Exchanges on Marxism and ecology

Xxxzx Xyyxyz Xxxzx at SPAMmarxists.org
Thu Oct 21 23:56:23 MDT 1999




Charles wrote:

>By Lenin's time, isn't philosophy embarrassing thinking ?

  Dialectical Materialism is a philosophy. My dictionary divides up
philosophy into four areas: metaphysics (beyond reality),
epistomology (knowledge of reality), ethics (morality), and semantics
(language to reality).

  Not one of these pursuits was destroyed by Marxism, none of them are
the less valid, incorrect, or unnecessary. To say these are embassing
pursuits for thinking humans to practice is to leave us in a narrow
realm of thought, with the remnaints mostly existing of dogma.

  Which aspect(s) of philosophy are embarrassed thinking? Perhaps
ethics? We could argue this in two ways, firstly that Marxism
explains that ethics is mostly based on economic forces, and that
therefore any inquires into ethics is unnecessary or redundent. From
this point we might ask; but ethics nevertheless abudently exists in
the world, and any shrugging it off or disregarding it is thus
idiotic. Must we not then study it in some fashion? If morality does
exist today; and if Marxism explains that ethics is mostly based on
economics, does that mean that ethics is somehow vanished,
nonexistant; simply a henchmen of economic forces, or that it plays a
role in the existance and shaping of a society; that an examination
of economics does not cover ethics, and that additional inquires and
modes are necessary to address systems of morality. Accordingly, any
such examinations into ethics are philsophical; so long as Lenin was
correct in saying Dialectical Materialism is a philsophy, and so long
as ethics is a part of philsophy.


======

Carrol wrote:

>But all these references to Lenin as a poor
>philosopher assume the priority of philosophy to all other forms of
>thought and action.

  This assumption is incorrect; no where could you find them in my
mail so you created them in order to have something to argue with.
Einstien did good work in physics and little else; Lenin did good
work for society and little else. As Einstein was a physists but no
Marxist, Lenin was a Marxist but no philosopher.

  From the perspective of quantity, this is obvious. Lenin wrote an
incredible amount of material; an extremely small portion of it is
philosophical; it was not his interest nor his ability. David has
generally explained Lenin's failure in respect to quality, that
philsophy was used as the weapon of polemical disputes, which is a
practice that is sadly backwards.


Xxxzx

___________________
marxists.org janitor

"In those days, after the defeat of the Paris Commune, history made
slow organisational and educational work the task of the day."

Vladimir Lenin, Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution
  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/tasks/ch12.htm









More information about the Marxism mailing list