Comments on the Corinna Lotz’ article

 

 1. “Diamat” and “istmat” can’t be reactionary. Diamat means dialectical materialism. Istmat means historical materialism. If someone says, instead of dialectical materialism 'materialist dialectic', and instead of historical materialism - "the materialist conception of history," he is not a reactionary. He says the same thing.

I had not faced with such a remark Ilyenkov on diamat and istmat. But if he said so, it is a blunder.

The reactionary nature can not be contained in the terms. Reaction can only be in content, which puts a reactionary to these terms. This is understandable for a child.

2. The article gives the term "bureaucratic worker’ state." There are also terms "degenerated workers' state", "mutant socialism," "deformed socialism." The last two terms have no meaning because there is no standard of socialism. And also because he did not specify what mutated or deformed socialism. The first two terms - are not defined in terms of political economy.

It is also unclear what is meant by "working" in these terms. If only the bow - it's not a definition. If the newspapers or TV say about the role of the working class, this does not mean that working class plays a role in reality.

The role played by just then, in whose hands are the main means of production. And, secondly, in whose hands the state. In both these areas the working class has nothing to do with.

More of that there are "bureaucratic socialism", "superetatizm", etc. In my opinion, this is just a dogma, following the parameters of party leaders and their mistakes.

2.1. Khrushchev's report was not secret. He just has not been published in newspapers. But it was read at Party meetings, this is equivalent to acquaint the whole country with it. There was long discussion in the newspapers. Ordinary people wrote angry letters against the report.

2.2. Look at your phrase: "The theory was considered simply as resulting from" practice "or activity in itself ..."

In fact, the opposite is true. As well the Communist Party as many Trotskyist organizations stand on the ground of the domination of theory. This is contrary to the position of Marx - Lenin.

3. To speak of scientism in Soviet philosophy - may be. But.

a) It must be understood that this "scientism" was a revolutionary reaction to the Stalinist dogma. In the USSR, the philosophy solved, the science is good or bad. Genetics, cybernetics, quantum mechanics was declared reactionary bourgeois sciences. One wanted Einstein to declare as bourgeois scientist. But it prevented the bomb.

For example.

One inexperienced engineer proposed to double the armor of tanks. Stalin said: "To destroy, to protect. That is dialectic!” Experienced engineers clearly understood the inability to create such armor. But they could not argue against the "dialectic"! So one threw a lot of money for the new armor. Thus Stalin inflicted considerable damage to the defense industry.

So philosophy became demagoguery. The same process took place in the West. Today, Western philosophy has taken shape in demagoguery. It is simply a means of agitation. Fukuyama, Huntington, Wallerstein, Attali, etc., etc. All of them are irrelevant to science do not have.

b) In fact, scientism was not in Soviet philosophy, but and among scientists. On the contrary, philosophers-scientists sharply criticized. One of the areas were designated as scientism reductionism (Akhundov, B. Kedrov, etc.). Students are physicists, chemists, biologists, were even obliged to write essays with rebuttal of Kedrov and other scientists. More than that: the Soviet philosophy criticized scientism among scholars. Thus, one repeatedly stated that there is no the idea of ​​development in modern physics (V. Orlov). In such industrial city like Perm, teaching in the Physics Department spawn an army of wild mechanicists. Perm physicists are not able to understand that a person is qualitatively and fundamentally different from inanimate matter. This is true!

4. Yes, there was a tendency in USSR to oppose government ownership of private property. This trend continued in modern Russia. It is also in the world! But the Soviet philosophy could not identified socialism and state ownership. Books by Marx, Engels were sold in every bookstore. Everubody might read like Marx and Engels laughed at those who identified government property and socialism. The Soviet political economists have come up with something else: they united to the words "public property" as follows: "Under socialism," and "under capitalism" (G. Sorvina, etc.)

Therefore, it is unclear how Ilyenkov could "insist" on such thing that had already been adopted in Soviet philosophy.

No need to be some kind of blunt Soviet philosophers dogmatists, completely scientists, mechanicists, and so on. We must not forget that the Soviet school of philosophy was the best in the world. It's not just Ilyenkov only.

By the way, Stalin had an excellent knowledge of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and many, many of whom modern "revolutionaries"-anti-Stalinists are not even aware. Stalin was not distorted Marxism. He acted differently, I’l say about it below.

But what about the abolition of money. As long as there is commodity production, there will be money. Product of labor can’t cast off its commodity form, while there is an old social division of labor. You can not eliminate money through a series of party resolutions. You can not pose the problem of the abolition of classes. "The task” of the abolition of classes put a certain level of economic development.

We must realize that the historical development is not the merit of the Communist Party!

We even in the 60s were laughing about it on television: "The party teaches us that gases expand when heated." Or: "winter went away, summer came - thanks to the party for it!"

On that below.

5. Dialectical materialism, just as the materialist dialectic, of course, not mechanistic, but definitely deterministic. "If the day of light and dark at night, - Lenin wrote - then the world can not be arranged as you like."

