Jim Farmelant : Keep in mind, that Ralph doesn't necessarily think that the Trots or the Maoists have done much better either.
^^^^ CB: Maybe we can get some unity among Stalinists, Trots and Maoists versus Ralph's position. ^^^^^ I think that the problem was that Stalin basically froze philosophical discussion in the Soviet Union. From the time of the October Revolution up to 1931 or so, Soviet philosophical discussions were quite lively, featuring such debates as the one between the Mechanists and the Dialecticians or Deborinists, which I have written about at: www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis> /msg00529 That debate as I recounted was eventually settled by fiat, with Stalin basically imposing a kind of compromise solution that had been worked out by Mitin in which an ontological materialism was affirmed along with the dialectics of nature. Mitin's proposal was by no means completely off the wall, but the settling of philosophical debates by force is not very conducive to fostering sophisticated philosophical debates. And matters were not helped by the fact that Stalin's government put many philosophers into the gulags where they were often never heard from again, although the leaders of both the Dialectician school and the Mechanists managed to survive and live to ripe old ages. Similarly many of the scholars at the Marx-Engels Institute who were responsible for editing and publishing works by Marx and Engels that had not been previously published, such as the 1844 Manuscripts, likewise faced imprisonment and forced labor, at the whim of the regime. The fact that these people did manage to succeed in publishing a complete set of writings by Marx and Engels is a testament to the tenacity. ^^^^^^ CB: I think the issue here is that for Marx ,the thing if for philosophers to change the world, so, and appropriately so, in a Marxist system, philosophy can and should have great influence and power in politics and over the state. How else are philosophers going to change the world except mainly through politics and political economy ? By Marx's life practice we see that he sought to change the world mainly through political economy, not natural science. Study of natural sciences was more of a hobby. His main work, _Capital_ is in political economy. So, Stalin may have been wrong on some political economic policies, but "Marxist theoretically", the state power has to "control" Marxist philosophical development, which is to say philosophical development, especially in a time of enormous challenge to the Marxist state. Again, obviously, those who abhor the substance of Stalin's politics, this doesn't matter, but _philosophically_ , from a Marxist standpoint, the notion of "freedom to philosphize", and therefore criticize very importantly the Soviet state , or that philosophers should have independence in a socialist state in jeopardy in all the ways the Soviet state was, ain't necessarily Marx's philosophical opinion. Those who claim it don't necessarily have Marx's _philosophical_ agreement. So, statements like "philosophy is a philosophy of a class" or of a party or whatever, are not necessarily out of line with Marx's thinking on philosophy and politics. For Marx, philosophy is not so abstract from politics and political economy as for bourgeois philosophy. As to philsophy of science, theory of knowledge, epistemology, etc., briefly, Marxism does make the connection with class issues. For example, physics or perhaps mechanics is a better term here was hyperdeveloped relative to other natual science, like biology, in part because the bourgeoisie were into developing machines. This is in Cornforth and others. The ruling class ideas about what aspect of the natural world they wanted to master ruled the history of development of science. This is as important or more important than Kuhn or Popper's theses on the development of science. Thermodynamics was early developed because the bourgeoisie were putting money into developing the steam engine. The first and second laws of thermodynamics were developed working with steam engines, no perpetual motion machines is 1 and no 100% efficient machine is 2. Of course, later physics gets bourgeois jolts to develop the means of mass destruction. Today , Pentagon grants to univ.s is a very epistemological force. Science for the Peopleism is very Marxist in mixing politics and the direction of scientific research. So the notion that politcal economic _analysis_ by us contaminates science, or that there is no class aspect to epistemology is well argued against in the philosophers like Cornforth etc. How we know things is not independent of what the powerful want to know. ^^^^^^^ Still, as Justin has pointed out even under these adverse conditions, a lot of important work was done in such fields as mathematical logic and the like. And in any case, Ralph certainly seems to think that there was a lot of interesting and important work that was done by Soviet philosophers after Stalin's time, from Ilyenkov on. See Ralph's page at: http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/ussrphil.html > This ain't necessarily so. But as I say, even if he was not a > creative > philosopher, there are extensive texts from Marx, Engels and Lenin > for > crosschecking the texts generated during Stalin's time, and Stalin's > and > Stalinists' stuff is not quite as out to lunch in relation to them > as > anti-Stalinist like to , what is the word, lazily rely on , or > whatever. > Whatever, distortions or problems arise because of Soviet and CP > philosophers disciplining themselves to Stalinism are not so great > as you > make out, and as I say, we have a lot from Marx, Engels and Lenin > directly > to crosscheck. > > > Furthermore, of all the "sophisticated" philosophizing in the 20th > Century, > it's fairly obvious that it has culminated in a state that is not > very > impressive. The logical empiricists, the logical positivists, the > analytical > philosophers, the Russells, the Quines, the Wittgensteins, etc., > etc. And don't forget the phenomenologists, existentialists, postmodernists, psychoanalysts etc. ^^^^^^^^ CB: Certainly. What's it all about, Alfie ? ^^^^^ > What > do we have from them ? Certainly , not anything approaching a > unified or > satisfying "philosophy". There's no consensus or anything like. You > have a > bunch of people who basically admit that their ideas have led to > dead ends. > Oh, but one thing they know is that they can label Soviet > philosophers and > those contaminated by Stalinist diamat as "shit" or "worthless". > That's > about the only thing they seem to know for sure. > > Well, I have to wonder if they or you know so much. How come they > haven't > produced any culminating work or philosophy that even satisfies > them. How > come you can't seem to make any substantive statements on this list > , but > always sort of imply "you all are too stupid for me to say anything > much; > I'll just take potshots and make obscure quips,and maybe you all can > catch a > few crumbs of knowledge as they fall off the table of my banquet of > wisdom." > > Go take a flying leap. > > You are talking out of your hat, until you produce here , on this > list, a > statement of what your "great" philosophical conclusions and wisdom > is. > Otherwise , all your denigrating comments about others is a fraud > covering > up that you don't have any great ideas transcending the diamat or > whatever. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis> > 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
