Paul Z. wrote:
>
> Bill, I haven't seen the Anderson work (have others?), but it sounds
> curious. Why would Stalinism promote 1908 Lenin except as part of the
> Lenin cult it wanted? just as it used Marx when useful. Paul
>
Louis P. added some useful detail on the political background to
Anderson's book. I think I would agree with him that the emphasis on
Hegel can be taken too far, but I do think it is a tonic against 'vulgar
materialism' (Lenin, 1914), thus important to identifying the real record
of Marxism on the philosophical points discussed relative to pomoists and
others.
As I think Paul suggests above, "even the devil can quote the scriptures
for his own purposes". It seems that 1914 Lenin was very inconvenient for
Stalinism, where a kind of mechanical, party-dictated philosophy is
a tool for sectarian political ends. It is similarly the preferred
foil for opponents of Marxism.
Louis already noted that in 1980 Lenin's specific purpose was to oppose
Bogdanov. Since I don't know enough on all this I would be
interested in any comments on whether this 1908 position is as crude as
Louis suggests. Anderson certainly suggests Lenin in 1914 was admitting he
was a vulgar materialist in 1908, but this is an example of where I wonder
if he does not go too far. I'd also be interested in whether
the Johnson-Forest tendency (Anderson's political pedigree) agreed with
Trotsky's emphasis on dialectics in opposing the characterization of the
USSR as capitalist (see_In Defence of Marxism_), since Anderson lumps
Trotsky in with all the others who forgot the Hegel in Marx.
An example of how attention to Hegel helps is Mike Lebowitz's
_Beyond Capital_, which is a very convincing and important
demonstration of how many understandings of Marx's project are so
one-sided, and the need to develop the 'political economy of workers'
that Marx had projected as part of _Capital_ but was not able to get to.
Lebowitz also refers to 1914 Lenin, and the latter's aphorism to the
effect that as a result of not reading Hegel's _Science of Logic_
'Marxism' had not understood Marx for the previous 50 years. James
Devine has frequently recommended this book on Pen-L and it really is
unfortunate how little attention it has received.
Bill Burgess
