The Return of Engels
- This topic has 42 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Published online on 28 Nov in Jacobin, an article by John Bellamy Foster marking Engels birthday and addressing the movement to disassociate him from Marx
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/engels-marx-ecology-climate-crisis-materialism/
i think I might take a look at their discounted introductory subscription rate unless anyone can recommend any better US publications?
jondwhite wrote:Published online on 28 Nov in Jacobin, an article by John Bellamy Foster marking Engels birthday and addressing the movement to disassociate him from Marxhttps://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/engels-marx-ecology-climate-crisis-materialism/I've addressed these issues in great depth already, on many threads here.Foster, like the rest, continues to make the mistake of seeing Marx as a 'materialist'.And they interpret this 'material' to mean 'matter' (as opposed to 'ideas' or 'non-matter stuff').Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', who argued for democratic social production by democratic social theory and practice.Thinkers like Foster, Burkett, Stanley, Lukacs et al place 'matter' above 'democracy'.For 'materialists', like Engels, 'matter' determines ('external nature' determines). Thus, we can't change. Power does not reside with a majority vote. Thus, only a minority must decide.For 'idealist-materialists', like Marx, 'democracy' determines ('human production' determines). Thus, we can change. Power does reside with a majority vote. Thus, only the majority must decide.I recommend that any comrades who read jdw's link bear these political considerations in mind.
J B Foster wrote:For Engels, as for Marx, the key to socialism was the rational regulation of the metabolism of humanity and nature, in such a way as to promote the fullest possible human potential, while safeguarding the needs of future generations.[my bold]The key political question for socialists is: "who (or what) determines 'rational'?".Either 'matter' determines (and a minority will 'read matter'), or 'humans' determine (and only a majority can say what 'humans' determine).This is an issue of 'power'.If we start, like the 'materialists', from 'matter', it will inexorably lead to a minority (who claim to have a special consciousness) determining what 'matter says', to the exclusion of the views of the majority.The SPGB follows this anti-democratic theory of 'materialism', and argues that 'specialists' (a minority of elite experts) must determine, whilst the 'generalists' (the majority of 'non-specialists') must obey the 'specialists'.'Materialism' is at base a bourgeois, anti-democratic philosophy suited to elite rule, which is why Lenin espoused 'materialism' for his elite political purposes.Marx, on the contrary, was concerned with 'social production', and the political rule of the majority of the 'social producers'.Only the social producers can determine what is 'rational' for their own interests and purposes. 'Rationality' is a social product, not an external, unchanging, ahistoric gift from god.
LBird wrote:If we start, like the 'materialists', from 'matter', it will inexorably lead to a minority (who claim to have a special consciousness) determining what 'matter says', to the exclusion of the views of the majority.You've neversubstantiated this claim. It doesn't follow.Oh, and what is actual is rational, and wht is rational is actual.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:If we start, like the 'materialists', from 'matter', it will inexorably lead to a minority (who claim to have a special consciousness) determining what 'matter says', to the exclusion of the views of the majority.You've neversubstantiated this claim. It doesn't follow.Oh, and what is actual is rational, and wht is rational is actual.
You might as well be saying 'what is piffle is poffle, and what is poffle is piffle', for all the understanding you have of the political issues at stake for the democratic producers.But then, like robbo, you're not a democrat, but an individualist (and thus, an elitist), and so you can continue to spout mysterious phrases, which are meaningless, and so keep the workers in their place.
I think the point is the Anti-Engels brigade includes David McLellan, Terrell Carver and 'the Western academic left, and which was closely connected to the rise of “Western Marxism”' dating back at least as far as 1974. Western Marxism being a category the SPGB are sometimes lumped into.
I don't know who associates us with "Western Marxism". Hardly appropriate if this only came into being in the 1970s when we'd being going for 70 years by then ! I'd prefer something like "Non-Leninist Marxism" or even "original" or "orthodox" Marxism.But at least you've proved Pavlov right. Just mention the word "Engels" and our feathered friend swoops down.
ALB wrote:But at least you've proved Pavlov right. Just mention the word "Engels" and our feathered friend swoops down.And snatches up the poor, intellectually defenceless 'material' ALB-worm.Grow up, and argue the political and philosophical issues being outlined, or keep your ignorant personal attacks to yourself.
jondwhite wrote:I think the point is the Anti-Engels brigade includes David McLellan, Terrell Carver and 'the Western academic left, and which was closely connected to the rise of “Western Marxism”' dating back at least as far as 1974. Western Marxism being a category the SPGB are sometimes lumped into.I know perfectly well what 'the point' is, jdw.'Western Marxists' are a bunch of academics, who don't know their 'material' arse from their 'ideal' elbow.If anyone here actually bothered to read some of the 'Anti-Engels brigade', including Carver, Thomas, Levine, Farr, they might actaully be able to engage in a discussion, which would include criticisms of their inability to understand Marx's 'social productionism'.It's not too far wide of the mark to characterise 'Eastern Marxism' (Lenin, etc.) and 'Western Marxism' (Lukacs, Frankfurt school, etc.) as the tweedledee-tweedledum of anti-democratic, anti-proletarian, anti-Marxist bourgeois elite theory and practice.Why the hell the SPGB lines up with either, beats me. One lot call the other 'idealist', whilst the other lot call the other 'materialist'. In fact, neither understand Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (democratic theory and practice by the social producers).
