Ian it is decades since I last read Russell, but from what I remember of the British rejection of Hegelianism it was mostly based on a very incomplete and superficial understanding of the most idealist version - the form of rejection was on the basis of a fairly niave form of empiricism. In otherwords unless I am mistaken I don't think this amounts to much and Russell's History of Philosophy is too light wieght for most purposes (though a good introduction to the field - a Cook's Tour more than a thorough exploration).
Hegel's Science of Logic is not the least mathematical, though the mistake is often made because it is associated with formal logic (which is completely and mechanically mathmatical) which it bears no relation. But I don't think this is what you are saying.
Completeness in a concept does not mean that it has all the answers (if this is what you mean as I suspect) a complete concept is one which contains all the concept necessary for comprehending a subject (ie not the comprehension itself much less the complexity of the reality) - these necessarily have to be concepts capable of self-development (that is changing and adapting to new questions without breaking the conceptual interrelations).
Completeness can be found readily in the natural sciences (Newtonian Physics, Darwin's Origin or Einstien's Relativity as well known examples) - refinement and even displacement (Newtonian physics being reassigned within Relativity for instance) but such changes occur within the original logic of the science. Science is not the accumulation of discreet theories but the integration of theories into a complete and singular concept (of course uneven development between the sciences and fields within a science lead to all soughts of half-way conditions).
The process of refinement and integration sometimes leads to a set of theories ending up very differently from where the author placed them, but if they were sound in the first place rather then simply being thrust aside they merely reappear in a different form (Kepler, Galilio, Coperinicus - the eseence of their discoveries lingers on though they don't now appear as they were first cast).
The Science of Logic puports to be complete for it presents a single concept of interrelated concepts which express the instance of logic (its inner workings). Unlike any system of philosophy before or since (Kant was getting there but was blocked by his Materialism). I am unaware that anyone has done to Hegel what Hegel did to Kant - as far as I know Hegel's Logic stands in near prestine condition, hardly touched by any substantial criticism for nearly 200 years (Marx being careful to avoid criticising the Logic though he made merry hell with much of the rest of Hegel's philosophy).
The real criticism of Hegel's Logic has been to ignore it - a tradition which has served the bourgeoisie immensely well in my opinion.
> As for HIstorical Materialism being a science, well that depends on
what is meant by science - it is certainly not the science as most
scientists would have it - which is what our heritage of Marxism tries
so superficially to imitate, but then again there is science and there
is "science".
IAN: "The above does not help."
Well I would differ as my proceeding paragraphs tried to show that the normal idea of science is primitive and ideological (the one the socialist movement has so badly emulated) but that a scientific understanding of science (that is a proper philosophical one) is not so misled (the science Marx claimed for himself was not a Victorian afflication as a simple statemnent by someone who understood the concept of science philosophically).
IAN: "I have a CD of a 'single' by Brian Eno titled "Ali Click." It has 8 tunes, all with the same title and all different from one another. I haven't figured out which one is the *real* version and which are merely variations on the *real* one. No one else has figured it out and Eno isn't talking as he's a big fan of Wittgenstein and Francisco Varela. I think we're in the same boat with regards to the *real* version of HM."
Ian pluralism is a lot better then dogmaticism but no closer to the truth. There is a single concept that is Historical Materialism, not that all parts of it are equally developed and there exists no great exposition of it outside Capital. However if you want to see some of its main workings then the Grundrisse has lots of leads (where the so-called younger Marx and older meet and show no great division but just a development of the concept).
If you look closely at Marx's critiques of idealism (which save Hegel from himself and all turn on the central position of the Science of Logic) and follow this back to the Science of Logic you gain a starting point - what stands out is the relationship of early concepts (from 1844) onwards with their latter articulation of which Capital stands as an exposition in practice (Tony Smith's work on the underlying Logic of Capital being Hegel's Science of Logic is perhaps the most important contribution in this field in the 20th century - alas largely unread).
What has got to be remembered is that we stand at the end of a long saga where nearly everything Marx committed to paper has finally been published, however the hard swot on where this all leads us has hardly begun, let alone a proper exposition of what is Historical Materialism. There is only one version of Historical Materialism, unfortunately it has not been fully unearthed.
IAN: "What complete system?"
Yes a complete system! Marx and Engels were in no doubt about this, nor Lenin after he read Hegel's Science of Logic and finally understood the dialectic (not until 1914!). Our movement however descends only indirectly from this rich source via two characters who never read Hegel and never understood the dialectic - Stalin and Trotsky.
The dialectic (Hegel's Science of Logic) is the fundemental qualitative improvement we need to grasp this, the missing link which brings all the various pieces into their proper relations. It is not a matter of just a handfull of intellectuals grasping the nettle, it is also the problem of how to make this more accessible and a part of renewing the movement (from the brain down so to speak).
The very fact we are having this debate shows the depth of the problem. None of things I have said should be the least unusual (it is all caged from elsewhere), yet the vast majority of Marxists will find all this very obtuse and strange (complete systems, ontology - logic!).
Ian when you protest pluralism, it is understandable becuase it is a healthy response to the twin histories of our movement (Trotskite and Stalinist) whose non-dialectical ways are only matched by their "scientific" pretensions (really no-more than an expressxion of a sect-like outlook). What I am trying to say is something very different.
Rigour before all things!
Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/) * Powerful filters. * Create you own headers. * Have email types launch scripts. * Use emails to automat your work. * Add comments on recieve. * Use scripts to extract and check emails. * Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions. * LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX. * A REXX interpreter is freely available. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________