Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Hegel's Ph of Spirit

[dogangoecmen]

 Dear All,

on the 6th and 7th of October there is also an international conference on 
Hegel's Phenomenology in Turkey/Istanbul. 
See: 
http://www.ideayayinevi.com/Hegel_Kongresi/Hegel_Kongresi_English.htm


 
Dogan Gocmen





-Ursprüngliche Mitteilung- 

Von: Phil Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Verschickt: Do., 27. Sept. 2007, 0:19

Thema: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy]  Hegel's Ph of Spirit













The question was asked: Who is paying attention to the bicentennial of

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit?  Well, the Hegel Society of Great Britain

held its conference this year on that book.  It was very well attended with

about 70 attendees and the quality of the papers was high.  Some of them may

appear in the bulletin of that Society which is automatically posted to all

members.  I suspect that this bicentennial must also have been marked by

events in Germany, the US, and France too, although I have no evidence of

this.

Phil Walden  



-Original Message-

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph

Dumain

Sent: 26 September 2007 17:10

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu

Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Re: Religion & Marx



Yes, indeed.



See also my bibliography of books on Feuerbach in English, which is 

pretty complete unless something new has been published:



* Ludwig Feuerbach

I don't have some of the more recent books, so I cant' comment.  Van 

Harvey made a splash some years ago in atheist circles, and his book 

was then easily available.



The Feuerbach bicennential passed unnoticed in this area of the 

world, it seems.



This is the bicentennial of Hegel's Phenomenology, but I don't know 

who is paying attention.



At 08:13 AM 9/26/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



>Marx Wartofsky's massive study, Feuerbach (Cambridge University 

>Press,1977),  would, I think be an exception to that rule.

>

>Jim F.

>

>-- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Expositions of Marxism have tended to limit treating Feuerbach as a

>thinker in his own right, but not all scholars, Marxist and

>non-Marxist, have imposed such limitations.

.. 





___

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





___

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




 



Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail für alle.  Klicken Sie auf AOL.de um 
heraus zu finden, was es sonst noch kostenlos bei AOL gibt.
___
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

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Religion & Marx

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Feuerbach as many people here are probably aware was, despite or perhaps even 
because of his atheism, an important influence on 20th century theology.  
People like Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Martin Buber, and Paul Tillich all wrote 
about and wrestled with Feuerbach's critique of Christianity and religion.  On 
the secularist side of the fence, both Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud 
were very much influenced by Feuerbach as well.  It's a vulgar mistake to take 
Feuerbach as simply a transitional figure from Hegel to Marx.

Jim F.

-- CeJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Religion & Marx

This might  be on the bibliographies, I haven't checked. At any rate,
this ten page article looks to take an interesting approach. I don't
have a copy though. This is the cheapest (USD 25.00) online price I
could find for this article. But as I said, it would be tempting to
work out an understanding of Marx not only up against Feuerbach but
with some other contemporaries. So we get this paper on F, M and
Bloch.

A far different but interesting approach for me would be a
reconciliation of socialism and Islamist movements, such as Hezbollah
and the Sadrist Resistance in Iraq. The US and much of Europe under
the tutelage of the hegemon have taken the world down a path to hell
in this regard.

CJ
---


http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713994384~db=all

Religion and communism: Feuerbach, Marx and Bloch
Author: Vincent Geoghegan
DOI: 10.1080/1084877042000306352
Publication Frequency: 7 issues per year
Published in: journal The European Legacy, Volume 9, Issue 5 October
2004 , pages 585 - 595
Subjects: European History; European Studies; Philosophy;
Formats available: PDF (English)

  Purchase Article: US$25.00 - buy now buy now add to cart buy now
[ show other buying options ]



Abstract
Whilst Marx made scattered positive remarks about the details of
communist society, he also made important negative indications.
Religion features in this negativity: his critique of religion is
withering, there is no mention of religious life in communism, and he
is emphatic that religion will play no role in such a society. For
Marx, one of the tangible freedoms of communism was freedom from
religion. The critique of religion is fundamentally inscribed in the
very genesis of Marx's thought, and Feuerbach is crucial to
understanding Marx's strictures on religion. Yet Feuerbach also
figures in Ernst Bloch's very positive approach to religion, which
argues that communism involves the freedom to be religious, in the
sense of opening up oneself and society to the gold-bearing seams of
the religious experience. This essay explores how such different
conceptions of the relationship between religion and communism both
draw sustenance from Feuerbach.

