The Return of Engels

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

So are analyses critical of Engels by McLellan, Farr, Levine and Carver 'all the same' and at their core defenses of the Soviet Union? Would you recommend reading them? What about the academics from various tendencies defending Engels?

No, these critical analyses are not 'defenses of the Soviet Union'.And on the whole, in contrast to your characterisation, I wouldn't call them the 'Anti-Engels brigade', either.I think that it's more accurate to call them the 'Pro-Marx brigade', since they set out to show the differences between Marx and Engels with respect to their philosophy, and to argue in favour of Marx rather than Engels. Along those lines, they tend to argue that the 'Marxism' that most people are familiar with ('materialism' meaning 'matter-in-motion', base determining superstructure, economics as the 'final analysis', etc.) is a construct of Engels. This 'Marxism' includes all those since Engels wrote, including the Second International, the French 'Marxists' that Marx laughed at, Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc. Since this originated prior to 1904 (not just 1917), then the SPGB, too, seems to be enmeshed in this ideological swamp of 'materialism'.I would recommend reading them. If you want specific books, please ask.As for the 'academics' defending Engels, some are reactionary thinkers who wish to keep the unity of 'Marx-Engels', because then 'Marx' is so much easier to criticise politically when he is 'read' through Engels' work, some are 'anti-SU Leninists/Trotskyists' and 'pro-SU Stalinists' who both wish to maintain The Faith of The Party, and some are just as thick as pigshit. Have you met many 'academics'?As an aside, it's very interesting to read Bogdanov, because much of what he wrote is far closer to Marx than what Lenin wrote, because Lenin followed Engels' 'materialism'. Again, I can give details if you wish to follow up this issue.

[Young Master Smeet]

I would draw people's attention to this:http://marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1880/05/04.htmNow, this is Marx' introduction to the French edition of Socialism: utopian and scientific.Now, we know that Marx was alive when it was published, and felt secure enough to write: 

Quote:

Frederick Engels, one of the foremost representatives of contemporary socialism, distinguished himself in 1844 with his Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy,which first appeared in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, published in Paris by Marx and Ruge. The Outlines already formulates certain general principles of scientific socialism. Engels was then living in Manchester, where he wrote (in German) The Condition of the Working-Class in England (1845), an important work to which Marx did full justice in Capital

Now, we cannot know if Marx had any reservations about the text of that pamphlet, but we do know that there does not exist any public or private record of criticism, and willingness to add an introduction can legitimately be seen as an endorsement of sorts of the contents of that pamphlet.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Now, we cannot know if Marx had any reservations about the text of that pamphlet, but we do know that there does not exist any public or private record of criticism, and willingness to add an introduction can legitimately be seen as an endorsement of sorts of the contents of that pamphlet.

This has formed part of the discussion for decades now, YMS.It'd do you good to read up on it.

[Young Master Smeet]

I don't suppose you could assay a brief rebuttal?Also, you may find this letter from Charlie interesting.

Quote:

It would certainly be very pleasant if a really scientific socialist journal were to be published. It would provide an opportunity for criticisms or counter-criticisms in which we could discuss theoretical points, expose the utter ignorance of professors and lecturers and at the same time enlighten the minds of the general public–working class or bourgeois. But Wiede's periodical cannot possible be anything but sham-scientific; the same half-educated Knoten and dilettante literary men who make the Neue Welt, Vorwärts, etc., unsafe, necessarily form the majority of his collaborators. Ruthlessness –the first condition of all criticism–is impossible in such company; besides which constant attention has to be paid to making things easily comprehensible, i.e., exposition for the ignorant. Imagine a journal of chemistry where the readers' ignorance of chemistry is constantly assumed as the fundamental presupposition.

http://marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1877/letters/77_07_18.htmAlso, let's not forget their collaboration on the German Ideology, which went unpublished till long after the time of the social democrats et al.

[jondwhite]

mcolome1 wrote:

I learned from an old friend of mine that in order to understand a thinker it is also recommended to study his/her biography, and that is what I did in regard to Engels and Marx, and I discovered that they were two persons, with two different background, and two different human beings with two different intelectuals abilities,  but  with the same purpose on their mind, which was to dedicate their life to the cause of the working class, and Engels is one of the few capitalists who have betrayed his own class, and he never considered himself as a person above his great friend Marx, and he defended him in all aspects, and he was the one who finished his work on Capital.Those thinkers that think that they are above Engels, they can not even tie his shoelaces, and they are always obsessed about him, and they have never done anything for the cause of the working class, with them socialism has not advanced one inch , but Engels right or wrong he left a legacy, and it was the legacy of his friend  Karl Marx.  

