[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Understanding/changing "something"
In "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" (1908), a book by
Lenin which Vygotsky quoted from time to time, Lenin quotes
“The most telling refutation of this as of all other
philosophical crotchets <em>(Schrullen)</em>is practice,
namely, experiment and industry. If we are able to prove
the correctness of our conception of a natural process
by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of
its conditions and making it serve our own purposes into
the bargain, then there is an end to the Kantian
incomprehensible [or ungraspable,
<em>unfassbaren</em>—this important word is omitted both
in Plekhanov’s translation and in Mr. V. Chernov’s
translation] ‘thing-in-itself.’ The chemical substances
produced in the bodies of plants and animals remained
just such ‘things-in-themselves’ until organic chemistry
began to produce them one after another, where upon the
‘thing-in-itself’ became a ‘thing for us,’ as, for
instance, alizarin, the colouring matter of the madder,
which we no longer trouble to grow in the madder roots
in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply
from coal tar”
For the original words by Engels, see
- this little book was always a standard component of any
Marxist education program and there is no doubt at all that
Vygotsky had read it.
On 29/05/2015 8:40 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
Henry, et al,
I wonder how revolution corresponds to violence if the violence is built into a tool, such as the case of gun design. After all, a bullet cannot do harm unless it is catapulted at a very fast velocity.
Revolution need not be violent, right?
Another thought: how does violence and the future connect if an adherent of violence as a means of production can only see what is an imagined freedom, instead city streets full of blood, or the maiming of innocents and the emotional upheaval of their families and communities and the repercussions from all that (which is future history). How is this actually freedom, when it only creates future enemies?
Why is the interconnectedness of us all completely forgotten in this (imagined) vision of freedom?
This argument might be offered against any adherent of violence (as a means of production), which (to me) seems to coincide with the notion of disrespect and how disrespect is proffered and perceived in extreme forms.
Is this captured in the tool design?
Henry, your post has made me consider what it means to be a radical vs a revolutionary: both seem preoccupied with change and with history, no? What is the difference?
These are questions I have... not sure what the answers are...
Thanks for the prod, and also thanks for all the XMCA dots, everyone!