Of course, the SU's sciences and math was not without errors,etc. In fact , trial and error as a process of the development of anything, including science, is what Marxism expects. This is some of that same rhetoric and ideology, Marxist rhetoric and ideology , that you refer to below. It comes from Marx, not just Engels. I'm sure you are familiar with the Theses on Feuerbach, 2nd Thesis especially. The emphasis on unity of theory and practice comes from Marx. Marx intends this unity of theory and practice, including practice as the test of theory to be a distinguishing characteristic of Marxist epistemology /theory of knowledge from bourgeois epistemology.
The errors of the SU and Stalinism in executing Marxism are well within the margin ( or wide, wide column) of error we would expect for non-geniuses in trying to practice Marxism. If you are not prepared for regular, crude people to make this level of error in trying to "do" Marxism, you are not ready for Marxism to really change the world, which is to say you are not ready for Marxism as Marx taught it. I don't quite agree with you that all that has gone on in bourgeois natural science, mathematics etc. has been good for humanity, and therefore I don't agree that it is "the" standard by which Soviet science is to be judged. In many ways, Soviet science is the standard by which bourgeois science is to be judged. The history of bourgeois science, especially in the 20th Century, has not been turning things-in-themselves into things-for-us. A lot of it is effectively and practically making things-against-us. I develop Engels' ideas a bit ( if what I am saying is not already contained in what he says), and I find it not to be a crude philosophical developing on my part :>) By it I develop an extremely stringent moral standard by which scientists are judged, a practicality standard, perhaps stronger than you have thought. It's a results standard. Even Einstein is judged harshly by it. For, to the extent that all this new physics has helped the bourgeoisie in its struggle to prevent socialism, it is not ok, for lack of a less crude term. The development of nuclear weapons is a gigantic step backwards for humanity, and the fact that Soviet science did not initiate it is to Soviet science's credit. In other words, there should be no "pure" pursuit of science that does not take into account the world context of that scientific work, how it will be used in a practical way is not ok. Lysenko is not quite the pariah you suggest. The exploration of possible avenues of LaMarckian evolution is not so anti-science as you suggest, although it contradicts genetics' central dogma of "no inheritance of acquired charateristics", and therefore to discuss it is destabilizing. Of course, Lysenkoism's motive was exactly "pure" theory. Your problem with Lysenkoism has to be that it did not link theory with practice and facts enough, that it was too purely _theoretical_, not subordinating theory to practicality. It was wishful thinking, and insufficient practical test of theory. So, I can argue that my rhetoric actually is on the opposite side of Lysenkoism. You explain the successes of Soviet science by a miracle. Maybe, there is a more material explanation like the negative impact of Stalinism was not quite as heavy as you portray it. That would be a more scientific way to explain the "data" we have on advance of Soviet science. The notion that theoretical science was totally suppressed seems exaggerated. Lysenkoism is a theoretical attitude. The idea is unity of theory and practice, _not_ exclusion of theory. Any claim that Engels is not theoretical is not accurate. Charles Ralph Dumain rdumain at igc.org You are correct about Lenin as well as Marx and Engels. Lenin was careful about communists' overstepping their bounds of competence. However, even during the 1920s, when activity in all areas was quite creative before Stalin's clampdown, certain bad habits got established. I don't recall exactly when interference in the sciences began. There was of course the notorious meddling in Soviet genetics, which resulted in Lysenkoism and severe consequences for Soviet agriculture. But the theory of relativity was also denounced as not conforming to principles of dialectical materialism, which occasioned some mockery from Einstein. (After the Post-Stalin thaw, Einstein was held up as an exemplar of dialectical materialist thought.) Mathematicians also suffered during this period. Kolman testifies to the ineptitude imposed on a number of areas. No, there was no lack of scientific enterprise in the USSR, but it's a miracle that the incompetence and despotism of the leadership didn't sink the whole country completely, ironic in view of the crash program of industrialization which was dubbed "building socialism." It is also important to recognize that the ideological rhetoric used was similar to yours: >This aspect is also interesting because Engels' theory and philosophy of >mathematics is exactly materialist, of course, in contrast with that of >what is probably the theory of most abstract mathematicians, i.e. idealist, >emphasis on derivation outside of practical activities. Business is the >_most_ practical activity. Even physics is less practical. Business is the >most highly math practical activity, in a sense. And yet how impractical the repression of theoretical thought proved to be. Even Bukharin was naive in this area. Some talk he gave to the effect that there was no future for "pure" research got Michael Polanyi so perturbed, he proceeded to develop his own ideas about science. There's a new book on the strange career of Soviet cybernetics I need to get. I know I had some correspondence with Rosser in the '90s, but I can't remember what about. The first of his essays most pertinent to our discussion seems to be; Aspects of Dialectics and Nonlinear Dynamics http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb/DIANONL.DYN.doc At 04:45 PM 3/3/2005 -0500, Charles Brown wrote: >They were probably doing good physics and math all along. Don't think they >suddenly changed course and caught up and passed the rest of the world. >Crude scientists would not have been able to pick up on the atom bomb so >quickly. You know Sputnik and all that. > >Afterall, Marx, Engels and Lenin put a lot of emphasis on science. Stalin >and Stalinists did a lot of following those three to the tee. M,E and L did >not teach establishing an intellectual ghetto, but rather exactly >participating in the "totality of human knowledge." > >The problem with the Soviet Union was _not_ lack of scientific work and >culture. > >However,on cybernetics the word seems to be that they missed the boat on >that , contra what you say below. > >Charles _______________________________________________ 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
