[P2P-F] Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] revolution and transition (Was: Re: Lenin as a philosopher by...)

Sat Apr 2 20:18:52 CEST 2016

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Orsan <orsan1234 at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 4:08 AM
Subject: [NetworkedLabour] revolution and transition (Was: Re: Lenin as a
philosopher by...)
To: Bob Haugen <bob.haugen at gmail.com>
Cc: "networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org" <networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org
>

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_Bogdanov-Lenin_Controversy.pdf

Sent from my iPad
On 1 apr. 2016, at 18:21, Orsan <orsan1234 at gmail.com> 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 <bob.haugen at gmail.com> 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 <orsan1234 at gmail.com> 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 <bob.haugen at gmail.com> 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 <orsan1234 at gmail.com> wrote:

https://libcom.org/files/Pannekoek%20-%20Lenin%20as%20Philosopher.pdf

Sent from my iPad

_______________________________________________

NetworkedLabour mailing list

NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org

http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour

_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20160403/5fd6d6be/attachment-0001.htm 