One of my frequent scourings of SF used bookstores in the 1970's
produced this set of volumes, still sitting on my bookshelves. I am
glad to see it available on line. I hadn't looked at the Lichtheim
article before, or at least, don't remember it making any impression
on me. It covers a number of ideological trends generated by Karl
Marx, describing two in the passage that Jim quotes below, but does
not seem to give credit to the one that I subscribe to - that Marx,
Engels and Lenin were following the same essential philosophy and
methodology, that there is a core continuity between these
revolutionaries and others (I would include, for example, Trotsky and
Guevara) that can be continued in our time.
- Steve
At 02:47 PM 7/2/2005 -0400, Jim Farmelant wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:41:51 -0400 Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you think of this encyclopedia entry by George Lichtheim:
>
> HISTORICAL AND DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
> Dictionary of the History of Ideas
>
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/ot2www-dhi?specfile=/texts/english/dhi/dhi.o2w&act=text&offset=8277756&query=holism&tag=HISTORICAL+AND+DIALECTICAL+MATERIALISM
>
> I think it's pretty good, though I think a number of additions and
> qualifications are needed.
>
In the last part of the article, Lichtheim wrote:
"In purely philosophical terms, the difference be-
tween Engels' ontological, or metaphysical, materi-
alism, and the doctrine of Plekhanov and Lenin is not
without interest. Plekhanov, and following him Lenin,
eliminated from the concept of "dialectical materi-
alism" the ontological notion of "matter" as an absolute
substance or constituent element of the universe. In
its place they introduced the rather more common
sensible use of "matter" as a logical concept signifying
little more than the externality of the world for the
reflective consciousness. In other words, they substi-
tuted for Engels' metaphysical monism an ordinary
epistemological realism which at least had the advan-
tage of being compatible with the procedure of the
natural sciences. The locus classicus of this trans-
formation (which was never described as such) is
Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1909), a
work which after 1917 obtained canonical status in the
USSR and for the Marxist-Leninist school generally.
Unfortunately, the philosophers of this school have
simultaneously had to cope with Engels' own quite
different (because fundamentally metaphysical) under-
standing of the term "materialism," as well as with
Lenin's quasi-Hegelian logical speculations in his
Notebooks of 1915-16. The resulting conflicts and con-
tradictions have furnished material for exhaustive logi-
cal tournaments among philosophers in Eastern
Europe, without for that reason bringing any nearer
that fusion of dialectical logic with positive science
which remains the stated aim of the Marxist-Leninist
school. Insofar as the gradual change in the intellectual
atmosphere since the late 1950's has encouraged
greater independence of thought in the Soviet sphere,
there has been a tendency for two "revisionist" trends
to crystallize outside the official orthodoxy: existential-
ist humanism, oriented on the writings of the young
Marx, on the one hand, positivist scientism and em-
piricism on the other. In countering these trends, the
official dogmatism of the Leninist school, while retain-
ing its function as an integrative ideology or Weltan-
schauung for the benefit of the Communist party,
appears to have been placed on the defensive; a posi-
tion from which it is unlikely to emerge."
That's pretty much my understanding as to how things
evolved in eastern European Marxist philosophy, where
Marxism tended to evolve either in the direction
of a humanism influenced by phenomenology
(which was already very popular in eastern Europe)
and existentialism, or it evolved in the direction of
positivism. You might recall that back in May
when we were discussing the logical empiricists
and the Vienna Circle, I noted that Philipp
Frank in his *Modern Science and Its Philosophy*
made observations, not unlike the ones that
Litcheim made here in his article. Frank thought that
Lenin had, in his *Materialism and Empiriocriticism*,
overstated his differences with the Machists.
And Frank noted the existence of different tendencies
within Soviet Marxism, some which he observed
tended strongly towards positivism, while other
tendencies tended towards Hegelian idealism.
Frank, himself, called for an alliance between
logical empiricism and dialectical materialism,
a kind of Popular Front in the realm of philosophy.
_______________________________________________
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
