ENGELS, LENIN, BOGDANOV, ROSSER, OY!

Ralph Dumain rdumain at igc.apc.org
Mon Nov 27 21:20:25 MST 1995


Sigh.

>I would note that one of his bugaboos in there is Aleksandr
>Bogdanov.  Let me suggest that Bogdanov provides a possible
>starting point for a "Green Marxist" position.

How did you manage to get a PhD before you were potty trained?
What did you write your dissertation about: artificial genealogy?
You are on thin ice using Bogdanov to justify the Greens (two
strike already).  This little piece of silliness reminds me of the
language barrier once again.  There's a book in Italian cited by
Helena Sheehan: I think the author is S. Tagliagambe.  It's about
Bogdanov and Stalinist technocratic scientism.  The book blames
Bogdanov rather than Lenin's ontology!  I only wish I could read
Italian.  However, Ludovico Geymont summarized Tagliagambe's work
in English.

>Barkley Rosser, sorry, just a "snooty" professor

Why don't you just use "Kick me!" as a tag line?

>Do you support the application of DM in the case of Lysenko and
>Vavilov?  If you support DM, how do you stop it from being
applied
>in such a case in such a way.

Stop me before I apply it again!  How do you stop it from being
applied?  You can't dumbo, so get an intellectual life.  If I see
a PhD like you turn out to be a pea-brained peckerhead, then how
do I stop every prospective PhD candidate from turning out like
you?

>Dialectical materialism was an unnecessary Plekhanov/Lenin
>addition to historical materialism, partly drawing on Engels,
>but without Marx.

But was it, or something like it, unnecessary?

>It is not only repressive, it is plain wrong when applied to the
>natural sciences.

That depends on what it is, don't it?  Its application to the
natural sciences can be no more than thematic, i.e. a general way
of going about thinking about phenomena.  It can do no more.  Who
says "it" can?

>How does one keep "dialectical materialist method" from leading
to >Lysenkoism or similar travesties?

It is impossible to keep any A from leading to B.  What a stupid
question.

>I have also been probably too harsh in apparently ascribing
>any direct causal connection between _Dialectics of Nature_
>and Lysenkoism.

Thank you.

>It can be used to justify the latter, but the more direct line
>comes out of Lenin as developed further by Stalin.

No tenure for you today.  Lenin is no more a direct line to Stalin
than was Engels.  At most Lenin recommended a grouping of friends
of the materialist dialectic that would consult with real
scientists.  And remember, Lenin himself criticized Engels's
examples of dialectics of nature, exculpating Engels by claiming
his oversimplifications were for the sake of popularization.

>Barkley Rosser, a certain snotty professor from over on pen-l

I didn't think I could think less of professors than I already do.
I tried to take the high road, but to no avail.  Isn't it really
the fear of orthodoxy that is bothering you?  Do Engels and Lenin
stand over you as authority figures paralyzing you with dogmatism,
or did you spend time in Buffalo with some of these Stalinists
online?  I know many Buffalo Stalinists, by the way, though not
these particular ones.  Anyway, Rosser, there is no excuse for a
professor sinking to this level.  It's time for a diaper change.


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list