This dates back at least I think to Lukacs and the basic argument is that
Engels in 'Anti-Duhring' and 'Dialectics of Nature' was somehow contaminated
by the vulgar materialism and Darwinism of the mid-19th century (and in some
versions, positivism) into thinking that dialectics could be applied to
natural science. This is said to lead to Engels having a teleological and
scientistic approach, which according to Colletti was partly responsible
for the evolutionary and technological determinist Marxism of 2nd
International theorists such as Kautsky. The anti-Engels crowd argue that
Marx was only concerned with human history (and therefore devised a theory
of historical materialism, rather than dialectical materialism) and did not
feel that his theory could be applied to the natural world.
I think that the counter-position of Marx and Engels is wrong - not least
because Marx never objected to what Engels was doing and contributed to
'Anti-Duhring' himself. However, I do think 'The Dialectics of Nature' is at
very least incomplete - most of it was never intended for publication - but
my objection is not to the idea of dialectics in nature and Engels' work
includes some important insights. It has also suffered at the hands of the
Stalinist reductionism of dialectics to three rules, the adequacy of which
was buttressed by quotes from Engels and Lenin (and Stalin, of course!).
Engels was obviously not a trained natural scientist, though he did try to
keep up with developments. He probably got much information from his close
friend, the pioneer organic chemist, historian of chemistry and Marxist,
Carl Schorlemmer. (who was professor of organic chemistry at Manchester
University and is buried about 300 yards from my house... but I digress..)
I think Vygotsky's comments in 'The crisis of psychology' are probably close
to the mark in terms of Engels' contribution where he talks about the need
to create a mid-level 'dialectics of psychology' rather than just taking the
general principles of dialectics as providing a finished philosophical key
to every subject. I think Engels was only at the beginning of trying to do
this for the natural sciences and accordingly his work should be taken as
the first step. A passage in Lewontin and Levins' book 'The Dialectical
Biologist' (which is aimed to create such a 'dialectics of biology') sums it
up well:
'For some contradiction is an epistemic principle only. [This is the
position of some of Engels' opponents.] ... For others contradiction is not
only epistemic but political as well, the contradiction between classes
being the motive power of history. [This is the position of the others, who
identify it with Marx.] For us, contradiction is not only epistemic and
political but ontological in the broadest sense. Contradictions between
forces are everywhere in nature, not only in human social institutions. This
tradition of dialectics goes back to Engels... Engels' understanding of the
physical world was of course, a 19th century understanding, and much of what
he wrote about it seems quaint... Yet neither Engels' factual errors nor the
rigidity of idealist dialectics changes the fact that opposing forces lie at
the basis of the evolving physical and biological world.'
> As far as Hegal, I would say the author sides on Marx as a dialectical
> materialist, rather than what I see as Hegalian, the dialectic of ideas.
> He spends some time reviewing Hegal and materialism-idealism which was
> helpful for me. The ecomonics is a big one for me, which I have no
> patience or understanding for, and the book was helpful for me in
> understanding that aspect of Marx's work.
The problem is that after 1845 Marx wrote little on philosophy so that his
mature ideas on dialectics are mainly to be found implicitly in what (and
how) he wrote about economics.
Off to watch the cricket on TV...
Bruce Robinson
PS to Nate: thanks for providing the URL for Reijo Miettinen's paper. It
looks as if it will be very useful to me.
>
> For me, I don't see the book as a "simpler" subsitute instead of a deeper
> analysis of Marx's ideas, but rather as a tool to facilitate that deeper
> analysis. Much in the same way Kozulin's intro to *Thought and Language"
> served an important function in understanding where Vygotsky was coming
> from. Such an approach of course has a consequence which is what I
assume
> you were getting at. But, with both Vygotsky and Marx the historical
> context can serve as an important tool in understanding their ideas,
rather
> than projecting our contemporary context upon their work.
>
> Nate
>
>
>
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Dillon <dillonph who-is-at northcoast.com>
> To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 3:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Marxism audiobook online
>
>
> > Nate,
> >
> > Which of Marx's 'most difficult ideas' did you find this book especially
> > good at explaining? How does he handle the relationship between Marx
and
> > Hegel? From my experience there's no easy way to grasp the application
> of
> > dialectics in Marx's analysis of the commodity without deep study.
> > Nevertheless, even at a first reading of the first chapter of Capital,
> > something of the deep insight of that analysis is communicated to the
> > patient reader.
> >
> > Paul H. Dillon
> >
> >
> >
>
>