowing the art of setting them (Benjamin, 473). This is much too vague, even as a characterization of a heuristic. I could construct a typology of dialectic on the fly, and also provide a capsule description of the fundamental logical lapses in Engels' formulations, which I do not see in this article. (TO BE CONTINUED) _ _______________________________________________ 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