-

MLA style citation:

Geoghegan, Vincent. "Religion and communism: Feuerbach, Marx and
Bloch" The European Legacy 9.5 (2004). 25 Sep. 2007


___
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



___
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

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Religion & Marx

[dogangoecmen]

 Dear Jim,

you are right in saying that Feuerbach should be taken in his own rights and 
not merely as a transitory figure. But on the other hand he paved the way for 
Marx and recognised by his move to social democracy that his philosophy had in 
may ways a transitory character. So for example he recognised towards end of 
his life that the answer to the question, what is happiness, should be answered 
from political economy's point of view. And in this connection he reffered 
explicitly to Marx's Capital. Feuerbach's materialist critique of Hegel is a 
rationalist one. Many people, some of whom you mention, tried to turn his 
critique into an irrationalist one.

DG.
 


-Ursprüngliche Mitteilung- 
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Verschickt: Do., 27. Sept. 2007, 13:51
Thema: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Religion & Marx











Feuerbach as many people here are probably aware was, despite or perhaps even 
because of his atheism, an important influence on 20th century theology.  
People 
like Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Martin Buber, and Paul Tillich all wrote about 
and 
wrestled with Feuerbach's critique of Christianity and religion.  On the 
secularist side of the fence, both Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud were 
very much influenced by Feuerbach as well.  It's a vulgar mistake to take 
Feuerbach as simply a transitional figure from Hegel to Marx.

Jim F.

-- CeJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Religion & Marx

This might  be on the bibliographies, I haven't checked. At any rate,
this ten page article looks to take an interesting approach. I don't
have a copy though. This is the cheapest (USD 25.00) online price I
could find for this article. But as I said, it would be tempting to
work out an understanding of Marx not only up against Feuerbach but
with some other contemporaries. So we get this paper on F, M and
Bloch.

A far different but interesting approach for me would be a
reconciliation of socialism and Islamist movements, such as Hezbollah
and the Sadrist Resistance in Iraq. The US and much of Europe under
the tutelage of the hegemon have taken the world down a path to hell
in this regard.

CJ
---


http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713994384~db=all

Religion and communism: Feuerbach, Marx and Bloch
Author: Vincent Geoghegan
DOI: 10.1080/1084877042000306352
Publication Frequency: 7 issues per year
Published in: journal The European Legacy, Volume 9, Issue 5 October
2004 , pages 585 - 595
Subjects: European History; European Studies; Philosophy;
Formats available: PDF (English)

  Purchase Article: US$25.00 - buy now buy now add to cart buy now
[ show other buying options ]



Abstract
Whilst Marx made scattered positive remarks about the details of
communist society, he also made important negative indications.
Religion features in this negativity: his critique of religion is
withering, there is no mention of religious life in communism, and he
is emphatic that religion will play no role in such a society. For
Marx, one of the tangible freedoms of communism was freedom from
religion. The critique of religion is fundamentally inscribed in the
very genesis of Marx's thought, and Feuerbach is crucial to
understanding Marx's strictures on religion. Yet Feuerbach also
figures in Ernst Bloch's very positive approach to religion, which
argues that communism involves the freedom to be religious, in the
sense of opening up oneself and society to the gold-bearing seams of
the religious experience. This essay explores how such different
conceptions of the relationship between religion and communism both
draw sustenance from Feuerbach.

