Jim Farmelant _________
Changing times required that Marxism be adapted to new developments in the world such as the rise of imperialism (and later the rise of fascism), developments in the sciences such as the crisis in modern physics which was palpable by the early 1900s and which Lenin had attempted to address in his *Materialism and Empirio-Criticism*. That crisis only intensified after Lenin wrote that book with the emergence of both relativity and quantum mechanics. There were developments in psychology such as behaviorism and psychoanalysis that had to be addressed by Marxists and developments in the world of bourgeois philosophy and economics required evaluation and criticism by Marxist intellectuals. All this necessitated and spurred the creative development of Marxist theory. ^^^^^^ CB: Ok we have a dialectic of the history of the development of Marxism with the contradiction that it took creative thinking by Lenin or Caudwell to _conserve_ the cogency of the materialist dialectic outlook in the face of developments in physics, or Haldane and Lewontin used creativity, dialectic , to _conserve_ the cogency of the materialist dialectic outlook in the face of developments in the synthesis evolutionary biology and then DNA genetics. Yes, there is creativity , but not creativity in philosophy, rather creativity in science. The philosophical part conserves the cogency of the classical materialist dialectical perspective of Marx and Engels. What philosophical new ideas were needed because of the socialist Soviet Union's very existence ? At any rate, most of the materialist dialectical foundations of Marx and Engels were fully pertinent and cogent in this period. Creative developments of the fundamental Marxist worldview were not needed. Creative concrete analysis of the concrete situation in class struggle terms, as with Lenin were "needed" most. ^^^^^^^ And last but by no means least, the October Revolution opened new vistas for the creative development of Marxism. The analysis of Soviet society and of formerly "real existing socialism" has for decades spawned much discussion and controversy among Marxists, that would be impossible to summarize briefly here. > > ^^^^ > > DUMAIN: That you could make such a statement is alone sufficient to > discredit and condemn you. > > ^^^^^^ > > CB: On the contrary, that you would say what you just did discredits > and > condemns YOU. > > Who would consider themselves a Marxist thinking that the main thing > about > the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin is that they need creative > development ? I think that both Marx & Engels would be the first to say that their work did necessitate creative development. Indeed, they were insistent upon that point. Look at the development of Marx's work from his earlier stuff like the *Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844* to his mature like *Capital*. He was always rethinking and reevaluating his ideas. He was insistent upon the value of criticism, not of bourgeois thought but of his own work too. And I don't think that Lenin's view in this regard was too much different either. > Your assertaion fails the test of formal logic. > > "I'm a Marxist , but the main thing about Marxism is that it needs > new ideas > " Ridiculous. > > The main thing that Marxism "needed" in the period in question was > to have > it, AS DEVELOPED BY THE CLASSICAL FOUNDERS, "seize masses" and > become a > material force > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
