 |
 |
I need to review this long exchange to understand the issues raised better. But let me put a question to you. Is there anything called Marxism that most Marxists agree on? Second, if there is--is "Marxism" scientific? If yes, in what sense? Kamran On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Thomas Smith <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Dear Tom, > > Might you send this to Science for the People list? For some reason, AOL > is giving my address as an aim address rather than my netscape address, so > I was rejected. > > thanks > sam**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -----Original Message----- > From: sam4wp <[log in to unmask]> > To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 10:16 am > Subject: Re: Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena Sheehan**** > > Dear Tom and all, > > This goes back to how you define "working class." (I have an article > coming out in Against the Current on that, by the way, and can send it to > anyone who asks) > > The great majority of the poor are members of the working class--not of > the lumpenproletariat. This is true not only in South Africa but in most > of the world. And in many parts of the USA, I would add, the Latinos are a > very large part of the working class however you define that term. > > Hal Draper, in his books on Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution, had a very > nice discussion of how Marx defined and used the term lumpenproletariat, by > the way. I learned a lot from it. > > best > sam**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Smith <[log in to unmask]> > To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 6:16 am > Subject: Re: Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena Sheehan**** > > Dear Mandi,**** > > I would refer you not only to Michael Parenti, who talks here about > category C, the “billion poor,”**** > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KitvwJBRw2Q**** > > , but also Richard Chilicote**** > > > http://www.amazon.com/Globalization-Unmasked-Imperialism-21st-Century/dp/1856499391 > **** > > **** > > You seem to be hinting that this poor should be able to become their own > agency In the struggle to “alter or overturn the status quo” in their > favor. Here again, the classics are vitally important, because, unless you > consider Mao a classic thinker—I do not, and here I agree with David > Westman (except for the part about Trotsky)—none of these people, including > Fanon, romanticize the poor’s magical power to do so on their own. > Unfortunately so many “Leftists” today do so, including even to some degree > Mike Davis, who talks about Latinos, for example, “reinventing” cities of > the United States. All by themselves. Amazing! I’m actually doing some > writing about this magical, Wagner-Nietzsche like thinking**** > > **** > > The lumpen propletariat, as Marx and Engels, and many other socialists, > pointed out, do not have the capacity by themselves to carry out a > revolution. Neither, contrary to Fanon, do the peasantry. It is only the > working class that can do that. Now how that working class can be liberated > from their bureaucratic misleaders, and how they can be encouraged to > embrace a socialist ideology, and to reach out to the poor in order to > offer them leadership—those are questions that were once worked out well in > Russia in 1917. But conditions have changed, cultures vary, so there are > enormous practical problems with that task—especially against the > resistance of the bourgeoisie and its military and its intelligence > apparatuses—that have to be worked out in each country.**** > > **** > > Getting back to Science—the classics are NOT very good on science. There > is great ambiguity here, and that is why many Leftists in the U.S. blind > themselves to the dangers of establishment science. Stanley Aronowitz has > written a wonderful book however, SCIENCE AS POWER, which very ably > attempts to create a Leftist view of science which is fully cognizant of > these dangers. I just saw Stanley at his 80th birthday party, by the > way—he looks very healthy and he says he has a lot more projects to pursue. > **** > > Tom**** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* Science for the People Discussion List [ > mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] > *On Behalf Of *Mandi Smallhorne > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 09, 2013 3:21 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena Sheehan**** > > **** > > Yes, you’re dead right, I haven’t read much of Poulantzas, just chunks > quoted here and there. Nor have I re-read any PolSci classics for a long > time. Living in and around a struggle for human rights (sadly, aluta > continua), I did not find I needed to do so. I do not consider myself an > intellectual, and not being an academic or one of the lefty gods, I have no > personal stake at all in coming up with ‘something new’. As a South African > lefty who has seen one long and noble fight become mired in the swamp of > neoliberal globalised economics and values, however, I DO strongly feel > there is room and to spare for something new that will EFFECTIVELY alter or > overturn the status quo in favour of the poor, especially the non-working > poor, of whom we have so many.