Sasha,
I agree entirely that an interpretation of Marx will always be from one or
another stance. It seems to me that there are large differences between Marx
scholarship in the west and that in Russia. When you say, for example, that
there is there is only one school of Marxist philosophy in Russia that
strikes me as both a strength and a weakness. My knowledge of Marx is
without a doubt far inferior to yours, but I hope that it has been richened
by exploring a little how Marx was read by people like Lefebvre, Sartre,
Merleau-Ponty, and read back into Hegel by Kojeve, Hyppolite, Lukacs, and
others. I'm not trying to sound erudite; my point is that Marx's texts are
ambiguous, plurivocal, and any attempt to determine the real Marx, or decide
once and for all how Marx related to Hegel, for example, is an endless task.
Marx's writings have been called "a breathtakingly luxuriant but tangled
forest."
For example, the interpretation that Marx had already 'inverted' Hegel has
been much contested. To think that there is merely a rational kernel to
Hegel is a matter of debate, to say the least. To call the 1844 manuscripts
preliminary in anything other than a literal sense is to repeat a claim that
has been much challenged.
But let me defend myself a little: Engels used the term "historical
materialism," while Marx did not (though I think Kautsky coined it). Lenin
wrote of "dialectical materialism" in Materialism and Empiricocriticism.
Stalin is not worth defending, I agree. To paint HM as true and DM as false
does not get me very far in trying to understand what Vygotsky was doing
with these terms, with the texts they came from, and thus to see what can be
teased out of the tangled forest of Vygotsky's own writings.
For example, my question to Joao was based what seems to me evident (though
I'm willing to be corrected): that Vygotsky himself drew a distinction
between HM and DM, and on my reading he judges them both positively.
Yes, Vygotsky considered himself to be a Marxist. But what that meant to him
then, and what it means to us now, are not self-evident matters. Reading
Vygotsky's texts here in the US in one way I am at a disadvantage because
the culture and context are so different from his. But from another point of
view this makes it possible to try to liberate a potential from his writing
that might not otherwise be accessible. I am not a Marxist (in any direct
sense) but I do want to develop his ideas. If you are correct that "if we
want develop Vygotsky¹s ideas
> and if we appreciate his conscious position we can do it only basing on
> Marxist approach"
then scholarship on Vygotsky in the west is in deep trouble!
One last thing- you also suggest that:
prevailing attitude towards LSV as to ideal example of Marxist
> dialectical logic
While I would say that this is actually a very rare attitude to Vygotsky in
this country.
Martin
p.s. can I add that I attended your presentation at ISCAR in Sevilla and was
very impressed by your intellectual project. It is a pleasure to be
discussing these matters with you!
On 12/20/06 9:47 PM, "Alexander Surmava" <monada@netvox.ru> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>
>
> I think that the interpretation of Marxist philosophy (dialectic) has to be
> based on some definite cultural = scientific = philosophical tradition or
> school of thought. Thus my approach is entirely based on Il¹enkov¹s school
> of dialectic. This approache I share with all of his disciples among which I
> have to mention Felix Mikhailov, Lev Naumenko, Vasiliy Davidov, Alexey
> Novokhatko, Alexander Simakin, Sergey Mareev and some other philosophers and
> psychologists.
>
> According to this approach the basics of Marxist philosophy was elaborated
> by Karl Marx and Fred Engels in the course of investigation of political
> economy of capitalist society in ³Das Kapital² and in a few preliminary
> works like ³Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844², ³The German
> Ideology² and ³Theses on Feuerbach². Engels only aired his and Marx¹
> collective opinion in his latest works like ³Anti-Dühring². We (I mean all
> mentioned above alive or dead persons) have never heard that it was Engels
> who ³extracted the rational kernel' from Hegel to invent it and DM² because
> from one side the work of extraction of rational, materialist Kernel from
> Hegel was done by both founders of materialist dialectic in 1844 and
> developed in ³Das Kapital² and from the other side because the separate DM
> is entirely false positivist misinterpretation of Marxist philosophy and
> that Engels quite innocent in it.
>
> Even less we can accuse Lenin of inventing or elaborating of abstract DM
> because it was Lenin who was the utmost enemy of all forms of positivism.
>
> On the contrary the Stalinist ideology was in fact the queer mixture of
> primitive positivist ³DM² and irrational ideological ³HM².
>
> I want to repeat that this point of view is not my own peculiarity but
> something banal for all Russian Marxists. (There is only one Marxist
> philosophical school in Russia founded by Il¹enkov, so when I mention
> ³Russian Marxists² I mean Il¹enkov¹s disciples.)
>
> Surely all this can be argued in detail but first of all we have to fix the
> difference in our approaches, if such differences really exist.
>
> As for question of Joao about LSV¹s approach to this problem it is difficult
> (and frankly to say rather senseless) to try to give some definite answer to
> it because the ³problem² of establishing a ³difference between dialectic
> materialism and historical materialism² is not a substantial theoretic but
> entirely ideological question (in old Marxist meaning of the term ³ideology²
> as a false form of consciousness). I can only repeat that basing on
> developed Marxist dialectical approach so called DM and HM are one and the
> same thing.
