It's my understanding that the later Korsch was rather sympathetic towards logical positivism as indicated in the piece from his *Lenin as Philosopher*. I would speculate that he was perhaps influenced in this regard by his friend, Sidney Hook. Hook and Korsch were friends ever since Hook met up with him, while pursuing postdoc studies in central Europe. There he attended lectures by Korsch, and those along with his reading of Lukacs' *History and Class Consciousness*, profoundly shaped the young SIdney Hook's take on Marxism. This understanding of Marxism was reflected in Hook's *Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx*. http://www.crimsonbird.com/history/hook.htm
Hook, a little later on would take an interest in the work that was being done by members of the Vienna Circle concerning logical positivism, especially the work of Otto Neurath. When Neurath visited the US in the late 1930s, Hook was one of his hosts, and Neurath's linkage of the positvists' distinction between science and metaphysics and the Marxist distinction between science and ideology, influenced Hook. Perhaps Hook influence Korsch along these lines as well, I don't know. Perhaps, Justin would know. Jim F. On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:31:28 -0400 Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Very interesting. It is difficult to judge Korsch, Pennekoek, or > Lenin > from these fragments alone. A more detailed study of all three is > indicated, I see. Just a few hurried notes on the Korsch piece. > > >He never conceived of the difference between the "historical > materialism" > >of Marx and the "previous forms of materialism" as an unbreachable > >opposition arising from a real conflict of classes. He conceived it > rather > >as a more or less radical expression of one continuous > revolutionary > >movement. Thus Lenin's "materialistic" criticism of Mach and the > Machians, > >according to Pannekoek, failed even in its purely theoretical > purpose > >mainly because Lenin attacked the later attempts of bourgeois > naturalistic > >materialism not from the viewpoint of the historical materialism of > the > >fully developed proletarian class, but from a proceeding and > >scientifically less developed phase of bourgeois materialism. > > There is an obscurity here in delineating the precise relationship > between > the development of materialism and class conflict. > > >He fully acknowledges the tactical necessity, under the conditions > in > >pre-revolutionary Czarist Russia, of Lenin's relentless fight > against the > >left bolshevik, Bogdanov, and other more or less outspoken > followers of > >Mach's ideas who in spite of their good revolutionary intentions > actually > >jeopardised the unity and weakened the proven revolutionary energy > of the > >Marxist party by a revision of its "monolithic" materialistic > ideology. > > Korsch cites Pannekoek's view, which seems from an intellectual > standpoint > lacking in integrity, and then disagrees with it politically: > > >In fact, Pannekoek goes somewhat further in his positive > appreciation of > >Lenin's philosophical tactics of 1908 than seems justified to this > writer > >even in a retrospective analysis of the past. If he had > investigated, in > >his critical revision of Lenin's anti-Machist fight, the tendencies > > >represented by the Russian Machists as well as those of their > German > >rnasters he might have been warned against the unimpeachable > correctness > >of Lenin's attitude in the ideological struggles of 1908 by a later > > >occurrence. When Lenin, after 1908, was through with the Machist > >opposition which had arisen within the central committee of the > Bolshevik > >party itself, he regarded that whole incident as closed. > > Then a recitation of the sins perpetrated later by other Leninists > in > comdemning Bogdanov, which are redolent of Stalinist rhetoric. The > description of Bogdanov's philosophical position is no more > edifying. Korsch laments Lenin's attack against positivism as a > development of materialism. Furthermore, he judges it to be > opportunistic: > > >This fallacy is that the militant character of a revolutionary > materialist > >theory can and must be maintained against the weakening influences > of > >other apparently hostile theoretical tendencies by any means to the > > >exclusion of modifications made imperative by further scientific > criticism > >and research. This fallacious conception caused Lenin to evade > discussion > >on their merits of such new scientific concepts and theories that > in his > >judgement jeopardised the proved fighting value of that > revolutionary > >(though not necessarily proletarian revolutionary) materialist > philosophy > >that his Marxist party had adopted, less from Marx and Engels than > from > >their philosophical teachers, the bourgeois materialists from > Holbach to > >Feuerbach and their idealistic antagonist, the dialectical > philosopher > >Hegel. Rather he stuck to his guns, preferring the immediate > practical > >utility of a given ideology to its theoretical truth in a changing > world. > >This doctrinaire attitude, by the way, runs parallel to Lenin's > political > >practice. > > Indeed, such instrumentalism is fallacious, but is this a correct > portrayal > of Lenin's attitude towards scientific developments? I would add > that one > of the problems with the Marxist tradition is the general problem of > the > uneven development of science with respect to philosophy. A person > that > knows only one of these is generally ill-equipped to tackle the > other. The > moment Marxism was established institutionally as a body of thought, > > largely in the hands of the German Social Democrats, this problem > was > created, not by them specifically, but by the overall social > fragmentation > responsible for the fragmentation of intellectual trends. Further, > the > problem of uneven development was exacerbated by the importation of > Marxism > into backward Russia. > > I am puzzled by the following argument: > > >It is a long way from Lenin's violent philosophical attack on Mach > and > >Avenarius's "idealistic" positivism and empiriocriticism to that > refined > >scientific criticism of the latest developments within the > positivist camp > >which was published in 1938 in the extremely cultured periodical of > the > >English Communist party.