At 11:44 04/08/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Gramsci did not oppose the dialectical method. Gramsci is consistent with
>Marx in arguing that historical materialism is scientific historiography.
>Gramsci's work is the closest I have found to a continuation of Marx's
>project. The Soviet philosopher is the most removed from Marxian premises
>and methods. Marxism divides roughly into two camps: (1) those who follow
>Marx and (2) those who follow Engels.
>
>Andy
This battle has gone over very many rounds on marxism-thaxis and elsewhere.
Anrew Austin prefers to see "the dialectic" as the process of historical
materialism.
There is simply no meeting of minds, no dialogue, and no dialectic on the
possibility of dialectics being relevant for the non-human world.
Andrew's underlying reasons for this dogmatic position and for his
determined attempt to separate Marx and Engels, are unclear to me, but it
may be about being ridiculed in academic departments or it may be about a
fundamentally reformist approach to politics.
Andrew's arguments consist of thinking it is "incredible" that anyone
should think that dialectics applies to anything so mundane as ice, as well
as to revolution.
There is very slight common ground that the transformation of quantity into
quality is fairly common in the natural world. But those who side with
Andrew say that has absolutely nothing to do at all with dialectics. It is
just quantity transforming itself into quality.
Further discussion on dialectical materialism is useless. It is only worth
clarifying the lines of demarcation across which both sides have difficulty
recognising or respecting the other.
Chris Burford
London
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
