M-TH: Re: Smith and Cuckson on Lenin philosophy
G'day Hugh, I see Robert Service's new biography of Lenin is, whilst much more generous and sublte than, say, Pipes's hatchet job, also pretty damning of Lenin's philosophying. Reckons he was nothing special as a theorist. That said, when Lenin got to apply his book-learning to reality, reality was cruelly unobliging. Service reckons he was very happy in that role - but as far as I'm concerned, it would have taken a strange customer indeed to enjoy the shape of things after 1919 ... Anyway, coming from the Fromm/Jakubowski/Lefebvre side of the argument, I am naturally quite comfy with the Smith and Cuckson piece. I do reckon there's too much of the 2I in Lenin, too much the denier of 'the sociality of practice', too physicalist the diamatist, too much the natural scientist in his approach to his species being, too much the demagogic saviour, and, ultimately, the paver of the road to hell (down which Stalinism and robber-baron capitalism were ultimately to march, alas). For mine, there is no more reason to jettison the whole Lenin corpus than there is to burn all our Kautsky (the 2I was buggered philosophically, but the beauty of one-sidedness is you do get an awful lot of good stuff on that particular side) - there are great insights aplenty left in both (and, as SC remind us, ol' Plekhanov) - and maybe Smith and Cuckson are being so urgently peremptory because they feel the need to pre-empt the inevitably big splash Service's book'll make - but I hope we focus on the categories SC make salient, rather than do that old "Lenin was Marx in practice!" / "No he wasn't!" quote-mongering dance, again. We've an archive choc-full of that stuff already, I reckon. Your starter for five, Hugh! Rob. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Smith and Cuckson on Lenin philosophy
Gidday to you too, my slippery eel! You write: I hope we focus on the categories SC make salient, but fail to tell us just what these might be... rather than do that old "Lenin was Marx in practice!" "No he wasn't!" quote-mongering dance, again. We've an archive choc-full of that stuff already, I reckon. Isn't (hem) practice quite a central category in this connection, O wriggly one? Made salient by (hem) Marx, and (in respect of the Absolute Spirit) dead dog Hegel himself? Your starter for five, Hugh! You blinked when you tried to pre-empt the practice argument, Rob! Obviously smelling a weak spot or two in S C... So I'll double that! Hugh PS And please, Rob, don't make quoting as such an issue, there's a good lad! Let's relate to the, how-shall-we-put-it, saliency of any quotes given, rather than doing the old "All you can do is quote!" vs "Where's your proof, then?" dance again. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Re: Smith and Cuckson on Lenin philosophy
G'day again, A quickie before bed ... Gidday to you too, my slippery eel! Fair go! You've been known to daub yourself with the Johnson's Baby Oil, yourself, Hugh! I hope we focus on the categories SC make salient, but fail to tell us just what these might be... Er, SC make 'em SALIENT. Stuff like the nature of freedom, the (gulp) diamat/histomat stoush, the humanism/antihumanism (and what kinda humanism) set-to, the posited gap between 'What is to be Done' and the aforementioned list, the spectre of crude physicalism, and contending interpretations of, say, 'Towards a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right' - leading to the question that, I submit, sumsumes lots of the above: *exactly* what did Marx mean when he claimed he turned Hegel upside down? You blinked when you tried to pre-empt the practice argument, Rob! That wasn't a blink - I was just proffering the white piece. Well mannered chap, me. Obviously smelling a weak spot or two in S C... So I'll double that! Yeah, it's a short piece which tries desperately to get an awful lot of self-distancing in. That'd make for a couple of fissures big enough for the odd imaginative Leninist to slip through. But I'm of the opinion Smith knows his Hegel (he wrote a lovely book which fellow Progressive Labour Partier Andy Blunden has on his beaut site), and Lenin was still saying right up to 1921 that he was having trouble getting his head 'round Hegel, and wasn't sure how to teach it to the comrades - poignantly honest and, as SC note, productive of some late shifting of ground. PS And please, Rob, don't make quoting as such an issue, there's a good lad! Let's relate to the, how-shall-we-put-it, saliency of any quotes given, rather than doing the old "All you can do is quote!" vs "Where's your proof, then?" dance again. Whatever. I honestly just want to see you take on this (and everybody else's, natch). I reckon you'd find more wrong with it than I would, after all. Hope there's something redly indignant here when I crawl out of the cot! Best to all, Rob. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
