Hi Victor,
If I am getting your first point, that Bakhurst incorrectly takes "Diamat"
as serious theory, then you are speaking to what I referred to (perhaps too
softly) as Bakhurst's "tendency to see Stalinism as a form of
Bolshevism." I see this as a grave error. It sounds like we may have
agreement on this. Trotsky's discussion of Stalinism's tendency to play
fast and free with theory, using it for its narrow bureaucratic and
political needs of the moment, zig-zagging here, there, everywhere,
transforming Marxism into an obscurantist dogma, and using the consequent
... manufactured crap ... to justify the work of its massive murder machine
and other crimes against the world working classes and toiling masses -
seems very relevant here. When it comes to either Lenin or Stalin,
Bakhurst is no revolutionary Marxist, and his philosophical analysis indeed
suffers. As I think you are pointing out, he does attempt to treat some of
the production of the Stalinist apparatus in the ideological department as
"serious" intellectual work. It is not.
I have not read Bakhurst's thoughts on the reactionary writings you
obviously speak of facetiously. If your point is to compare Mein Kampf
etc. with the "theoretical" work of the Stalinist school of "crap" -
falsification, dogma and tripe - I agree with the comparison, and accept
your point. This whole category of reactionary writing - fascist,
Stalinist, etc. - can be considered the product of reactionary Bonapartist
regimes. It is the opposite of scientific work.
(BTW I am not offhand remembering Rosenburg, please refresh).
But back to Ilyenkov, I do think Bakhurst, up to a point, grasps and
explains Ilyenkov's concept of the ideal, as well as certain central ideas
in Vygotsky's program, in a valuable way. Debates we have had on Ilyenkov
seem to center on our interpretation of the concept of the ideal, and what
ideality actually is (I identify ideality with the general notion of
meaning).
But I am open to a serious critique of Bakhurst's shortcomings. His
liberal/social-democratic view of the relationship of Leninism and
Stalinism does give me pause. Perhaps I am being entirely too soft on
him. If you like, fire away!
- Steve
PS Tell us more about your old man!
<end>
*****************************
6/8/2005 Victor wrote:
Steve,
Doesn't it make you wonder? A philosopher who regards the Diamat and
all that utter rubbish as theory to be comparable to the works of Marx,
Lenin, Deborin and Ilyenkov? It's Propaganda, certainly, theory, never!
I'll never forget my old man's colourful reaction to Stalin's perceptive
contribution to linguistics, and he didn't even finish High School!
Do you think D Bakhurst classifies the classic philosophic work, Mein
Kampf, Rosenburg's brilliant meanderings about race and destiny, and
Mussolini's masterful contributions to human thought as serious theory?
Oudeyis
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Gabosch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx
and thethinkers he inspired" <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 0:36
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
I continue to enjoy this thread, but will be gone for some days and it
will probably be a little while after that before I can reengage. I will
think about the position Charles and Ralph have taken on the relationship
of the brain to the origins of humanity. I think Engels' argument about
how labor created the human hand applies also to the brain, language
organs, bipedalism, etc. so I will try to make a case for that. And I
have been enjoying the exchanges between Ralph and Victor, especially on
the issues of the role of practice in science, the nature of scientific
thought, and the big question, just what is nature - and can humans
really "know" what nature is in any fundamental ontological sense. I
recently read the book by Bakhurst that Victor mentions, and have a
different take on it. Briefly put, I disagree with Bakhurst's negative
assessment of Leninist politics, his tendency to see Stalinism as a form
of Bolshevism, and his general opinion of dialectics. But I agree with
many of his insights into Ilyenkov and Vygotsky.
Oops, got to get packing. See you all again soon.
- Steve
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
