I found two emails from the author of this book, William Drischler. I reproduce them below. I would like to follow up on this abandoned thread.
============================================ To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 23:52:16 +0000 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Adorno & Leibniz June 3, 2006 Comrade Dumain - Have I got the article for you! This is "Das Invividuelle denken. Der vollstaendige Individuenbegriff bei Leibniz u. seine Wieder- aufnahme bei Adorno" (Guido Kreis, Bonn). It's slated to appear in the Conference Bulletin of the World Leibniz Congress in Hanover this July. I'm trying to make it to the Congress to obtain a copy, but the world Leibniz Society also sells them outright. Horkheimer discussed monads too, but not as extensively as Adorno. I'm trying to order the big, new, fat edition of Adorno's lectures from 1962-1963. You're right that the new Leibniz/Spinoza bio is usefull. The author (I don't know how he figured this out) quite appropriately contends Leibniz enjoyed a more or less unilinear increase in political influence, especially after he curried favor with Czar Peter. The biographical legends [A.W. Ward] have it that the philosopher's influence declined after the expiry of the Electoress Sophie in 1714, but Leibniz was already well integrated (to put it mildly) in the secret diplomacy network. The Marxist work on Leibniz leaves plenty of room for improvement. The much-vaunted works of Hans Heinz Holz and Jon Elster say nothing about Russia and secret diplomacy. As I'm sure you know, Marx ran a private Leibniz museum out of his own home in his last years. Some quite intriguing Leibniz memorablia were assembled. WILLIAM FR. DRISCHLER ============================================ Subject: Adorno & Leibniz Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:57:38 +0000 11 June 2006 Comrade Dumain - My apology for not replying to your June 4 e-mail earlier. Quite a breakthough has occured so far as the Marxist critique of Leibniz goes, this with the publication of a new volume by Heinz Duchhardt, 'Europa am Vorabend der Moderne, 1650-1800', and I have been drafting a reply to the author, who was kind enough to provide me a copy of his book after I sent him mine. Duchhardt is the leading academic historian of 17th-century Germany, has criticized the most influential Marxist treatment of early modern state formation (Benno Teschke's 'The Myth of 1648' [2003] and is quite interested in Leibniz biography. In fact p. 134 of 'Europa am Abend' has an ingenious map of Leibniz' major correspondents in Europe and Asia. I'll cc you my letter to Duchhardt as soon as I finish it. But we can review the "breakthrough" passage now. You'll recall in my 'The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the Age of Secret Diplomacy' I wrote that (pp. 21-22): The upshot of Leibniz' political activities - Russification - did not alter the inexhorable sequence of early modern (i.e., modern) state formation: particularization/Protestantization/oppression of Germans first, Eurasianizaton later. Construction of the sluice gate of particularism had to be completed before the effluent of extra-Occidental influence could be channeled into the heartland of Western civilization. This inexhorability of state formation sequence [21] helps explain why Leibniz had to earn his spurs as a split sovereignty theorist before he could move up the secret network, this despite the fact that by 1677 pro-Muscovite factions has already surfaced - after decades of sub rosa activity - in both Amsterdam (Calvinist businessman Nicolaes Witsen's circle) and the City (proto-Whigs around Shaftesbury and Locke such as Shaftesbury's legal counsel John Somers). Adherence to the fractured sovereignty doctrine was the entre billet to the Tatarization game. When I wrote these lines, my surmise was that no one had an inkling that 17th-century Russians and their sub rosa allies were diligently studying the legal structure of German princely particularism with an eye to setting up a "sluice gate" for Russian despotism to enter Europe. Imagine my surprise when I read the following passage from Duchhardt (p. 334): The diplomatic contacts [of 17th-century Muscovites with Europeans - WFD] clearly significantly strengthened knowledge of "Western" societies. Thus it was highly notable that the Moscow Foreign Office by the middle of the 17th century already possessed a highly developed conceptual grasp of the complicated constitutional structure of the German Reich. These findings tend to confirm my assertions that the Muscovites and the Russifying Maritime Powers (England and the Netherlands) were self-consciously studying and promoting German Protestant particularism and that the special expertise concerning the German constitutional structure Leibniz displayed in his political magnum opus of 1677 (exerpted in Riley, 'Leibniz. Political Writings' [Cambridge Press]) played a role in the philosopher's ascendancy in the secret diplomacy network. The best confirmation one could hope for is from a source that does not necessarily share all of one's ideological predispositions. ________________________________________________ On to your specific queries. 