**** > > I did not, BTW say that the classics are not worth reading; I said they > need to be built on. And how about addressing the issues I raise – the > impact of IT and globalisation, and all that has changed because of them?* > *** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* Science for the People Discussion List [ > mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] > *On Behalf Of *Thomas Smith > *Sent:* 08 January 2013 08:10 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena Sheehan**** > > **** > > Obviously you haven’t read Poulantzas, nor thought very deeply about these > issues. The middle class intellectual is frantic to maintain the illusion > that she or he can come up with something new. Thus anyone who believes the > classics are still worth reading are reduced to the status of > Bible-thumping “evangelicals.” Thanks for the compliment, yourself.**** > > **** > > *From:* Science for the People Discussion List [ > mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] > *On Behalf Of *Mandi Smallhorne > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:30 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena Sheehan**** > > **** > > Well, merci du compliment, I don’t think! **** > > Gramsci died in the 30s. Poulantzas died in 1979 (even Sartre managed to > outlive him by a whisker!)... 10 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, > way before the advent of the information technology stuff that’s made so > much so different. And I’m afraid I simply don’t think that anything > written about globalisation before somewhere around 2000 can begin to deal > with the massive shifts it has created in its fullest flowering. **** > > Obviously not everything written in the early 20th century or the 19th is > outdated, but it needs so much to be built on rather than preserved in > amber and fought over by its reverent evangelicals. **** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* Science for the People Discussion List [ > mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] > *On Behalf Of *Thomas Smith > *Sent:* 08 January 2013 01:55 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena Sheehan**** > > **** > > Mandi I think that’s a bunch of trendy nonsense. As Sartre wrote, > capitalism still is the “horizon” against which we must work, and the basic > contours of capitalist society: exploitation, the workers vs. the > capitalist class, the separation of civil society and state, the formation > and function of the state as ably analyzed by Poulantzas (updated by him > for the contemporary period of globalization), the need to be precise with > our politics, and not form permanent alliances with petit-bourgeois and > outright bourgeois parties and groups, the need, despite the silly > communist voice crap (I think I actually know those guys—they think they > can reinvent the wheel), for permanent revolution, etc. ,etc. Marxism is > STILL relevant as updated by people like Lenin, Trotsky, Poulantzas, > Sartre, Gramsci. **** > > **** > > *From:* Science for the People Discussion List [ > mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] > *On Behalf Of *Mandi Smallhorne > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 08, 2013 2:08 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena Sheehan**** > > **** > > Indeed and indeed. I have just been reading a whole slew of history books > around the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and marvelling at how very > different circumstances where then – hugely so in the case of Russia, but > almost as much in the rest of the world (imagine a world where the Speaker > could give up his political career as a matter of conscience, because the > USA had decided to engage in imperialist behaviour... !) The working class > in the North was so different, class was so set in stone – today I am sure > Marx would’ve written a different theory. Where is our Marx for today? Why > do so many lefties (here I think specifically of an online forum I’m > involved with here in South Africa) waste so much time and energy > quarrelling about terminology a century old?**** > > Mandi**** > > *From:* Science for the People Discussion List [ > mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] > *On Behalf Of *herb fox > *Sent:* 07 January 2013 11:22 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena Sheehan**** > > **** > > Oh my, what century are we in? > A revisionist is one who revises an existing belief system. Marx famously > said "Don't call me a Marxist." He never constructed a belief system. He > did do a superb job defining ideology, explaining capitalism, offering a > historiography based on class relations, transforming Hegel's dialectics > into a materialist based dialectics, and some other wonderful analyses and > conjectures. It follows that those who use the concept of revisionism are > asserting that there is a dogma. Indeed Lenin himself used the expression > dogma in referring to "Marxism." Capitalism will be replaced, because it > is demonstrating its failure to improve and enrich the lives of humans on > this planet and it is destroying the ability of the planet to support the > species. Marx, were he alive today, would surely be a "revisionist," > desperately trying to overcome those who for lack of imagination have > constructed dogmas with