In a message dated 6/18/2008 11:43:24 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: .
>> . . But then, what do I mean by Marxism, and how did it get to be an ism, and what about its assimilation of new knowledge and new theoretical perspectives? Hold those thoughts. . . . Of course I've begged the question of what I think Marxism is or should be, and how it should relate to other identifiable tendencies. I have written elsewhere that the notion of "Marxist philosophy" as it was codified was an erroneous conceptualization from the beginning. "Marxism" shouldn't mark itself off from the sum total of human knowledge; it should be a way of orienting oneself critically towards it, (in addition to supplying its own knowledge,) identifying the sources and consequences of ideological distortion, fragmentation, the division of labor, etc., and point the way towards the conceptual reconstitution of a demystified whole. But now it's past my bedtime.<< Comment The ultimate culprits are the Marxists. Engels get somewhat of a bad rap for "converting" Marx (method and approach to unraveling the most general laws of society and commodity production) into a "distinct philosophy," due to his efforts to popularize Marx writings, on the basis of how the audience of their time thought things out. All the various Marxists writers, with few exceptions - like you, are partly to blame by defining Marxism as a philosophy. Nowhere can one find an ounce of philosophy in Marx most famous statements like the passages from the "Preface to A Contribution to A Critique . . ." where he speaks of the mode of production and productive forces, etc, Or his Critique of the Gotha Program or the Communist Manifesto. Or scores of other writings. Yet, Marxism is understood as a philosophy rather than a method and approach to demystification - standpoint. Lenin of course followed Engels lead with his "Three Sources and Three Components" writing that Marxism - as a ism, was composed or founded on German Philosophy, French Socialism and English Political economy. After the victory and affirmation of Soviet Power, Stalin's little pamphlet on Dialectical and Historical Materialism and then the Soviet Textbook On Marxist Philosophy furthers perpetrate the historical error. A historical error is precisely a historical error because it is unavoidable due to the complex circumstances that produced the error. Marx sensed the error in making and all of the old school Marxists know of him "thanking God" he was not a Marxist. This is of course no exhaustive list for there are thousands to have fallen into what I consider "the great philosophic trap." All one has to do is consult any of the Marxist Libraries or Archives on line and can find scores of Marxist Philosophers. The proletariat has no need for philosophy - any philosophy, only clarity or demystification. As a philosophy, Marxism is simple one more commodity on the philosophy shelf of bourgeois society. Then what do I know? I maintain that philosophy by definition is a form of insanity, mystification, that seeks to explain man and the world on the basis of the idea of man, nature and the world. Marx did endlessly criticize the insane philosophic banter of the German. The real world problem is that 99 of 100 Marxists believe Marx approach to society and demystification is in fact a philosophy rather than a powerful method and approach anti to philosophy. WL **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) _______________________________________________ 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