1) Marx's Leibniz Museum After the move to Hampstead Heath, Marx set up a Leibniz museum and - for a fee - displayed and lectured on the Leibniz memorabilia he had privately collected. The security structure Old Moor set up was most interesting. Everyone in the world who could pay the fee was welcome - except Germans (!). Visitors from the old country had to provide identification which Marx scrutinized before admitting them. Marx had been so often harassed by Prussian spies - especially after he turned down flat Bismarck's offer for him to join the government - that Germans made up a separate category. Even visitors from Marx's 'most hated nation' - Mother Russia - didn't have to put up with an identification check. As one might expect, there was a touch of the cultic about the late Marx's Leibniz ruminations. The Red Prussian stressed that Leibniz' intellect was broader than anyone's from the beginning of the Christian Era to the 17th century. 2) Hans Heinz Holz and Leibniz Holz' standard work on Leibniz is his 'Leibniz' of 1958 (several later editions). It stresses metaphysics and takes issue with British Empiricist/Anglo-American interpretations of Leibniz such as those developed by Bertrand Russell. Holz also edited several volumes of Leibniz' philosophical writings. There is little political in any of them. Holz' chief political treatment of Leibniz is his intro to the volume 'Leibniz. Politische Schriften' (in two volumes). There is much of value in the intro, but - like a good Bolshevist-Stalinist - Holz systematically evades Leibniz' relation to Russia and the Russo- Asiatic mode of production. Holz' editorial selections in the two volumes are something else again: quite unacceptable. He included nothing from Leibniz' magnum opus of 1677 and one might garner the impression from the collection Leibniz had never met Peter the Great. Since Leibniz' political influence increased steadily with time, the better approach is to stress his writings from 1677 on - but Holz does just the opposite. The Patrick Riley English-language collection of Leibniz' political writings is highly preferable to that of Holz. 3) Jon Elster on Leibniz Elster's volume on Leibniz is 'Leibniz et al formation de l'Espirit de Capitaliste'. I think there is an English translation. Elster writes next to nothing on Leibniz and Russia, so I have little use for it. Patrick Riley thought it was no great shakes either. 4) Adorno volumes Recent Adorno volumes dealing with the individual and philosophy include the 'Vorlesung ueber negative Dialektik' (Vol. 16 of Adorno's posthumous publications) and the 'Zur Lehre von der Geschichte u. von der Freiheit ' (2006). Both run to nearly 500 pp. and there's no reason to expect an English translation soon. I will work up a list of specific references to Leibniz on Adorno's part (and on the part of Horkheimer as well). But I am above all looking forward to next month's paper on Leibniz and Adorno at the World Leibniz Conference in Hanover. I realize this is quite summary of course, but I hope it was of some use to you. Sincerely, Wm. Fr. Drischler ============================================ At 10:38 AM 2/6/2010, Ralph Dumain wrote: >This appears to be a Marxist work. It also appears that the author >himself made an appearance on marxism-thaxis in 2006. I'll have to >check into the archive and see what became of this thread. I also >have to put this book on my want list. > >The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the Age of Secret Diplomacy > By William Drischler >BookSurge, LLC, 2005 >ISBN141961844X, 9781419618444 >Length 84 pages >http://www.amazon.com/Political-Biography-Leibniz-Secret-Diplomacy/dp/141961844X > > > >A political biography of the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm >Leibniz. Covers the Young Leibniz (1667-1676), the middle of Hanover >Leibniz (1676-1694)and the late or Russo-Leibniz (1694-1716). > >============================================ > >The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in > The Age of Secret Diplomacy > >Early Modern State Formation, 17th-Century Political >Discourse and Modern Political Biography Reconsidered > > William Fr. Drischler > >============================================ > > >ISBN No. 