names like Maxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, > Etc. There are so many developments since his time, in culture, class > structure, etc, around which he would put his wonderful analytical ability > to help us understand and develop program. It is highly unlikely that he > would join any of the existing groups; and it is likely he would be in the > library, not in the street, just as he did in writing Das Kapital. > > Assuming that subscribers to this list recognize that science has been > very much integrated into the current socio-economic structure and ideology > of capitalism, and want science to serve the 99% of the population, it > seems appropriate that we put ourselves to two tasks: (1) find ways to use > our science and technology to aid and be responsive to the 99% in the daily > struggles against injustice, and (2) use our imagination to contribute to > envisioning an alternate organization of society that will be meaningful > enough to a majority to grasp its imagination and motivate it to struggle > for it. What form that struggle will take we will only know when it > happens; but it is highly unlikely it will be like any previous struggle. > Take note that the Bolsheviks operated in a country which was still > culturally feudal and in which there was a revolutionary movement to which > it gave leadership. There has not to this day been any taking of power by > an organization that mobilized the majority of the population in a > conscious struggle against a massively hegemonic capitalist superstructure. > > The ahistoric application of language and experiences to the real > situation in this country at this time, especially in light of the massive > mindfuck that penetrates the majority, will go nowhere. What is needed is > a change in popular consciousness and sectarians with their private > language are not likely to accomplish that. > > herb**** > > On 1/7/2013 7:46 AM, Sam Friedman wrote:**** > > What this interchange has taught me is: > 1. There is no agreement about what Marxism is on this list. > 2. Some on this list have very strong opinions on this and related issues. > > Similarly, one or more of the people contributing to this discussion have > used the term revolution. It is not at all clear to me that there is > widespread agreement on the list about what a revolution is; which of the > many changes of governments and other aspects of nations the various people > would consider to be "revolutions;" or what people see as the desirable > outcome of "revolution." > > Nor do I get any sense of the practical activities that these differences > lead to in various people's cases. > > If people want to get serious about these discussions, these seem like > worthwhile starting points--for brief postings, not for huge ones no one > will read. > > best > sam**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Smith <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> > To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Mon, Jan 7, 2013 6:35 am > Subject: Re: Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena Sheehan**** > > Just glanced at this. I do not believe that Trotsky was in any way shape or**** > > form a "revisionist" along the lines of Bernstein, Kautsky, Stalin, or Mao.**** > > Of course, I am open to evidence to the contrary. But what I belive has**** > > happened however is that many people who call themselves Trotskyists are in**** > > fact revisionist followers of Michel Pablo, who believed in liquidating into**** > > the Stalinist movement. The Pabloite USFI sections in many other ways became**** > > Trotskyist in name only. For example, adaptation to black nationalism in the**** > > United States, uncritical hero worship of Third World Stalinists (and even**** > > of bourgeois Third World Bonapartists like Chavez or Hussein), Sovietophobic**** > > affinity for openly fascist anti-Soviet groups (like the Forest Brothers),**** > > or its opposite, Sovietophilia (as in the case of the Spartacist League's**** > > Jim Robertson, with his love affair of the East German bureaucrats);**** > > abandonment of the transitional program, liquidation into a social**** > > democratic, Shachmanite swamp like Solidarity in the U.S., which both the**** > > FIT and the Trotskyist League have done, etc.**** > > **** > > -----Original Message-----**** > > From: Science for the People Discussion List**** > > [mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of David Westman**** > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 1:11 AM**** > > To: [log in to unmask]**** > > Subject: Re: Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena Sheehan**** > > **** > > Larry, neither Marx nor Engels used the term revisionism because the**** > > non-scientific socialists they dealt with were of a pre-Marxian sort**** > > (although Lasalle adopted some of Marx's theoretical work in a distorted**** > > form similar to 20th century revisionism, and sought to reach an agreement**** > > with Bismark in a way similar to the political tactics of 20th **** > > century revisionists as well). The term "revisionism" first came up **** > > at the turn of the 20th century in reference to Eduard Bernstein, who was**** > > once Engels secretary and in 1900 published a book with the theme that "the**** > > movement is everything and the final goal is nothing", and Francois**** > > Millerand, who shocked socialists by agreeing to join a bourgeois**** > > government. For a more thorough explanation of this issue, see **** > > Lenin's essay "Marxism and Revisionism" which explains it very well. **** > > I will go into Lars Lih at another time.