Or this your phrase: "Dogmatization of philosophy strengthened deterministic view of socialism as an inevitable outcome of class struggle ..." That is meant that socialism can be avoided? Or leads to socialism is not a class struggle, but something else? Or, you can achieve socialism without class struggle? Or the class struggle does not necessarily lead to socialism?

6. I'm not talking about dogmatism, quotation-mongering, etc. Everyone understood that there were scientists and there were social climbers, party functionaries, etc. Don’t mixing science and such type of people. Of course, from time to time research in the social sciences were recognized harmful. For example, Stalin turned to a discussion of the Asiatic mode of production, which began school of Deborin. Asiatic mode of production has been recognized for not existing. But this is also the second time.

The reactionary nature of Soviet philosophy - in fact - is quite different.

First, the method of teaching dialectical materialism and historical materialism.

Soviet philosophers didn’t not distort Marx, Engels and Lenin. They cut them. When we in 1982 began to read their entire book, we simply jaw dropped.

Stalin took only one some point in the system of Marxism, pulled it out of the whole and quite logically brought this point to absurdity. So he "built" socialism in the USSR. I write about it in one my article.

Secondly, dialectical materialism (or materialist dialectics, which is absolutely the same thing) taught at universities pretty well. Well, what can be reactionary or mechanism in the teaching system of categories of dialectics?

Another matter that dialectical materialism considered as completed. Losev said it when he described loke the ancient Greeks were doing philosophical categories. The Soviet philosophy did not sinned with it. Vyakkerev, Ilyenkov, Batishchev, Bibler were first who regarded the contradictions in the system of Hegel's categories and attempted to develop the Hegelian dialectic.

Now the main thing.

Thirdly, very often materialism was substituted a gross objectivism. This was considered a manifestation of loyalty. For example, it is a theory that the reflection in the mind - this is an isomorphism, ie each object in the world or the "atom" corresponds to a certain "point" in the mind (Yudin, the same V. Orlov). This was opposed by the Ilyenkov school.

Or, for example, philosophers-“antiscientists believed that quantum mechanics is bourgeois, because it claimed agnosticism. If the flow of electrons incident on a screen with two holes, then the second screen, behind, we can see an interference pattern. If we try to find in what the hole flew a particular electron, the interference pattern disappears, and instead of it - a common probability distribution. Many Soviet philosophers did not realize that quantum mechanics is not agnosticism, it is new knowledge about the world, that an electron - is not only a particle, but also a wave. They believed that we can not - yet - to know in what the hole the electron flies, only because of backward technique.

On the other hand, the dialectic was substituted - and replace now! – by Relativism. In the spirit of "On the one hand, on the other hand," that had been criticized by Plekhanov.

Parties of contradictory are equalized, fighting oppositions are declared equal. Especially in historical materialism (or, equivalently, the materialist conception of history). For example, nobody is denying that the basis defines the superstructure. But ideologues of the Communist Party says, that superstructure affects the basis, that is the dialectic!

The ideologists of the Communist Party forget that they must choose for themselves what a couple of "base-superstructure" primary, what does it mean – “the primacy of the basis”. They want to be “dialectics”, but don’t want to be materialists in this moment.

We know that the socialist revolution occurs only when all the forces that capitalism gives space will run out (Marx). You can not "arrange" a socialist revolution under feudalism. But only at a certain level of development. In contrast, the ideologues of the Communist Party, the Stalinists and some Trotskyites and anarchists believe that the socialist revolution is possible to "arrange" anytime, at any level of development. The main thing for them is - existence a good Communist Party.

Lenin did not think so, he said that the socialist revolution in backward Russia makes sense only if it will pick up in developed countries.

Today, liberals point out at this moment in the constructions of the Stalinists. But their criticism is limited to the fact that there was a special, bureaucratic socialism, not Marx socialism in USSR. I wrote a book about it.

This question adjoins another roughly objectivist error: mixing the concepts of "social system" (or the mode of production) and "socio-economic formation." This is the question about the nature of the revolution of 1917. I wrote the next book about it.

Substitution of dialectics by relativism is in understanding of relationship between party and class. Even worse, the party was declared the primary! And many Trotskyist groups and even a group of Tony Cliff followed in this paragraph for the Stalinists!

These global errors led to many consequences in politics.

a) Trotsky, Stalin, and later was incorrectly assessed the role of trade unions. The unions still have drive belts of the party. However, this is the trend worldwide.

b) Trotsky, and Stalin was wrong estimation of the political alliance between the working class and the peasantry (the forced collectivization, dispossession of middle peasants, industrialization at the expense of the village), which was directly contrary to Lenin's Decree on the Earth and his speech about the middle peasant.

As for Hardt and Negri - I am not a fan of them. In my opinion, what they write - first, is not new. Secondly - it is a pseudo-scientific verbiage, their minds are clouded by Wittgenstein, Attali, etc. Surprising that the theorists of the European Left are so low.

The main thing is in another. As Marx said, there is nothing in science above its practical application. At the same time there is nothing more practical than good theory. However, there is nothing in the writings of Hardt and Negri that can be applied in practice.

As for Spinoza – it is very long conversation… I’l write later.

Your Boris Ikhlov