-

MLA style citation:

Geoghegan, Vincent. "Religion and communism: Feuerbach, Marx and
Bloch" The European Legacy 9.5 (2004). 25 Sep. 2007


___
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



___
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



 



Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail für alle.  Klicken Sie auf AOL.de um 
heraus zu finden, was es sonst noch kostenlos bei AOL gibt.
___
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

[Marxism-Thaxis] Russian socialist statement about 1917

[Charles Brown]

Russian socialist statement about 1917



To: PEN-L




Download the original attachment

An October for us, for Russia and for the Whole World

(Appeal of 17 Russian Intellectuals and Artists) 

  It is no surprise that the imminent ninetieth anniversary of the October 
Revolution in Russia has become the object of widespread attention. The events 
of October 1917 were, indeed, an earthquake that shook the world, altering its 
economic, social and cultural foundations. 

  Many media sources depict this world-historic phenomenon as a mere coup 
d'état, carried out by a handful of conspirators and adventurists with the help 
of Western security services. All sorts of things are circulated ? outright 
lies, distortion of the facts, and malicious slanders about the participants in 
and leaders of this mighty event. The old fables to the effect that the 
"October coup" was provoked by the "German agent" Lenin and the "Anglo-American 
spy" Trotsky are still being repeated, despite having been rejected by 
distinguished scholars from various countries. Meanwhile, the Russian people 
are portrayed as unwitting toys in the hands of "revolutionary extremists", 
even though the revolution could neither have begun nor triumphed without the 
population playing a decisive role.   

Not a Conspiracy, but a Social Revolution 

  The October Revolution was not sparked by conspirators or by agents of 
foreign powers. It was a social earthquake, a hurricane, a tsunami, which 
no-one could ever have called forth by mere appeals. The revolution arose out 
of the internal logic of events, when a multitude of sources of popular 
discontent converged into a single, all-powerful stream. To interpret it as the 
product of a conspiracy is strange, to say the least. If this were true, why 
was a new governing authority set up in place of the old in a gigantic country 
and in a short time, and why did the Russian people not only support this 
government, but defend it with arms in hand during the Civil War?

  For some reason, the critics of the "October coup" forget the profound 
crisis into which Russia had been plunged by the tsarist monarchy and the 
Provisional Government which succeeded it. Mesmerised by the slogan, "War until 
Final Victory!", the authorities refused to take account of the real needs of 
the population. Critics also forget the spontaneous disintegration of the 
monarchy on the eve of the revolution, despite the direct evidence in the form 
of the endless intrigues and conflicts within the tsar's court, the military 
defeats at the front, and finally, the outright abdication of Nikolai II, the 
autocrat and commander-in-chief of the Russian army. The bourgeois government 
that replaced the monarchy also proved impotent, failing to meet the great 
challenges of the time ? stopping the war and giving land to the peasants.

  October 1917 marked the culmination of the great Russian social 
revolution of the twentieth century. It was led by revolutionary social 
democrats who earlier than others, had recognised the needs and hopes of 
ordinary people ? the pressing problems to which the Russian society of the 
time required solutions. Among the leaders, it was of course Vladimir 
Ulyanov-Lenin and his closest collaborators who played the key roles. 

  None of the leaders of the October revolution were flawless, but it is 
just as wrong to demonise as to idolise them. The calumnies that are heaped on 
them nowadays have no real basis. They were not in the service of anyone, only 
of their revolutionary ideals. None of the earthly temptations, such as money 
or the other accompaniments of a philistine prosperity, had any meaning for 
them. They measured their lives against the supreme standard of selfless 
service to the freedom and happiness of the oppressed and dispossessed.

Revolutions Cannot be Reduced to Violence 

  The October Revolution is often termed a "violent overthrow". Yet the 
actual "overthrow" in Petrograd passed off almost without human victims. While 
we are not advocates of violence, we recognise that it is inevitable at 
particular stages of historical development, when it is bound up with the 
presence of class and national antagonisms. Revolution is indeed associated in 
many respects with violence, as was clearly evident, for example, in the 
bourgeois revolutions in the Netherlands, England, France and so forth. The 
ending of slavery in the United States was accompanied by the bloodiest 
conflict of the nineteenth century, the American Civil War. In Russia, the 
ending of feudalism was also accompanied by wars and revolutions.

  These developments, meanwhile, were not called forth by the machinations 
of political intriguers, but by the crisis of the old system and by the 
impossibility of solvi