**** > > **** > > David Westman**** > > **** > > On 1/6/2013 9:08 PM, Romsted, Laurence wrote:**** > > > Ok. This exchange between David and Carrol is for me an example of the **** > > > problem of thinking and talking (and shouting) about revisionism.**** > > > **** > > > 1. What is revisionism re Marx? (I have some idea, but I am not sure **** > > > what you two mean).**** > > > **** > > > 2. Certainly to call someone a revisionist at any type of meeting I **** > > > attend would make sense to almost no one.**** > > > **** > > > 3. Who is Lars Lith and why do you two disagree about the significance **** > > > of his writing? His being an "academic petty-fogger" has a nice ring, **** > > > but it helps me not at all understand his weaknesses.**** > > > **** > > > Larry**** > > > **** > > > **** > > > **** > > > **** > > > On 1/6/13 11:10 PM, "David Westman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:**** > > > **** > > >> On the contrary, revisionism is an ever-present danger during the**** > > >> struggle for socialist revolution. And it is especially true today**** > > >> when we are faced with the monumental task of clearing up a century's **** > > >> worth of confusion due to the influence of **** > > >> Stalinist/Trotskyist/Maoist revisionism which caused tremendous damage to**** > > the working class**** > > >> struggle. And as for Lars Lih, he is just another "armchair**** > > >> socialist", an academic petty-fogger who has never considered what **** > > >> the real tasks of the revolution require.**** > > >> **** > > >> David Westman**** > > >> **** > > >> On 1/6/2013 7:51 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:**** > > >>> As (if) a new mass left resistance grows, the kind of issue **** > > >>> represented, a century ago, by "Revisionism" may, probably will, arise.**** > > >>> But to shout "revisionist" at the present time is as futile as an **** > > >>> argument over Royalism. Debates around Marx, Marxism, Socialism, **** > > >>> Revolution have left that ancient quarrel far behind and pointless. **** > > >>> As a start, David might read Lars Lih's wonderful book on Lenin & WITBD.**** > > >>> These ancient scholastic quarrels among socialists are as depressing **** > > >>> as the massing of liberals around Austerity and Repression (as long **** > > >>> as Obama can be the Enforcer).**** > > >>> **** > > >>> Carrol**** > > >>> **** > > >>>> -----Original Message-----**** > > >>>> From: Science for the People Discussion List **** > > >>>> [mailto:SCIENCE-FOR-THE- <SCIENCE-FOR-THE-?> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of S. E. **** > > >>>> Anderson**** > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 4:01 PM**** > > >>>> To: [log in to unmask]**** > > >>>> Subject: Re: Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena **** > > >>>> Sheehan**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> David,**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> Within the article, I posted a foto of Ms Sheehan at a pro Syriza **** > > >>>> rally. I think this indicates that she has an "activist strain in **** > > >>>> her thought." As for the revisionism you have mentioned, that may **** > > >>>> not have been her intent to raise within this interview on a **** > > >>>> subject rarely every mentioned within mainstream/corporate academia **** > > >>>> and media.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> I think it is a small and useful breakthru- especially for **** > > >>>> circulation and discussion with the US science and academic circles **** > > >>>> because here it is so deeply anticommunist and anti-intellectual.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> It will be interesting to hear from others on this listserv about **** > > >>>> the value of this interview and our struggle to develop a Science **** > > >>>> for the People Movement.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> Happy New Year of Struggle,**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> Sam Anderson**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> -----Original Message-----**** > > >>>> From: David Westman**** > > >>>> Sent: Jan 4, 2013 4:54 PM**** > > >>>> To: [log in to unmask]**** > > >>>> Subject: Re: Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena **** > > >>>> Sheehan**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> This is a provocative posting, thank you Sam! But the problem that**** > > >>>> she does not consider is the existence of revisionist deviations **** > > >>>> from Marxism, particularly the Bernstein-Kautsky revisionism of the **** > > >>>> early 20th Century and the later Stalin-Trotsky-Mao revisionism of **** > > >>>> the mid 20th Century.**** > > >>>> These two**** > > >>>> revisionist trends which created mockeries of Marxism were **** > > >>>> responsible for confusing people about the real revolutionary **** > > >>>> content of**** > > >>>> Marx, Engels, and Lenin. And she does not seem to have an activist**** > > >>>> strain in**** > > >>>> her thought - for her, there is no need to consider anew the tasks **** > > >>>> for organization of the proletariat, and to found a modern **** > > >>>> anti-revisionist party which commits itself to a renewed effort to **** > > >>>> organize for revolution.