philosophic affair

[el_chavista]

I found this at http://libcom.org/library/libertarian-marxist-tendency-map

On one hand:

In the 1930's, a new strain of more or less Hegelian Marxism developed in the Frankfurt School, with Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin and Bloch, influenced not only by Marx, but also by early Hegelian Marxism in theory, but sometimes Leninism in practice. Though not a member of the Frankfurt School, Henri Lefebvre deserves mention in this second wave of Hegelian Marxism
...
The Situationists took up both the Hegelian Marxism of the early Hegelians and the Frankfurt School
On the other hand:

Autonomist Marxism has been particularly influenced of late by Deleuze and Guattari, French anarcho-communist philosophers who produced works between the early 1960's and the 1990's. This has helped give Autonomist Marxism a decidedly anti-Hegelian cast, looking rather towards a Nietzschean/Spinozist Marxism also influenced by Foucault. This is the first seriously non/anti-Hegelian tendency in libertarian Marxism since the 1920's.

Does this discussion about Hegelian or anti-Hegelian Marxism together with a Nietzschean/Spinozist Marxism make any difference in political praxis?

[Yehuda Stern]

The subject is a bit controversial among Marxists. It is very popular among leftists today to say that either dialectics is wrong, or that if it's right, that it is overrated and has no meaning in practice. I beg to differ. A comrade of mine once said that in essence, every debate on any political question can ultimately be traced back to dialectics. While that may be an exaggeration, I have no doubt that debates on major issues, such as the nature of the Stalinist states, the nature of the imperialist epoch, the need for a revolution to move from capitalism to socialism, i.e. are intimately related to the question of dialectics. Trotsky explains, for example, the importance of dialectics to his definition of the Soviet state, as well as the mistaken definitions of other tendencies, in his excellent work, In Defense of Marxism (which can be found in his section in the Marxists Internet Archive).

All the great Marxists, that is, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, saw dialectics as the very heart of Marxism. The persistence of some people, then, that they know more about Marxism than its founders, and that they have found a way to be Marxists without it, is certainly impressive, but flies in the face of their real life politics.

By the way, Lenin wrote Materialism and Empiro-Criticism exactly against those in Russian social-democracy who wanted to use Nietzschean and Spinozist philosophy as the basis of Marxism, as did Engels with Anti-Duhring (an excellent book which the anti-dialecticians love to hate).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


A comrade of mine once said that in essence, every debate on any political question can ultimately be traced back to dialectics.

Which is about as accurate as the belief that Marx repuidiated the Communist Manifesto.


Trotsky explains, for example, the importance of dialectics to his definition of the Soviet state, as well as the mistaken definitions of other tendencies, in his excellent work, In Defense of Marxism (which can be found in his section in the Marxists Internet Archive).

But, dialectics can be and has been used to 'prove' the exact opposite -- that the former USSR was a genuine Socialist State (and not a degenerated workers' state). It has also been used to 'prove' that it is State Capitalist. Indeed, becasue it is 'contradiction-friendly', this 'theory' can be used to 'prove' anything you like and its opposite.


All the great Marxists, that is, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, saw dialectics as the very heart of Marxism. The persistence of some people, then, that they know more about Marxism than its founders, and that they have found a way to be Marxists without it, is certainly impressive, but flies in the face of their real life politics.

Marx didn't.


By the way, Lenin wrote Materialism and Empiro-Criticism exactly against those in Russian social-democracy who wanted to use Nietzschean and Spinozist philosophy as the basis of Marxism, as did Engels with Anti-Duhring (an excellent book which the anti-dialecticians love to hate).

Both these books are among the very worst ever written by Marxists -- as is surprisingly easy to show:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13%2001.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

El-C:


Does this discussion about Hegelian or anti-Hegelian Marxism together with a Nietzschean/Spinozist Marxism make any difference in political praxis?

None whatsoever (except perhaps negatively), since it is impossible to put these nostrums into practice.

