---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Orsan <[email protected]> Date: Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 4:08 AM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] revolution and transition (Was: Re: Lenin as a philosopher by...) To: Bob Haugen <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]
This part is interesting too: "Several interesting ideas arise from Bogdariov's analysis of revolution; they indicate how far apart Lenin and Bogdanov were in their thinking. To Lenin, a revolutionary situation existed when the ruling class could no longer rule as before, the suffering of the oppressed classes deepened, and the activity of the masses increased. To Bogdanov in contrast, a revolutionary situation came into being when a progressive, ascendant class eclipsed the repressive ruling class. He placed the stress, in other words, on greater capability rather than on Lenin's greater oppression. One implication of Bogdanov's argument is that revolution can be regressive unless the new class is fully prepared to take power. Another implication, which follows from the first, is that educational and cultural tasks should be considered paramount rather than subsidiary. If the proletariat were not fully equipped to take over the management of society from the bourgeoisie, the end result could be disastrous-a general decline and perhaps disintegration rather than the building of a new socialist society. Moreover, if there were a "cultural lag," as Bogdanov surmised there would be, then the problem would become even more acute. In short, Bogdanov sounded a warning that revolution did not automatically mean progress; nor could the success of revolution be limited to the seizure of power and economic change." and the link to the book: http://monoskop.org/images/6/6f/Sochor_Zenovia_Revolution_and_Culture_The_Bo... Sent from my iPad On 1 apr. 2016, at 18:21, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote: Below is An excpert from Sochor's book's chapter titled as Bogdanivism, where I think she makes a fair and critical judgement, very highly advised read: "Nevertheless, Bogdanov subscribed to the classical Marxian notion that historical development was progressive, punctuated by distinct stages, with revolution occurring at the points of transition.15o Bogdanov visualized the revolutionary process as being something like an ava- lanche: "A revolutionary explosion ... breaks through the internal boundaries of its groupings, blending separated masses into a fighting avalanche."151 In his earlier writings, he described the rise of "spon- taneous thrusts which demolish everything which stands in the way of the developing life"152 Later, he decided there were "turning points" in the course of revolution during which "the tempo changes, as well as the direction and relations of its constituent organizational and dis- organizational processes." A catalyst, or trigger, he argued, may have "a noticeable and even a great influence on the progress of a crisis." During a period of high social tension-a revolutionary situation, for example-the news of isolated acts of violence, if rapidly spread among the masses by verbal or written means, "may serve as grounds [pos- Iuzhit' povodoml for an uprising."153 Ps: Meanwhile, after the bomb-rain in Europe and turkey just turned inward a bit, reading Mach's own work, and Lenin's philosophy handbooks (which is obviously his critic of Mach in order to be able to critique Bogdanov while improving his own vision -seems like it worked as I think his imperialism theory as well as political strategy of 'the weakest link in chain' is heavily indebted to such endevour); so far i can argue that although interesting both the intro to Panekoek's booklet by that guy, or Brandist's book are missing the real point big time. Even Trotsky, Bukharin, and even Lenin's ego seemingly recognized the importance of Bogdanov's vision, it is only today full appreciation of a century old work can be done. I was wondering if anyone knows or can give a clue how and why debate in Italy, in 50s or 60s, on Bogdanov did start and end? Would appreciate a lot if anyone can hint.. Orsan On 17 mrt. 2016, at 17:16, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote: I think that to understand what was going on in between e.g. Lenin and Bogdanov (or Trotsky, for that matter) it's necessary to understand not only the philosophical but also the political, economic and military forces and developments. I don't think I have time for all of that. Got a few productive years left, slowing down every year, gotta focus on the economic. But I'm glad you are getting deeper, and also that you dropped Hebb into your mix. He solves some of the conundrums in the intro to the document you posted. For the rest, I think it's too mechanical to automatically associate a set of ideas with a class because that class used those ideas. That association might damn the ideas, or maybe not. Everything is in flux, all the time. Advanced capitalism developed modes of thought and people and ideas that could supersede it. On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote: Bob, I might have just been thinking loudly while trying