Not recalling this old debate, I can't make much sense of this
argument. I'm guessing this is part of the old Engels-(and
Lenin)-betrayed-Marx debate, which is as absurd as the
Marx-Engels-joined-at-the-hip nonsense such that Marx was the creator
of "dialectical materialism", which was certainly not the case, nor
did he ever scold Engels for his work. Any competent scholar will
recognize the divergences among these thinkers without fetishizing
them or drawing foolish conclusions from them. In any case, it is one
thing to cite what are taken as the classics, and another to actually
do some real thinking with one's philosophical resources.
Unfortunately, the Soviet tradition, spread throughout the world, did
a lot of harm in terms of promoting ill-digested formulaic thinking,
which interfered even with otherwise fine minds, and
squelched Marxism's and the USSR's greatest talents.
At 05:27 PM 1/14/2009, Charles Brown wrote:
>M-TH: Re: dialectical materialism/activist materialism
>Charles Brown
>Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:24:47 -0700
>
>Just to follow up , the error of the claims that Engels and Lenin ,
>etc. deviate from
>Marx's own method into "ideology" is the exact error that Marx
>criticizes in the
>Theses on Feuerbach. What is being termed "ideology" is actually the activist
>component , the "PRACTICAL-critical ACTIVITY" that Marx makes clear
>is HIS method as
>distinguished from other materialists. The historical materialism
>that the some
>others on this thread are describing is contemplative and passive
>like Feuerbach's
>materialism which Marx differentiates himself from on precisely this
>point. This is
>scholastic materialism as Marx mentions in the Second
>Thesis. Marx's historical
>materialism unites theory and practice. More specifically, Marxist
>epistemology
>demands that we come to know by practice (Second Thesis). A
>scholastic approach sees
>this in Engels and Lenin and labels it "ideology", however it
>overlooks that Marx
>himself states it more sharply than Engels or Lenin in the Second
>Thesis on Feuerbach!
>!
>:
>
>"The question whether objective truth can be attrributed to human
>thinking is not a
>question of theory but is a _practical question_. Man must prove the
>truth, i.e. the
>reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice.
>The dispute over
>the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from
>practice is a purely
>_scholastic_ question."
>
>Had Engels or Lenin written this, anti-diamats ( and bourgeois
>academics) would be
>calling it "ideology" and "not-objective".
>
>
>Charles Brown
>
>
>.
> >>> "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/06/99
> >From the Theses on Feuerbach, Marx says that the chief defect of
> all hitherto
> >existing materialism, Feuerbach included, is that it is
> contemplative and not active.
> >Feuerbach critiqued Hegel's idealism and theism, placing objective
> reality as primary
> >to subjective reality, but he treats the process of gaining
> knowledge about that
> >objective reality as if it comes mainly through passive
> contemplation and not
> >practical-critical activity. History is made by active classes, so this
> >contemplative materialism fails to deal with history, the process
> by which things
> >change, or objective reality is changed. Feuerbachian and the
> other materialisms are
> >errors of mechanical or vulgar materialism, treating history like
> a giant clock that
> >mechanically unwinds without human agency. This materialism just
> observes this
> >unwinding without integrating theory and practice, or activism. I
> have a paper on
> >Activist Materialism on this point. Marx's is an activist materialism.
>
>
>Charles: This point connects directly to Engels and Lenin's discussion of the
>epistemology of practice ( _Anti-Duhring_ and _Materialism and
>Empirio-Criticism) and
>Marx's main theme of practical-critical activity and practice as the
>test of theory in
>the Theses on Feuerbach. Engels says exactly that knowing something
>in nature is to
>change it from a thing-in-itself to a thing-for-us. This is the Marxist ( and
>Hegelian) solution to the Kantian problem of the unknowable
>thing-in-itself. Engels
>says we know something when we can make it. The famous example is
>when coal tar is
>turned into alizar. We prove the "this sideedness" ( "for-us") of
>something, Marx
>says, in practice.
>
___
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