[8] Yet there is underlying this critical > attack > >on the most progressive form of modern positivistic thought the > same old > >Leninist fallacy. The critic carefully avoids committing himself to > any > >school of philosophical thought. He would most likely agree with > Ludwig > >Wittgenstein who in his final phase dealt with all philosophy as a > curable > >disease rather than a series of problems. Yet he bases his whole > argument > >against modern positivism on the assumption that the vigorous fight > waged > >by the old militant positivism against all philosophy was founded > on the > >very fact that this old positivism had started from a distinctly > >philosophical creed itself. When therefore the latest and in some > respects > >most scientific school of the modern "Logical Positivists" as > represented > >by R. Carnap recently withdrew temporarily from the "philosophical" > > >attempt of constructing "one homogeneous system of laws for the > whole of > >science," and instead concentrated on the more modest task of > establishing > >a "unity of the language of all science"[9] it would follow from > the > >argument brought forward by their pseudo-Leninist critic that by > the same > >process by which they abandon their former philosophical basis they > must > >necessarily weaken also the crusading ardour of their former > >anti-philosophical fight. "The positivist who disturbed every > >philosophical backwater with rude cries of nonsense," says the > critics, > >"is now reduced to saying, in the mildest and most inoffensive > manner, > >nonsense is my language". It is easy to see that this argument can > be used > >in a twofold manner, as a theoretical attack against the confusion > between > >philosophy and science underlying the earlier phases of positivism, > and as > >a practical justification for keeping up that philosophical basis > in spite > >of the belated discovery of its scientific unsoundness. However, > the whole > >argument is not founded on any sound logical or empirical > reasoning. There > >is no need either for the modern bourgeois scientist or for the > Marxist to > >stick to an obsolete (positivistic or materialistic) "philosophy" > for the > >purpose of preserving his full and unbroken "militancy" in the > fight > >against that necessarily in all its forms "idealistic" system of > ideas > >which during the last century under the name of "philosophy" has > widely > >(though not completely) replaced medieval religious faith in the > ideology > >of modern society. > > What exactly is Korsch asserting here? > > >Pannekoek, although not fully abandoning the belief in the need of > a > >"Marxist philosophy" for the revolutionary struggle of the modern > >proletarian class, is aware of the fact that present-day Leninist > >"materialism" is absolutely unfit to serve this purpose. It is > rather a > >suitable ideological base of that no longer essentially > anti-capitalistic > >but only "anti-reactionary" and "anti-fascist" movement which has > recently > >been inaugurated by the Communist parties all over the world under > the new > >slogans of a "People's Front" or in some cases even of a "National > Front." > > Natural-scientific materialism may be the basis for a proper world > view, > even a vaguely or liberal progressive one, but in an by itself how > could it > possibly constitute a philosophical basis for revolutionary > proletarian > struggle? The nature of its unfitness needs to be specified. > > >This present-day Leninist ideology of the Communist parties which > in > >principle conforms to the traditional ideology of the old Social > >Democratic party does no longer express any particular aims of the > >proletarian class. According to Pannekoek, it is rather a natural > >expression of the aims of the new class of the intelligentsia i.e., > an > >ideology which the various strata belonging to this so-called new > class > >would be likely to adopt as soon as they were freed from the > ideological > >influence of the decaying bourgeoisie. Translated into > philosophical > >terms, this means that the "new materialism" of Lenin is the great > >instrument which is now used by the Communist parties in the > attempt to > >separate an important section of the bourgeoisie from the > traditional > >religion and idealistic philosophies upheld by the upper and > hitherto > >ruling strata of the bourgeois class, and to win them over to that > system > >of state capitalistic planning of industry which for the workers > means > >just another form of slavery and exploitation. This, according to > >Pannekoek, is the true political significance of Lenin's > materialistic > >philosophy. > > This was exactly the position of the Johnson-Forest Tendency in > STATE > CAPITALISM AND WORLD REVOLUTION, except that Lenin was exempted from > this > accusation. In her later work, Raya Dunayevskaya canonized Lenin's > Conspectus on Hegel while decrying MAEC. CLR James never made this > latter > move, but other writings indicate his indifference to dialectics of > nature > and criticism of Trotsky's crudity. I like the original JFT > argument, > which you can now find in the MIA archive: > > http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1950/08/state-capitalism. htm > > My problem is that these _specific_ critiques of Lenin (i.e. not > referring > to the work of Pannekoek or Korsch as a whole) don't completely > articulate > the issues for me. > > At 01:09 PM 5/26/2005 -0400, Jim Farmelant wrote: > >Karl Korsch wrote a response to Pannekoek in his > >*Lenin as Philosopher*. See: > >http://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1938/lenin-philosophy.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