to learn my self, by highlighting the importance of that background you mention; I think it is important for today and in general. Stressing on forgotten precursors, like Bogdanov and Sultan-Galiev, can be instances of excitement, finding out the missing links that helps to re-make the puzzle in order to get an as wholistic as possible view of the passed and passing time. Since they are missing, or lost, links, there can bring about negative things out in light; or they can bring about positive things about those who organized the forgetting process but got lost together with the precursors -at the time of organizing the forgetting :) Like this only 'non polemical' work of Lenin, the philosophy notebooks, parts written in 1910s of the notes are of the work he did not yet understand and grasp at the time of writing Materialism and Empriocriticism; he then goes back to the fundamentals of philosophy and comes back, later this work allows him to establish his own as the best later official Marxism for Russia, later consolidated by Stalin : http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/PNv38.pdf One can see that entire work undertaken by Lenin here, as well as later when to develop the imperialism theory; is triggered and motivated by his will to succeed and overcome the ideas developed by Bogdanov being more influential amongst the leading figures in, around, after the revolution (or Lenin) -philosophically may be not politically. So probably there is no good in comparing the two each other like comparing superman and batman; but highlighting clearly a strong mutual and dialectical influence over one another that was going on; while many other things over many other things were influencing too; these got lost in the mist of the revolutions, wars, and fascisms between 1900s and 1950s. This is another new and important account (by Craig Brandist) of the same story from Lenin's side, yet confirms the importance of the losses: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=b5a67cd7279fe7327d3fbc5ef70c5328 As for this specificity way in which the background is given - in intro to Panekoek's book that dismiss him and Bogdanov before Lenin- also reconfirms this. Conclusion: There are many names/nodes -also to be added- and theanalysis of the ties needs to be made; but in relation to 20cc and 21cc philosophy, science, culture and politics I still think it is key to try to re-make of the holistic view of the below: the Jewish reformism of 19cc and emergence of thinkers, scientists, and politics as Marx and Engel's work, many reform jews from vienna to london has shaken the European landscape; like Marx and Engel's critique of classical political economy and Hegel's idealism; Ostwald, Mach and Avenarius's of critique of Comte and Lock's positivism, the impact of Darwin and Freud; influence of Mach and Ostwald's Energetism on Einstein -and Bohr, on Marginalists like Menger, Walras, Bohm-Bawerk and their attack on value theory; the way Marx and Engels formulates historical materialism and first international is built in interaction and struggle with anarchists like Phroudon, Bakunin; Marxisms involvution via social democracy to reformism role of Lasalle, and Bernstein-Kautsky-Plekhanov line, reaction of Luxembourg and Spartakists; again impact of Mach on Austrian Marxists and Bogdanov's synthesis of Energetism and Materialism in Tektology; its impact on Lenin's thinking and doing; role of Bukharin, Trotsky, Sultan-Galiev who got influenced by Bogdanov and ProletKult; influence of Bogdanov and proletkult in Italy on Gramsci, Borgida, in holland Panekeok, and council communists; interactions with Veblen-Polanyi-Keynes of institutionalism, and Marhall-Coates line of neo-institutionalism, from Popper to Lazlo (and Soros), from Piaget, Hebb and McLullan, to the development of behivoralism, from Bertallanfy and Wiener to Mecy conferences the development of GST and cybernetics, from wars to operation research, from military deception to ICTs, from complex systems and network analysis to TNCs, value chains and global production networks; from financial architecture and neoliberal global governance of transnational and informational capitalism to global imperialist war of terror, and organic crisis; rising fascism and nazizm....and from here to there?) On 16 mrt. 2016, at 22:58, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote: Ok, I just read the introduction. Fascinating! Materialism and Empirio–criticism was an assigned reading in a study group I was in once, a long long time ago, otherwise I probably would not have bothered. I didn't have enough background in philosophy or history to get much out of it at the time, so I appreciated all the background here. What did you get out of it, Orsan? Change your mind about anything? The intro, surprisingly, appears to be written by a Catholic professor of theology, if this is the same person: http://legatus.org/cultivating-the-virtues-of-subsidiarity/ Michel would like that last one. Too bad he unsubscribed... On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote: https://libcom.org/files/Pannekoek%20-%20Lenin%20as%20Philosopher.pdf Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/