Re: Exchanges on Marxism and ecology

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brian Basgen wrote:

> >  Einstein was not a Marxist,
>
>   Yes, but he was a dialectical materialist regardless. As Lenin was a
> poor philosopher

This carries on a tradition which I first encountered back in the '70s
in a *Radical America* writer, who referred to "Lenin's philosophically
embarassing *MEC*." But all these references to Lenin as a poor
philosopher assume the priority of philosophy to all other forms of
thought and action. In fact, referring to Lenin as a poor philosopher
is like referring to Einstein as a poor designer of electric stoves.

If one reads *MEC* as an attempt to prove materialism -- i.e.
as a doctoral thesis in the Harvard philosophy department -- then
it is indeed "poor philosophy" as an article by Einstein would be
a poor manual for the manufacture of electric stoves. But it is
a political work within the marxist tradition, the burden of which
is to demonstrate that certain bourgeois philosophical currents,
when adopted by marxists, dissolve marxism from inside.

It is all one large "If ... then" proposition: "If one adopts an idealist
position and within that position tries to assert marxism, one will
come up with nonsense." The book splendidly performs what it
promises to perform. I recommend Sebastiano Timpanaro's work
as a medicine to the political wooliness (or is it merely fear of
having professors call you vulgar) that hastens to dismiss Lenin's
book without knowing the book's purposes.

Since contemporary western bourgeois thought is in the midst of one
more Return to Kant it is again worthwhile to note the futility of
attempting to give us Kantianism as the latest word in human
thought.

Carrol