1-4196-1844-X > >============================================ > > >CONTENTS > >Praefatio >ABSTRACT > > Part I. Introduction. Topicality of Leibniz Biography as a Whole > > Revolution A: The Old Political Biography > > Leibniz as de facto Head of State: Pinnacle-Level > Diplomatic Interventionism in the Sir Roland Gwynne > Affair in London > Leibniz as East-West Influence Broker: The Net Inflow/ > Net Outflow Problem in the Relation of Russo-Asia > to the West > Leibniz as Unsullied Revolutionary Modernist: > The Destruction of European Cultural Autonomy > as a Revolutionary Act > > Revolution B: Early Modern State Formation > > Revolution C: The Denouement of > 17th-Century Political Theory. Leibniz' Dethronement of Hobbes > > Part II. An Overview of the Three Stages > of Leibniz' Political Biography > Stage III - The Russo-Leibniz: Russification of Europe, > Eurasianization of the World. The Consolidation of the > Ango-Russian Secret Diplomacy State, 1694-1716 > Stage II - The Middle Leibniz: Constructing the Hanover > Pivot, 1676-1694 > Stage I - The Young Leibniz. The Intrepid Rheinbundler > Slowly Wise, 1667-1676 > > Part III. Some Conclusions on the Political Biography > of the Young Leibniz, 1667-1676 > >Appendix: Schema of Leibniz' Political Biography > >Appendix: Early Modern State Formation without Witsen >and Secret Diplomacy? A Comment on Phillip S. Gorski's >'The Disciplinary Revolution' > >============================================= > >BACK COVER COPY > > >William Fr. Drischler's 'The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the >Age of Secret Diplomacy' attempts significant revisions in three areas of >political analysis at once. In political biography the conventional wisdom >(common to Leibniz specialists and diplomatic historians alike) that the >gout-ridden philosopher was strictly subordinate to heads of state such >as George I of Hanover comes in for criticism; the little-known G.W. v. >Schuetz affair of 1714 - wherein Leibniz went over the head of the >incoming King of England and entered into an alliance with the >Electoress Mother of Hanover and "Junto Whig" Lords Somers and >Wharton to intervene in succession deliberations at the London >Court of Queen Anne - reveals Leibniz interacting with heads of >state as a virtual peer. >Also ripe for revolution is the field of Early Modern State Formation, >dominated by the "French paradigm" of a culturally autonomous >West, the indivisibly sovereign nation-state, and the balance of >power concept of international relations. Building on the recent >path-breaking work of Benno Teschke ('The Myth of 1648: Class, >Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations'), >Drischler argues that Leibniz & Co. finished off the French paradigm >by 1715 and that the actual foundation of modern international >relations was the "Anglo-Russian secret diplomacy state" based on >Eurasian cultural melding with Muscovy, promiscuous federalism and >secret hegemony of the federated nation of Russo-England. Not >merely is the claim made that the concept of the sovereign Western >state is a myth; 'The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the >Age of Secret Diplomacy' contends the concept is an ideological >concoction of the Anglo-Russian victors in the Great Northern War, >1700-1721, expressly designed to disguise their deoccidentalizing >regime. However - and appropriately for a work based largely on >Marx's 'Revelations of the Diplomatic History of the 18th Century' - >'The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the Age of Secret >Diplomacy' provides no comfort for contemporary neo-conservative >federalist thought either, since the core assertion of contemporary >federalists - namely that federalism represents a novel and real >alternative to allegedly centralized, sovereign nation-state of >modernity - stands rebutted as well. >With indivisible sovereignty/absolutism theorists such as Thomas >Hobbes stigmatized as losers, Drischler calls for a new history of >17th-century political discourse stressing the German federalist >(German particularist) winners such as Leibniz, Dietrich Reinkingk and >V. Ludwig v. Seckendorff. Also of considerable interest is the >identification of Leibniz collaborator Nicolaes Witsen of Amsterdam >(1641-1717) as Russification kingpin of Europe during the forging >of the modern state, as well as the unprecedented identification >of John Locke as a Russification agent for British head of state John, >Baron Somers (Lord Somers). > >'The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the Age of Secret >Diplomacy' should provide controversy for years to come. _______________________________________________ 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