On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:08:37 +0200 "Victor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In regards to point 2. > Given what I now know from the unreliable interpretations of > Bakhurst > (1991), the bits and pieces on Deborin and his faction as > "dialecticians" as > opposed to "mechanists" recoverable from histories of Soviet > philosophy and > theoretical critiques and commentaries, and the clearly Hegelian > views of > Lenin, Vygotsky and Ilyenkov, I am more hopeful than sure of any > relation > between them and Deborin. I expect that a better acquaintance with > Deborin > will help clarify this issue. > A interesting point regarding the position of these two schools on > the > natural sciences was the rejection of Lysenkoism by the > Dialecticians and > corresponding support given it by the Mechanists, (see > http://www.comms.dcu.ie/sheehanh/lysenko.htm). Makes one wonder at > the > scientific credentials of the Mechanists who were drawn mainly from > the > engineering and research elites.
As I pointed out a little earlier, some of the Mechanists were quite opposed to relativity and later to quantum mechanics. The paper by Vizgin that I mentioned earlier tells the story in some detail. There is a certain irony concerning the Mechanists role here. When the Mechanists tendency first emerged, one of their concerns was opposing the efforts of Soviet philosophers to dictate to scientists in the name of dialectical materialism. But the Mechanists, as their name implies, were very much dedicated to a mechanistic conception of nature and so many of them opposed new scientific theories like relativity and quantum mechanics that were seen as undermining the mechanistic conception of nature. And so while they might have opposed the efforts of people like Deborin to dictate to the natural sciences, they apparently felt free to much the same thing in the name of their own conceptions of what natural science ought to be about. In fact given the large role that both the state and the Party played in the sponsoring of scientific research in the Soviet Union, it was not uncommon to see competing groups of scientists attacking each other in the name of dialectical materialism, with each group attacking the other for falling into the sins of either Machism, 'idealism' or 'mechanistic materialism'. Several months ago, I had posted on the logical empiricists including Philipp Frank. Frank had proposed a kind of intellectual "popular front" between logical empiricism and dialectical materialism, suggesting that the logical empiricists were better equipped for waging the 'two-front' war that was being fought by the dialectical materialists against both idealism and mechanistic materialism. Frank apparently relished the idea that logical empiricism, which was after all an updated version of Machism, could better perform the tasks of diamat than the official version in the Soviet Union. > Victor Friedlander-Rakocz > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:51 > Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Deborin > > > > (1) Have you in mind a different intervention against Lukacs from > the one > > everyone knows about? Deborin intervened against Lukacs and > Korsch in > > 1923 or 1924, i.e. long before 1931. > > > > (2) I find it odd to see Deborin as a link between Lenin and > Ilyenkov. > > Admittedly, I'm just going on vague impressions, but I thought > that what > > was Hegelian about Deborin was his philosophy of nature, not the > stuff > > that would interest Ilyenkov. What am I missing? > > > > At 04:01 PM 10/22/2005 -0400, Jim Farmelant wrote: > >>I think we are hampered because of relevant material > >>remains untranslated from Russian. Also, people > >>in the Soviet Union were not always candid about > >>revealing who their influences were, especially if that involved > >>people who had fallen into disfavor. I am sure that > >>Deborin is the link between Lenin's later more > >>Hegelian work and the later Hegelianized > >>Marxism of Ilyenkov. > >> > >>Deborin appears to have been an adroit > >>player of the Soviet academic game. In the > >>1931 conference at which Mitin prevailed, > >>Deborin made a show of giving support to Mitin's > >>position over his own. Despite having > >>been condemned as a a "menshevizing > >>idealist," he seems to have managed to > >>regain his academic equibrium several > >>years later, when he re-emerged as one > >>of the lead Soviet point men against > >>Lukacs. He remained on the presidium > >>of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and > >>he lived to see, under Khruschchev, all of > >>his works republished in the Soviet > >>Union. When one considers that lots > >>of Soviet philosophers, including some > >>of his own disciples, were killed in > >>the great purges of the 1930s, all of > >>this was no mean accomplishment. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > > [email protected] > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [email protected] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