>
> Surely Vygotsky consider himself as a Marxist, he wanted to be a Marxist and
> pretty much he was a Marxist. Moreover if we want develop Vygotsky¹s ideas
> and if we appreciate his conscious position we can do it only basing on
> Marxist approach.
>
> But we have sober estimate that the real logic of his investigations not
> always remain Marxist. Thus for example Vygotsky¹s understanding of language
> is considerably positivist. (This assertion can be easily demonstrated.) So
> the prevailing attitude towards LSV as to ideal example of Marxist
> dialectical logic is to put it mildly inadequate. Vygotsky wanted to build a
> Marxist psychology and he did much more than anybody else to realize his
> wish, but he had too little time to do it. Moreover he meets the other big
> obstacle not enunciating of Marxist dialectic. The dialectical method of
> Marx was realized by him in his main work ³Das Kapital², but neither Marx,
> nor Engels has left us ³Logic² from capital letter. So Vygotsky had in the
> same time investigate the nature of human consciousness and extract
> dialectical methodology from ³Das Kapital². In fact the task was too titanic
> for one even genius man. In this situation it is little wonder that he
> failed in realizing both tasks (elaborating dialectical methodology and
> developing a dialectical psychology) but it deserves admiration that in
> spite of all difficulties LSV left us a great number of brilliant insights.
>
> The real perspective of developing of dialectical psychology was opened only
> in the middle of the last century by works of a group of researchers like
> Evald Il¹enkov, Alexander Mescheriakov, Alexey Leont¹ev and Nikolay
> Bernstein.
>
> So the sooner we will left the uncritical apologetical attitude regarding
> Vygotsky, the better chance we acquire to continue his lifework.
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Martin Packer
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:59 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] question
>
>
>
> Joao,
>
>
>
> Your project sounds interesting. I think you're pointing to something of a
>
> contradiction that I feel is in the Crisis, and perhaps elsewhere. On the
>
> one hand V does speak of the problem of using either historical materialism
>
> or dialectical materialism for his "general psychology," a truly Marxist
>
> psychology. The former was appropriate for Marx's sociology, a study of
>
> society, but he's doing something different. The latter is too abstract. On
>
> the other hand, the history that he tells of the discipline of psychology is
>
> one in which there is an objective logic, operating behind the backs of
>
> individual psychologists ("like a coiled string"), the laws of this logic
>
> can be grasped through "scientific analysis," there are underlying inherent
>
> contradictions, a revolutionary moment (the "crisis") has arrived as a
>
> result of the pressure of practical concerns, and a future can be envisioned
>
> where, in the form of the new general psychology, qualitatively different
>
> from what has come before, time has ended. In short, this history has a form
>
> that sounds (to the best of my limited knowledge) very much like that
>
> dialectical materialism.
>
>
>
> What do you think? (Sorry not to be able to write in Portugese)
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On 12/19/06 11:07 AM, "Joao Martins" <jbmartin@sercomtel.com.br> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Martins and others... the title of my project is " The psychology of
>
>> Vygotsky: mapping concepts, tracing courses ". He has as objective maps
> the
>
>> concepts, the units of analysis used by Vygotsky to consolidate your
>
>> proposals for the psychology.
>
>> I will be analyzing your books: Psychology of the Art and Pedagogic
>
>> Psychology and the texts that appeared in your Chosen Works.
>
>> In a first moment we can notice that Vyg. uses of the dialetic materialism
>
>> to make the analyses about the superior psychological functions, or even
> to
>
>> analyze the psychology of your time - in the text Crisis of the Psychology
>
>> that is clear.
>
>> But he speaks that the problem is to use the historical materialism to
> make
>
>> such analyses. I think that he sees in the historical materialism a form
> of
>
>> approaching the psychological phenomena, approaching of a certain
> sociology
>
>> of the human relationships...
>
>>
>
>> Do you understand?
>
>>
>
>> Joao Martins
>
>> ____________________
>
>> Joáo Batista Martins
>
>> R. Pref. Hugo Cabral, 1062 - apto. 142
>
>> Londrina - PR - CEP 86020-111
>
>>
>
>> Home page http//www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/5389
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> From: "Martin Packer" <packer@duq.edu>
>
>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:21 PM
>
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] question
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Joao,
>
>>
>
>> Would you like to tell us more about your project?
>
>>
>
>> Martin
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On 12/18/06 11:38 AM, "Joao Martins" <jbmartin@sercomtel.com.br> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> Dear friends, I am making a project on vygotsky and I would like to know
>
>> if
>
>>> Vygotsky establish a difference between dialetic materialism and
>
>> historical
>
>>> materialism?
>
>>>
>
>>> Joao Martins
>
>>> ____________________
>
>>> Joáo Batista Martins
>
>>> R. Pref. Hugo Cabral, 1062 - apto. 142
>
>>> Londrina - PR - CEP 86020-111
>
>>>
>
>>> _______________________________________________
>
>>> xmca mailing list
>
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> xmca mailing list
>
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> xmca mailing list
>
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> xmca mailing list
>
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:19 PST