**** > > >>>> Marx's**** > > >>>> Theses on Feuerbach provide us with a very clear justification why **** > > >>>> Marx favored such an activist role, not just a contemplative one:**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> First Thesis on Feuerbach:**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism that of **** > > >>>> Feuerbach included is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is **** > > >>>> conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but **** > > >>>> not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, **** > > >>>> in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed **** > > >>>> abstractly by idealism which, of course, does not know real, **** > > >>>> sensuous activity as such.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought **** > > >>>> objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as **** > > >>>> objective activity.**** > > >>>> Hence, in The Essence of Christianity **** > > >>>> <http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/**** > > >>>> ind ex.htm> , he regards the theoretical attitude as the only **** > > >>>> genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed **** > > >>>> only in its dirty-judaical manifestation. Hence he does not grasp **** > > >>>> the significance of ³revolutionary², of ³practical-critical², **** > > >>>> activity.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> David Westman**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> On 1/4/2013 11:22 AM, S E ANDERSON wrote:**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> Dialectics in Science: An Interview with Helena Sheehan**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> by Ben Campbell on December 15, 2012**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> in featured <http://www.thenorthstar.info/?cat=868> ,**** > > interview **** > > >>>> <http://www.thenorthstar.info/?cat=269>**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> While today¹s left has frayed into many strands, there was a**** > > time **** > > >>>> when the left presented, or at least aspired to present, a coherent **** > > >>>> Weltanschauung <http://www.merriam- **** > > >>>> webster.com/dictionary/weltanschauung> . This was Marxism, founded **** > > >>>> on Karl Marx¹s brilliant synthesis of materialism and the **** > > >>>> philosophy of G.W.F.**** > > >>>> Hegel, which led him and his collaborator Friedrich Engels to an **** > > >>>> unprecedented coalescence of existing human knowledge.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> Today¹s crisis of capitalism has, unsurprisingly, led to a **** > > >>>> renewed interest in Marxism. Yet any ³return to Marx² will not be **** > > >>>> found in an exegesis of ancient texts but in grounding Marx¹s **** > > >>>> materialist dialectic in the present. Just as Marx critiqued **** > > >>>> 19th-century advances by incorporating them into his thought, so **** > > >>>> too must the most promising developments of the last century be **** > > >>>> synthesized into a radical understanding for the present.**** > > >>>> Unfortunately, today¹s left has for too long been relegated to **** > > >>>> social and cultural studies, ceding the ³hard² discourse in **** > > >>>> economics and science to a new generation of vulgar scientistic **** > > >>>> ³quants². The resulting left has too often neglected a dialectical **** > > >>>> critique, in favor of a dichotomous relation to science.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> It was not always so. In an attempt to recover some of the**** > > lost **** > > >>>> spirit of the scientific left, I will be interviewing subjects at **** > > >>>> the interface of science and the left. I begin today with Helena **** > > >>>> Sheehan, Professor Emerita at Dublin City University. Her research **** > > >>>> interests include science studies and the history of Marxism, and **** > > >>>> she is the author of Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A **** > > >>>> Critical History (available on her website **** > > >>>> <http://webpages.dcu.ie/%7Esheehanh/mxphsc.htm> ).**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> Ben Campbell: The advances of 19th-century science were **** > > >>>> inseparable from the rise of ³materialist² philosophy. While Marx **** > > >>>> certainly belongs to this tradition, he was also strongly **** > > >>>> influenced by German idealism, specifically the dialectical system **** > > >>>> of G.W.F. Hegel. What did a ³dialectical² materialism mean for **** > > >>>> Marx, and how did he see it as an advance over the materialism of **** > > >>>> his day?**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> Helena Sheehan: The materialist philosophy of the 19th**** > > century **** > > >>>> was tending in a positivist direction. It was inclined to stress **** > > >>>> induction and to get stuck in a play of particulars. Marxism pulled **** > > >>>> this in the direction of a more historicist and more holistic **** > > >>>> materialism. It was an approach that overcame myopia, one that **** > > >>>> looked to the whole and didn¹t get lost in the parts.