[mikelepore]

Although I've been studying Marxism since the 1960s, and I also had philosophy courses at the university, I must confess: I have never understood the point of discussions about which college professor's journal article influenced what other college professor's journal article. The main thing I want to know from each Marxian author is the clear specifics of what kind of socioeconomic system each of them recommends. Would the workers elect the local, middle and central management? Would this representation be direct or would there be appointees? What kind of labor compensation and goods distribution would there be? List the advantages claimed for such a method. They don't have to answer in terms of the history of epistemology or linguistics or psychotherapy or anything else. I think most of them are just playing the publish-or-perish game. I just want to know what kind of social system they propose and why. If they don't answer that within the first hundred words, goodbye. Let then answer that first, and then explain the whole cosmos as they see it.

[Yehuda Stern]

Which is about as accurate as the belief that Marx repuidiated the Communist Manifesto.

Have it that way. While I think my comrade was stretching a bit, I certainly think that the major political debates in Marxism express themselves in the philosophical outlook of political currents.


But, dialectics can be and has been used to 'prove' the exact opposite

And Marxism can be 'used' to 'prove' that reformism is possible, or that Stalinism is socialism, or that colonialism is positive. So what? Any theory can be distorted by a savvy enough hack. That does not go to say that the entire theory is crap.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


While I think my comrade was stretching a bit, I certainly think that the major political debates in Marxism express themselves in the philosophical outlook of political currents.

I'd like to see you try and prove it...


And Marxism can be 'used' to 'prove' that reformism is possible, or that Stalinism is socialism, or that colonialism is positive. So what? Any theory can be distorted by a savvy enough hack. That does not go to say that the entire theory is crap.

Indeed, but no other theory lends itself to such extensive abuse as dialectics, and that is because it is 'contradiction-friendly'.

For example, can you use Marxism to justify a treaty with Hitler only 24 hours after condeming the Nazis as the very worst possible class enemies, and then the reverse once more after they invade your country? Or use it to call social democrats 'social fascists' and then the next day use if to justify a People's Front allied with them? Or use it to invent a term 'proletarian bonapartism' to justify the substitution of the the CCP for the working class in, say, China, and use it to condem this? Or use it to re-describe retreat as attack. Or justify an alliance with the Goumindang one minute, then the opposite a day or so later?

If so, I'd like to see you try...

And you are right, that would not show the theory is cr*p; the theory does that to itself anyway, since it is remarkably easy to show what a rubbish theory it is from what it's Holy Books say.

Here, for example:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1207509&postcount=360

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1207517&postcount=361

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1207518&postcount=362

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1222404&postcount=14

In fact, it is possible to use dialectics to prove that Lenin was a Martian, and that he wasn't.

Can you use Marxism to do that?

[Yehuda Stern]

For example, can you use Marxism to justify a treaty with Hitler only 24 hours after condeming the Nazis as the very worst possible class enemies, and then the reverse once more after they invade your country? Or use it to call social democrats 'social fascists' and then the next day use if to justify a People's Front allied with them? Or use it to invent a term 'proletarian bonapartism' to justify the substitution of the the CCP for the working class in, say, China, and use it to condem this? Or use it to re-describe retreat as attack. Or justify an alliance with the Goumindang one minute, then the opposite a day or so later?

I can't because I don't intend to prostitute Marxism or dialectics. Others, however, have done so, and not esoteric writers but leaders of significant political currents. So, maybe your argument is just a bit... questionable.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


I can't because I don't intend to prostitute Marxism or dialectics. Others, however, have done so, and not esoteric writers but leaders of significant political currents. So, maybe your argument is just a bit... questionable.

Then, maybe you are a saint, maybe you aren't; but the fact is that this theory is unique in human history (except perhaps for Zen Buddhism, which is similarly 'contradiction-friendly') for 'allowing' anyone so minded to use it to prove anything whatsoever and its opposite.

For example, it was possible for Trotsky to 'prove' dialectically that it was OK for Stalin to invade Finland in 1939, and it was possible for others to 'prove' dialectically that it wasn't.

But that's Diabolical Logic for you.:rolleyes: