Steve
On Alfred Rosenberg: (Born January 12, 1893- Executed October 16, 1946)
Alfred Rosenberg was a Nazi ideologist and politician.
Rosenberg was one of the earliest members of the German Workers Party
(later better known as the NSDAP or the Nazi Party), joining in January
1919; Hitler did not join until October 1919
Rosenberg became editor of the Völkischer Beobachter (National
Observer),
the Nazi party newspaper, in 1921. In 1923 after the failed Beer Hall
Putsch, Hitler appointed Rosenberg leader of the Nazi Party, a position the
latter occupied until Hitler was released from prison.
In 1929, Rosenberg founded the Militant League for German Culture. He
became
a Reichstag deputy in 1930 and published his book on racial theory The Myth
of the Twentieth Century (Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts). He was named
leader of the foreign political office of the NSDAP in 1933 but played
little actual part in office. In January 1934 he was deputized by Hitler
with responsibility for the spiritual and philosophical education of the
NSDAP and all related organizations.
In 1940 he was made head of the Hohe Schule (literally "high school"),
the
Centre of National Socialistic Ideological and Educational Research.
Following the invasion of the USSR Rosenberg was appointed head of the Reich
Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories. Alfred Meyer was his deputy
and represented him at the Wannsee conference.
Rosenberg was captured by Allied troops at the end of the war. He was
tried
at Nuremberg and found guilty of conspiracy to commit crimes against peace;
planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression; war crimes; and crimes
against humanity. He was sentenced to death and executed with other guilty
co-defendants at Nuremberg on the morning of October 16, 1946. He is
considered the main author of key Nazi ideological screeds, including its
racial theory, Lebensraum, abolition of the Versailles Treaty, and
persecution of the Jews and of Christian churches. This article is about
race as an intraspecies classification.
Just another intellectual grotesque become monster.
--------------------------------------------------------To separate the
beasts from the confused.
About Bakhurst:
Bakhurst is not only a liberal social-democrat, he's also is a
representative of exactly the kind of Logical Positivism, Neo-Kantianism,
Neo-positivism, Machism, Empirio-criticism or what have you (the precise
name of the movement is more a function of the provenience of the theorist
than of his ideas) that motivated Lenin to write Materialism and
Emperio-criticism (1908). The irony of Bakhurst's current stature as the
interpreter of Ilyenkov is that his kind of thinking is receives more
criticism from Ilyenkov than even the objective idealism of Plato and Hegel.
Bakhurst, like D. Dubrovsky who Bakhurst wrongly calls a mechanist, just
cannot comprehend the essence of dialectical synthesis. Where Ilyenkov
describes the essence of ideality as the unity of consciousness (the
subjectively imaged object of labour) and material formations (the material
symbolic representations that embody and thereby enable transmission of
ideal objects), Bakhurst argues that the material objects themselves are
ideal. Material objects certainly acquire significance from their
resemblance (perhaps correspondence is a better word) to the ideal, but
material objects, i.e. physically and sensually perceived objects, as
concrete objects are far to diversified to be regarded as ideal forms.
After all, diversity is a basic property of being for both Hegelian and
Marxist theories of knowledge [check out Hegel's criticism of the identity
of A = A for this].
Dubrovsky, like Bakhurst, does not know how to handle dialectical synthesis,
and his solution of the ideal/material antinomy is to identify the ideal as
pure subjective consciousness. While Bakhurst's identification of the ideal
with the material goes beyond idealist hypostasy and takes idealist
reification to ridiculous extremes, Dubrovsky's restriction of the ideal to
pure subjectivity compels him to regard all conceptualisation as a product
of some internal transcendental features common to all human thought
processes, i.e. a purely subjectivist non-social theory of thought. Both
Bakhurst and Dubrovsky's work are only the most recent examples of the sheer
incapacity of non-dialectical methods of analysis to provide a rational and
practical foundation for a natural science of culture and history.
Dubrovsky's theories are more or less a continuation of Machist
"Marxism" after Bogdanov (See Ilyenkov's Leninist Dialectics and the
Metaphysics of Postivism (1979)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/positive/index.htm for a
digestible summary and analysis of Lenin's interminable work Materialism and
Emperio-criticism) and Bakhunin. Bakhurst's product is simply a mistake, a
wierd and obfuscated representation of one of the most profound and
brilliant of Historical Materialist theoreticians. Too bad.
Oudeyis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Gabosch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:10
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
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 Engel's 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
_______________________________________________
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