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> BC: You¹ve written, ³It is no accident that Marxism made its**** > > **** > > >>>> entry onto the historical stage at the same historical moment as **** > > >>>> Darwinism.² What do you mean by this, and what do you see as the **** > > >>>> connection between these two monumental figures?**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> HS: The idea of evolution was an idea whose time had come.**** > > >>>> It was in the air. Historical conditions ripen and set the **** > > >>>> intellectual agenda.**** > > >>>> Great thinkers are those who are awake to the historical process, **** > > >>>> those who gather up what is struggling for expression. Marx and **** > > >>>> Darwin were both great thinkers in this sense, although others were **** > > >>>> also coming to the same conclusions. Marx and Engels were far **** > > >>>> bolder than Darwin, carrying forward the realization of a **** > > >>>> naturalistic and developmental process beyond the origin of **** > > >>>> biological species into the realm of socio-historical institutions **** > > >>>> and human thought.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> BC: Engels also wrote extensively on science, particularly**** > > in his **** > > >>>> manuscript Dialectics of Nature **** > > >>>> <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/index.htm> , **** > > >>>> unfinished and unpublished during his lifetime. What is it about **** > > >>>> this document, and Engels more generally, that has been so **** > > >>>> controversial in the history of Marxism¹s relation to science?**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> HS: There is a tension in Marxist philosophy between its**** > > roots in **** > > >>>> the history of philosophy and its commitment to empirical **** > > >>>> knowledge. For the best Marxist thinkers, certainly for Marx and **** > > >>>> Engels themselves, it has been a creative interaction. However, **** > > >>>> some of those pulling toward German idealist philosophy, **** > > >>>> particularly that of Kant and Hegel, have brought into Marxism a **** > > >>>> hostility to the natural sciences, influenced by the Methodenstreit **** > > >>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodenstreit> , an antagonistic **** > > >>>> conceptualization of the humanities versus the sciences, which has **** > > >>>> played out in various forms over the decades.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> The critique of positivism has been bloated to an**** > > anti-science **** > > >>>> stance. The tendency of some to counterpose a humanistic Marx to a **** > > >>>> positivist Engels is not supported by historical evidence, as I **** > > >>>> have demonstrated at some length in my book.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> BC: It seems to me that this synthesis of dialectical**** > > philosophy **** > > >>>> with materialism has always been contentious. On one hand, as you **** > > >>>> say, there is the danger of reducing an anti-positivist stance to **** > > >>>> an anti- scientific stance. On the other hand, there is the threat **** > > >>>> of ³the dialectic² being reduced to a mere rhetorical flourish for **** > > >>>> an otherwise bare scientism.**** > > >>>> Other writers, like John Bellamy Foster, have argued that Marxism **** > > >>>> after Marx and Engels split along these lines. Do you agree with **** > > >>>> this assessment?**** > > >>>> After**** > > >>>> Marx and Engels, what or who best demonstrated the potential of a **** > > >>>> ³dialectical² science to transcend this divide?**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> <http://www.thenorthstar.info/wp- **** > > >>>> content/uploads/2012/12/bernal.jpg>**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> HS: No, I don¹t agree with it. There have always been those**** > > who **** > > >>>> synthesized these two streams. Most familiar to me is the 1930s **** > > >>>> British Marxism of Bernal **** > > >>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Desmond_Bernal> , Haldane **** > > >>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane> , Caudwell **** > > >>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Caudwell> , and others, **** > > >>>> and**** > > >>>> post-**** > > >>>> war Eastern European Marxism. Regarding the latter, it suffered **** > > >>>> from the orthodoxy of parties in power, but it wasn¹t all **** > > >>>> catechetical dogmatism. In the United States, Richard Levins **** > > >>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Levins>**** > > >>>> and Richard Lewontin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin> .**** > > >>>> This would still characterize my own position today.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> BC: Yet despite the ability of some to transcend it, there**** > > does **** > > >>>> seem to have historically been much ambiguity concerning what a **** > > >>>> ³materialist dialectic² would really entail. Some, like philosopher **** > > >>>> David Bakhurst, have traced **** > > >>>> <http://books.google.com/books/about/Consciousness_and_Revolution_i**** > > >>>> n_ Soviet_P.html?id=ZY_r3yYCmsAC> some of this ambiguity back to **** > > >>>> the philosophical writings of Lenin. Bakhurst argues that while **** > > >>>> Lenin appeared at times to advocate a ³radical Hegelian realism², **** > > >>>> at other times his philosophy failed to transcend a rather vulgar **** > > >>>> materialism. How did any such ambiguities in Lenin¹s own writings **** > > >>>> contribute to subsequent debates in Soviet science?