I would certainly flatter myself if I were to compare myself to
a critic of Lenin's view of some obscure topic. To me the gravamen
of Lenin as an historical figure were his views on war and revolution,
not
those on party organization-harped on by bureacratic rightists
constantly-
and certainly not whatever philosphical musings or crypto-religious
views
he may have had. In fact, Lenin in "Socialism and Religion"
specifically
cautioned on not taking a dogmatic view on issues of this kind.

Thus Lenin focused not on Kant, Hegel or other obscure religico-
philosophical
figures as role models, but individuals like Luxemburg, Liebknecht and
Debs
(the latter whom he cited against Kautsky on the imperialist "Great
War").
Scientists are still steeped in the middle ages? no the cretinist
critics of science
are, a classic example of how the capitalist class had advanced
humanity
in battling feudal ideas, but now in its period of decadence must seek
to
shore them up as an ideological corollory of maintaining its rule by
seeking
to keep the masses as dupe like as possible, but with the means of
production
becoming ever more technically complex that is a daunting task, a
contradiction
the liberal capitalists see as the US sinks into imperial decadence
and illiteracy while its
rivals crank out techinically savvy workers and specialists.

Yes, educated lay critics don't need to know science in order to
postulate certain
conclusions, but only up to the point of the extent of our knowledge
of this material,
otherwise we come across like pretentious ignoramuses, not to the
same
extent as the creationists obviously. The error I see, that is basic
to the creationists
is a form of logic-"starting from the universal" which basically
argues back from a conclusion
which is completely backward and Ptolemaic. We first look at the
facts and then
see where they lead etc and of course intuition can play a role.

I know its politically incorrect around here, but as someone who has
no particular interest
in philosophy (and why should I v. myriad other topics?), the
empiricism and pragmatism of James ("a new word for an old way of
thinking") and Bergson (whom I stumbled onto on Wikipedia) is what I
feel an affinity with, the ranting of political ideologues against
them for years, only having reinforced that view. It also seems
congruent with the methodology of the scientific method which doesn't
start from preconcieved conclusions. The hazards of these type of
"marxist" incursions into philosophy by semi-scientifically literate
ideologues was most dramatically illustrated by the career of TD
Lysenko and "marxist" botany. Obviously the emperor with no clothes is
going to feel threatened by empiricism.

On Jun 30, 9:31 am, rab <rogeralanblackw... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

It is only by taking a critical attitude to this 'formalising of
dialectics' that we can develop dialectical materialism today but this
work doesn't easily fit into the everyday consciousness because in the
struggle to grasp even works by Hegel the mind tends to 'formalise'
the content in order to understand the logic espoused. It is
necessary to suspend 'judgement' for a time and just follow the
'argument' in the order that this 'content' may stimulate new thought
through contradiction. Whilst the work of some of those soviet
philosophers may be useful in presenting the 'bare bones' of
dialectical categories and their interconnections it is necessary to
understand the 'active' side of dialectics and the fact that it
develops through struggle.

I think I may see your point now. In my terms, the "laws" of
dialectics are permissive rather than prohibitive. A equals A, by
contrast--like scientific laws--is prohibitive, in that a cannot be
anything other than A. But is not calling dialectical principles
"laws," then, somewhat misleading? Human laws may be permissive, an
application that furnished the idea for this distinction. Natural laws
are not. Dialectics may be said to be abstracted from nature, but they
don't describe lawful natural patterns, since such description is
necessarily prohibitive.

srd

I would have to say, not only based on my observations through the
media, but my upbringing in a religious boarding school that
creationist do work backwards from a basic holy principle and
immutable truth (viewing a scientific question as a high moral
issue):  that God created the world in seven days approxiately six
thousand years ago per the Book of Genesis.

Oh, I don't pretend to "represent" anything in the labor movemet.
Presently I'm a criminal defense attorney,

20 years as a blue collar worker belonging on occasions to unions: the
ILWU, the Sailors Union of the Pacific and the Inland Boatman's Union
(cannery workers) on a rank and file basis. Your connection with the
labor movement? not that that is required here, but you brought it
up.

Roger- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It bears pointing out also in regard to your point about Shactman and
Burnham that their intellectual arguments needed to be taken with a
grain of salt.  It's not so much that they didn't genuinely understand
something, but that they were advancing arguments in bad faith,
whatever they could come up with, to justify-particularly as to
Burnham-their own capitulation to reaction, something Burnham did
consciously, starting from what he viewed as his own personal
interests as a rich bourgois.  

On Jul 19, 12:53 pm, Tom Cod <t... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

It bears pointing out also in regard to your point about Shactman and
Burnham that their intellectual arguments needed to be taken with a
grain of salt. It's not so much that they didn't genuinely understand
something, but that they were advancing arguments in bad faith,
whatever they could come up with, to justify-particularly as to
Burnham-their own capitulation to reaction, something Burnham did
consciously, starting from what he viewed as his own personal
interests as a rich bourgois.

I don't know why you would think their arguments insincere. Merely
that they ened up on the right? Since Abern, Burnham, and Shactman
took 40% of the party with them, it looks like their arguments had
intellectual appeal. Trotsky would have been a fool to wage a whole
struggle against people who weren't even making real arguments. There
are Shactmanites today, and they aren't always complete idiots. Sounds
like you have a conspirativist view of class pressures on ideology.

The question no one seems to want to look at is whether Trotsky's
intervention concerning dialectics advanced the discussion. Was
Trotsky's intervention a helpful corrective to Shactman's
undialectical thinking or did it merely express truisms that didn't
require dialectics to reach or that weren't actually relevant to the
issue of the nature of Russia? Trotsky says dialectics isl a tool. If
so, what work did it do in responding to Shactman that couldn't be
carried by other methods? It seems to me these would be the questions
asked by any Marxist serious about understanding the practical role of
dialectical thinking. But the dialecticians refuse to get specific,
and the anti-dialecticians refuse to address the points Trotsky
actually makes about how dialectics fits it.

srd

It was the theoretical clarity
which Lenin attained through his dialectical understanding of
materialism which gave him clarity about the economic, political, and
history problems of Russian society and the working class
internationally early in the 20th century.

On Jul 23, 7:33 am, tom.2... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:

It was the theoretical clarity
which Lenin attained through his dialectical understanding of
materialism which gave him clarity about the economic, political, and
history problems of Russian society and the working class
internationally early in the 20th century.

You know this cause-effect, how?

srd