Comrade Dover,
Again, instead of answering my main question ("Can Marx and Engels`violate'
or `contradict' the laws of historical materialism in the interests of the
working class), you like to wander off, and involve even Lenin in your
misadventure. Let me emphasize one point that either your ignore or do not
understand: in my main question I am referring to the laws of DIALECTICAL
MATERIALISM, not to anything else. When you refer to "the
historical law of development of society", I assume that you refer to a law
of historical materialism, unless you reveal to us that there is another
science of society in contradistinction to historical materialism, to which
"the historical law of development of society" belongs.
Second, all lenin's ideas in your quoted passage is true and the elementary
knowledge of Marxist-Leninists, but it is irrelevant to your discussion and
the alleged "contradiction" between the Communist Manifesto and The Preface
because Lenin, unlike you, wholly subscribes to historical materialism, and
does not find, and cannot find, anything in Marx's and Engels's works which
"violate" or "contradict" laws of dialectical materialism.
Third, as I have mentioned before, you misunderstand dialectical
materialism, and that is why you think that Marx and Engels, in the interest
of working class, would "violate" or "contradict" the laws of historical
materialism. In other words, your misunderstanding is in taking "the
materialist conception of history" (your phrase) either as something other
than historical materialism, or as a "materialist" conception of history,
which is not dialectical. In either case, you are not in a theoretical
position to claim your false idea of alleged "contradiction" between the
Communist Manifesto and The Preface because Marx and Engels subscribe wholly
to historical materialism, not to any other "material" conception of history
which is anti-dialectical, and explains away the development of society in a
linear "gradual" manner. In your discussions, you repeatedly claim that
there is this alleged "contradiction", which in turn implies that in one of
the mentioned works of Marx, either the Communist Manifesto or The Preface,
Marx supposedly adheres to an anti-dialectical "materialist" conception of
history (probably, this work is Marx's The Preface in contradistinction to
the Communist Manifesto in which he supposedly "contradicts" the
anti-dialectical conception of history in The preface by his revolutionary
and dialectical conception of history). Now, in the light of foregoing, if
you say that in neither the Communist Manifesto nor The Preface Marx
advocates an anti-dialectical materialist conception of history, then you
must take your claim back and proclaim it as a fictitious one, but if you do
not take your claim back, then you must proclaim that Marx was sometimes
dialectical and sometimes anti-dialectical concerning his materialist
conception of history because you supposedly locate your alleged
"contradiction" in Marx's works exclusively, but not in Marx's dialectical
works directed against the anti-dialectical works of his "materialist" and
idealist opponents.
As I mentioned before, first thing first: an answer to my main question--can
Marx and Engels`violate' or `contradict' the laws of HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
in the interests of the working class?
Javad
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Dover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 11:33 PM
Subject: RE: [MLL]The Communist Manifesto.
> Comrads Javad,
>
> My reply:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Javad Eskandarpour
> > Sent: Monday, 16 October 2000 08:08
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [MLL]The Communist Manifesto.
> >
> >
> > Comrade Dover,
> >
> > Now, not only you have to come up with an analysis and
> > understanding of "the
> > collapse" of the USSR, but also with an analysis and understanding of
"the
> > collapse" of your so-called Marxist-Leninist ideas, especially
> > regarding the
> > alleged "contradiction" between The Preface and the Communist
> > Manifesto.
>
> Whatever are you talking about?
>
> In
> > your recent commentary, you avoid the main question that I always ask,
and
> > you always hide it in the wasteland of your many incoherent words.
>
> As I repeatedly explain to you, the reason that my explanation seems
> "incoherent" to you is simply because you do not have an inkling of
> dialectics, the struggle of opposites within things; you are a mechanical
> materialist.
>
> My main
> > question is presented in my following comments, which I have
> > asked before in
> > a reply to Sid:"The problem is Not that Marx and Engels advocated a
> > bourgeois-democratic revolution and also IMMEDIALTELY a following
> > socialist
> > revolution. The point is that Dover and you, by parroting him, want to
> > smuggle in a false idea of a socialist revolution which
> > supposedly violated
> > or "contradicted the historical law" of development of society.
> > This kind of
> > "reasoning" is arbitarary and subjective in contrast to
> > dialectical-materialist understanding of history. In
> > dialectical-materialist
> > understanding of history, one CANNOT "contradict" an objective law of
> > history subjectively; otherwise, capitalists and their social "thinkers"
> > would claim arbitrarily that there cannot be any socialist revolution
> > because capitalism is the end of history,
>
> Now there is a bit of a puzzle. "one CANNOT "contradict" an objective law"
> and next, "even their claim "contradicts" the historical laws of the
> development of the society".
>
> As a matter of fact you would disagree with Lenin who said:
>
> "You say that civilisation is necessary for the building of socialism.
Very
> good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilisation
> in our country as the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian
> capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism ? Where, in what
books,
> have you read that such variations of the customary historical order of
> events are impermissible or impossible ?
> Napoleon, I think , wrote: "On s'engage et puis..... on voit." Rendered
> freely this means: "First engage in a serious battle and then see what
> happens." Well, we did first engage in a serious battle in October 1917,
and
> then saw such details of development (from the standpoint of world history
> they were certain details) as the Brest Peace, the New Economic Policy,
and
> so forth. And now there can be no doubt that in the main we have been
> victorious.
> Our Sukhanovs, not to speak of Social-Democrats still farther to the
right,
> never even dream that revolutions could be made otherwise. Our European
> philistines never even dream that the subsequent revolutions in Oriental
> countries, which possess much vaster populations and a much vaster
diversity
> of social conditions, will undoubtedly display even greater peculiarities
> than the Russian revolution.
> It need hardly be said that a textbook written on Kautskyian lines was a
> very useful thing in its day. But it is time, for all that, to abandon the
> idea that it foresaw all the forms of development subsequent world
history.
> It would be timely to say that those who think so are simply fools. Lenin
> C/W. Vol 33. p.480. 'OUR REVOLUTION' Apropos of N. Sukhanov's notes.
> part II. (1923) (my emphasis edit.)
>
> Where, in what books have you read comrade Javad, that man cannot
> "construct" socialism after siezing state power "no matter" as Marx said,
> what the "degree of development at the time"?
>
> Marx and Engels did not "advocate a bourgeois-democratic revolution". They
> advocated that the proletariat assist the bourgeoisie in the bourgeois
> revolution to overthrow the feudal state. This is the first revolutionary
> tactic outlined in the Manifesto, the second revolutionary tactic was to
> suggest that the bourgeois-revolution was "but a prelude" to an
> "immediately" following proletarian revolution. I see no "problem" here
> Javad. But I do recognise a contradiction. You really must get your facts
> right.
>
> There is no "false idea", the contradictory fact, stares you in the face.
> When you say that this "socialist" revolution "supposedly" "contradicted
the
> historical law of development of society" is a "false idea" then you are
> saying that this "socialist" revolution following immediately in the wake
of
> the bourgeois revolution is in accord with the materialist conception of
> history and is not in contradiction to it. Therefore according to you, it
is
> a natural dialectical phenomena that revolution follows revolution, that
> there is a dialectical relationship between revolution and revolution and
> that, this, is completely in accord with the dialectics of nature. So you
> really have answered our question, in that, you recognise the relationship
> as a dialectical one; all that remains is for you to explain to us how
this
> is so.
>
> How you will explain this revelation in "dialectics", we are still waiting
> to hear? But you and I know, that you cannot and will not answer the
> question as it has been put to you, to explain to the list, the
> *dialectics* of 'political revolution following political revolution'. you
> will twist and turn to avoid it. Certainly if you can explain this as a
> dialectical process, in accord with the materialist conception of history,
> then we must all join with you to *revise* Marxism in accord with your new
> findings.
>
> Bear in mind comrade, what Engels said:
>
> Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations
is
> the essential result of the creation of new productive forces which no
> longer correspond to the old property relations. Reply to Question 15,
> 'Principles of Communism'.
>
> The main
> > question that I
> > would like you to answer as clearly as possible:Can Marx and Engels
> > "violate" or "contradict" the laws of historical materialism in the
> > interests of the working class? Before answering this question, let me
> > remind you that you are the one who has claimed repeatedly that Marx and
> > Engels "contradict the materialist conception of history - a
> > tactic, in the
> > interests of the proletariat, and for no other reason"!
>
> Yes, Marx and Engels introduced this theoretical contradiction into
> scientific-socialist theory, a new revolutionary concept, a political
tactic
> for use in the developing nations. It was Lenin who further developed it,
> and put it into practice and is now part of our historical experience. I
> have explained this to you so many times and you repeatedly refuse to
accept
> it as an answer, in order that you can avoid answering that question
> repeatedly asked of you, in the manner in which you again make the
provisio:
>
> > After you answer this main question that you always avoid, I will
> > explain my
> > "revelation concerning the *dialectics* of 'political revolution
following
> > political revolution'".
> >
> > Javad
> >
> Fraternally Alan.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
>
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