**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> HS: Yes, I would agree with that. Lenin could be very **** > > >>>> philosophically and politically sophisticated, but I never thought **** > > >>>> his philosophical position quite gelled. Some of his texts on **** > > >>>> reflection theory were epistemologically crude. As to the effect on **** > > >>>> Soviet debates, these were beset by the tendency to deal with **** > > >>>> writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin as sacred texts. This **** > > >>>> rigidified further after the Bolshevization of all academic **** > > >>>> discipline, when there had to be one and only one legitimate **** > > >>>> Marxist position on every question. A quote from Lenin stopped any **** > > >>>> further debate.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> BC: Such talk about the rigidity of Soviet science**** > > inevitably **** > > >>>> leads to the specter of T.D. Lysenko. For readers who may not be **** > > >>>> familiar, could you briefly describe Lysenko¹s work? How would you **** > > >>>> respond to those who use Lysenko as a cautionary tale about the **** > > >>>> danger posed by Marxism or dialectical thinking to biology?**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> HS: T.D. Lysenko (18981976) was a Ukrainian agronomist who**** > > came **** > > >>>> to prominence in the U.S.S.R. in 1927 when his experiments in **** > > >>>> winter planting of peas were sensationalized by Pravda. He became **** > > >>>> lionized as a scientist close to his peasant roots who could serve **** > > >>>> the needs of Soviet agriculture in the spirit of the first **** > > >>>> Five-Year Plan. He then advanced the technique of vernalization to **** > > >>>> a theory of the phasic development of plants and then to a whole **** > > >>>> alternative approach to biology. This was in the context of wider **** > > >>>> debates in international science about genetics and evolution, **** > > >>>> about heredity and environment, about inheritance of acquired **** > > >>>> characteristics. It was also in the context of the Bolshevization **** > > >>>> of academic disciplines and the search for a proletarian biology **** > > >>>> and the purges of academic institutions.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> The issues were many and complex. There has been a tendency**** > > to **** > > >>>> flatten them all out into Lysenkoism as a cautionary tale against **** > > >>>> philosophical or political ³interference² in science. However, I **** > > >>>> believe that philosophy and politics are relevant to the theory and **** > > >>>> practice of science.**** > > >>>> Lysenkoism is a cautionary tale in the perils and pitfalls of **** > > >>>> certain approaches to that.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> BC: If we turn from the Soviet philosophy of science to that**** > > of **** > > >>>> the non-Marxist West, you see a greater reluctance to mix **** > > >>>> philosophy with the content of science. Instead, a lot of canonical **** > > >>>> ³philosophy of science² (e.g., Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend) **** > > >>>> has more to do with scientific method. What does Marxism, with its **** > > >>>> emphasis on contradiction, have to say about the scientific method? **** > > >>>> I wonder specifically about Lakatos¹ background **** > > >>>> <https://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=5986&**** > > >>>> v iewby=subject&categoryid=542&sort=newest> in Hegelian Marxism **** > > >>>> and whether there are affinities there.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> HS: One big difference between these two traditions in**** > > philosophy **** > > >>>> of science is that Marxism pursued questions of worldview, **** > > >>>> exploring the philosophical implications of the empirical sciences, **** > > >>>> setting it apart from the narrow methodologism of the other **** > > >>>> tradition.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> However, Marxism also addressed questions of scientific**** > > method. **** > > >>>> There is an elaborate literature dealing with epistemological **** > > >>>> questions from a Marxist point of view. There have been many **** > > >>>> debates, but the mainstream position would be critical realism. **** > > >>>> What is distinctive about Marxism in this sphere is how it cuts **** > > >>>> through the dualism of realism versus social constructivism. **** > > >>>> Marxism has made the strongest claims of any intellectual tradition **** > > >>>> before or since about the socio-historical character of science, **** > > >>>> yet always affirmed its cognitive achievements.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> The fact that Lakatos had a background in Marxism made him **** > > >>>> inclined to take a wider view than his later colleagues, but I find **** > > >>>> that he left a lot to be desired in that respect. Nevertheless, **** > > >>>> contra Feyerabend, I think that the project of specifying **** > > >>>> demarcation criteria, so central to the neo-positivist project, is **** > > >>>> a crucially important task.