What about the biography of Engels by Terrell Carver?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I don't suppose you could assay a brief rebuttal?

Two points, YMS:1. I've done this many times over dozens of threads, so you could re-read some or all of them.2. I don't trust you, since my many previous attempts to get you to discuss these philosophical issues have always ended with some childish and ignorant remarks from you, so you're not someone for whom I would spend any further time on 'rebuttal', brief or otherwise.You're going to have to read some of the many books and articles that I've recommended in the past. I used to give long quotes from Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Korsch, Lukacs, Hook, etc., etc., but I've since realised that doing so is pointless when arguing with Religious Materialists, who are like Creationists confronted with arguments about fossils – Materialists and Creationists have their respective gods: Matter and Him. God created in October 4004 BC, and Matter created 5 billion years earlier.Any talk of human self-creation of their world, of the social producion of our reality, of Marx and democracy, is met by outright dismissal.You're going to have to build your own rebuttal, YMS.

[Young Master Smeet]

Lbird wrote:

1. I've done this many times over dozens of threads, so you could re-read some or all of them.

Not on the specific issue of Marx and Socialism Utopian and Scientific you haven't.  This is a thread specifically about Engels and Marx, and the frankly ludicrous attemopt to use Engls as some sort of Alibi for Saint Marx (not to mention the whole attempt at a Great Man theory of history which ignores the public aspects of the joint project between the two men and the whole mileu of that project).Noticeably, you have consistantly ignored the joint authorship of the German Ideology, and all it's content about materialism.Fart, willy, bum.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird wrote:

1. I've done this many times over dozens of threads, so you could re-read some or all of them.

Not on the specific issue of Marx and Socialism Utopian and Scientific you haven't.  This is a thread specifically about Engels and Marx, and the frankly ludicrous attemopt to use Engls as some sort of Alibi for Saint Marx (not to mention the whole attempt at a Great Man theory of history which ignores the public aspects of the joint project between the two men and the whole mileu of that project).Noticeably, you have consistantly ignored the joint authorship of the German Ideology, and all it's content about materialism.Fart, willy, bum.

That's just about your level of scholarship, YMS.Try reading for once. Y'know, B I G  W O R D  B O O K S

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

God created in October 4004 BC, and Matter created 5 billion years earlier.

But how do we know either claim to be true?  Have I missed a vote on this crucial issue?  And on what basis was it decided that matter was created when you claim it was?  And when that vote took place, was there also a vote on how matter should be defined?  Was the definition based on mass, volume or space; on atoms; on protons, neutrons and electrons; on quarks or leptons; or on theories of relativity?Actually, for the record, and based on the available evidence, matter was created something like 15 billion years ago.  But we can't be absolutely certain of that because it hasn't yet been put to a vote by the 7 billion inhabitants of planet earth.   Or has it?

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

…matter was created …

You might as well sing 'Faith of Our Fathers', too.It's clear to see what your ideology is, gnome, but why you won't declare it, openly, suggests you have something to hide.I'm a Democratic Communist, and influenced by Marx's notions of the social production of our reality, and so have a socio-historic approach to questions about 'creation' and, as always follows, the 'creator'.It would be very interesting just for once to have a discussion about the various ideologies about 'creation', but I know already that it's a waste of time suggesting this to Religious Materialists, who already 'Know Truth'.

[Anonymous]

To talk about the return of Engels it is like talking about Post-Marxism. Both means that socialism was  tried, or placed on the side, and it cameback again. According to  the Marxists Humanist Engels is a post-marxist

[jondwhite]

mcolome1 wrote:

To talk about the return of Engels it is like talking about Post-Marxism. Both means that socialism was  tried, or placed on the side, and it cameback again. According to  the Marxists Humanist Engels is a post-marxist

Which Marxist Humanists and where did they say this?

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

To talk about the return of Engels it is like talking about Post-Marxism. Both means that socialism was  tried, or placed on the side, and it cameback again. According to  the Marxists Humanist Engels is a post-marxist

Which Marxist Humanists and where did they say this?

That wrong conveption was invented by Raya Dunayeskaya. Look on herr works  PS Some of her pupils are changing the concept

[Author]

Posts