LBird wrote:You might as well be saying 'what is piffle is poffle, and what is poffle is piffle', for all the understanding you have of the political issues at stake for the democratic producers.But then, like robbo, you're not a democrat, but an individualist (and thus, an elitist), and so you can continue to spout mysterious phrases, which are meaningless, and so keep the workers in their place.Let's just all note that once again you fail to defend your major premise, and move on.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:You might as well be saying 'what is piffle is poffle, and what is poffle is piffle', for all the understanding you have of the political issues at stake for the democratic producers.But then, like robbo, you're not a democrat, but an individualist (and thus, an elitist), and so you can continue to spout mysterious phrases, which are meaningless, and so keep the workers in their place.Let's just all note that once again you fail to defend your major premise, and move on.
I've defended every premise that I (and Marx) have made.The problem is that you don't understand anything about this debate, political, philosophical, mathematical or scientific.So, move on in ignorance, YMS, as you usually do, and continue to spout about 'piffle-poffle'.
Isn't it possible, just for once, for a thread to be developed by those actually interested in discussing the link that was provided in the OP?jdw seems to share my interest in this issue about the problems of the supposed unity of 'Marx-Engels', and the associated issues of 'materialism' and 'Western Marxism', so why can't the thread be left to us (and any others genuinely interested in reading and discussing about these problems)?Just for once.
ALB wrote:I don't know who associates us with "Western Marxism". Hardly appropriate if this only came into being in the 1970s when we'd being going for 70 years by then ! I'd prefer something like "Non-Leninist Marxism" or even "original" or "orthodox" Marxism.But at least you've proved Pavlov right. Just mention the word "Engels" and our feathered friend swoops down.At MIA, we come under 'Western Marxism'https://www.marxists.org/archive/
Lbird,
Quote:If we start, like the 'materialists', from 'matter', it will inexorably lead to a minority (who claim to have a special consciousness) determining what 'matter says', to the exclusion of the views of the majority.I'm afraid you have never demonstrated why the existence of an objective reality leads to minority domination of society, which is significant if you call for us to assess Engels in the light of this claim.Anyway, Kautsky's obituary of Engels:https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1887/xx/engels.htm
Quote:The publication of the second and third volumes of Capital was the last great gift of Engels to the proletariat. We speak of it as a “publication,” but it was really a new creation; in spite of the fact that Engels, with that modesty which is only the possession of great spirits, always belittled his activity as compared to that of his friend. He has, as no other could have done, followed the course of thought through the fragments, extracts and observations that were left behind, and completed the last two volumes of Capital. The greater part of the material was, so far as the form of the language was concerned, merely hastily thrown together, a simple jotting down of the thoughts as they passed through the mind of Marx – not arranged; in some points almost completely worked out, in others merely fixed by catchwords, partly German, partly English and French, often almost unintelligibly written. To follow out the method laid down in the first book, which dealt with the process of production in a masterly analysis of the process of circulation of capital, and develop from the material left behind the further course of surplus value, the division of profit into rent and entrepreneur wage, and the doctrine of ground rent, was a task that not only required the highest physical exertion, but a brain power not inferior to that of the original composer. Engels was the only one capable of this, for no other living person was so in accord with the author in the method of reasoning and the views, to the smallest details, of the relations in the economic development of capitalism. In the last two volumes of Capital Engels erected to the memory of Marx a more enduring monument than any cast in bronze, and, without so intending, carved upon it in imperishable letters his own name as well. Just as in life Marx and Engels were inseparable, so Capital cannot bear the name of either alone, but must always be known in the history of political economy as the Capital of Marx and Engels. And although Engels has marked with brackets and the letters “F.E.” to places where he has taken the actual material left by Marx and developed it to the necessary conclusion in as much as possible the “Marxian spirit,” yet no man can ever say which came from the spirit of Marx and which from the spirit of Engels.It has always struck me as odd that Engels is used as the alibi to protect Saint Marx, clearly, Engels was a less subtle thinker (and dmitted as such), but as we see from things like his 'Principles of Communism' he brought a great deal to the manifest. Given that that work, and the German Ideology are co-productions with Marx, it's fair to give him crdit, and to assume that both stood by the words in them both (although it is interesting to see how the manifesto differs from the principles, clearly Marx brought a substantial amount to the text). And, obviously, Engels bears a lot of responsibility for Capital 2 & 3, which he edited to print.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.