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> BC: Karl Popper famously invoked a ³falsifiability²**** > > criterion as **** > > >>>> a means of solving the demarcation problem, which refers to the **** > > >>>> question of how to distinguish science from non-science (or if that **** > > >>>> is even possible).**** > > >>>> Popper¹s solution has influenced many scientists but has been **** > > >>>> strongly critiqued in philosophical circles. How does a Marxist **** > > >>>> approach inform this demarcation problem?**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> HS: There is a need for criteria to distinguish between **** > > >>>> legitimate and illegitimate claims to knowledge. The positivist and**** > > >>>> neo-**** > > >>>> positivist traditions contributed much to the formulation of such **** > > >>>> criteria.**** > > >>>> They did so, however, from a base that was too narrow, employing **** > > >>>> criteria that were too restricted, leaving out of the picture too **** > > >>>> much that was all too real, excluding historical, psychological, **** > > >>>> sociological, metaphysical dimensions as irrelevant. Marxism agrees **** > > >>>> with the emphasis on empirical evidence and logical coherence, but **** > > >>>> brings the broader context to bear. It synthesizes the best of **** > > >>>> other epistemological positions: logical empiricism, rationalism, **** > > >>>> social constructivism.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> BC: Today, Marxism stands at its weakest historically, right**** > > as **** > > >>>> the global economic crash seems to have most vindicated it. **** > > >>>> Similarly, Marxism has almost no direct influence on 21st-century **** > > >>>> science, yet discoveries and perspectives seem increasingly **** > > >>>> ³dialectical² (e.g., biological emphases on complex systems, **** > > >>>> emergence, and circular causality). What do you make of the **** > > >>>> situation at present? Would it be possible to develop a **** > > >>>> ³dialectical² or even ³Marxist² science without Marxism as a **** > > >>>> political force?**** > > >>>> Or will science always be fragmented and one-sided so long as there **** > > >>>> remains no significant political challenge to capital?**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> <http://www.thenorthstar.info/wp- **** > > >>>> content/uploads/2012/12/sheehansyriza.jpg>**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> Helena Sheehan at SYRIZA solidarity rally**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> HS: Yes, Marxism is at a low ebb as far as overt influence**** > > is **** > > >>>> concerned, precisely at a time when its analysis is most relevant **** > > >>>> and even most vindicated.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> I think that people can come to many of the same**** > > realizations and **** > > >>>> conclusions as Marxists without calling themselves Marxists.**** > > >>>> However, I don¹t think there can be any fully meaningful analysis **** > > >>>> of science that does not analyze it in relation to the dominant **** > > >>>> mode of production.**** > > >>>> Such an analysis shows how the capitalist mode of production brings **** > > >>>> about intellectual fragmentation as well as economic exploitation **** > > >>>> and social disintegration.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> I don¹t think that left parties having any chance of taking**** > > power **** > > >>>> in the future will be Marxist parties in the old sense, although **** > > >>>> Marxism will likely be a force within them. I am thinking **** > > >>>> particularly of SYRIZA, with whom I¹ve been intensively engaged **** > > >>>> lately. One of the leading thinkers in SYRIZA is Aristides Baltas, **** > > >>>> a Marxist and a philosopher of science.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> Thank you, Helena.**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> <http://www.thenorthstar.info/wp- **** > > >>>> content/uploads/2012/12/heinrichhoerle_monumentunknownprothesis.jpg**** > > >>>> Monument to the Unknown Prothesis, by Heinrich Hoerle**** > > >>>> (1930)**** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> **** > > >>>> author- "The Black Holocaust for Beginners"**** > > >>>> http://blackeducator.blogspot.com**** > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 7870 (20130107) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 7870 (20130107) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com**** > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 7870 (20130107) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com**** > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 7872 (20130108) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com**** > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 7872 (20130108) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com**** > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 7873 (20130108) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com**** > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 7873 (20130108) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com**** >