> On neo-kantianism, a quick look at, "Marxism and the U.S.S.R:
>A Critical Survey of Recent Thought, " by James P. Scanlan, (teaches
>at Ohio State Univ., btw) Cornell Univ. Press, 1985, reveals
>a paucity of Soviet scholarship on Kantianism, noe or otherwise.
>And this 350+ pgs. book has from the looks of it at least a thousand
>footnotes.
Jim taught at OSU, but he's retired. I was his replacement, back when they thought it worth having a Marx person on staff. He's a superlative scholar. He's a liberal, but you wouldn't know it the way he taught his Marxism course, which I was lucky enough to sit in on the lasttime he offered it.
jks
> "Lenin, Hegel and Western Marxism, " blurbed by B. Ollman,
>Doug Kellner and Tom Rockmore, by the News & Letters member,
>Kevin Anderson is dismissive of Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
>esp. as compared with Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks (vol. 37
>or so of the collected works) composed in 1916.
> "Marxism After Marx, " by Marx biographer and marxologist,
>David McLellan, Harper & Row, 1979. Pg. 107, "there is little
>of abiding philosophical interest in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism..."
> "Main Currents of Marxism, " by Leszek Kolakowski, 2nd vol.
>of the 3 vols. from Oxford Univ. Press, Chap. XVII, "Philosophy
>and Politics in the Bolshevik Movement, " pgs. 413-466, pgs.
>424-445 focus specifically on, Mat. & E. Crit." Very critical
>as well.
I think better of M&EC than these writers do. It's an amateur effort by a brilliant writer without philosophical training, and it has the strengths and weaknesses one would esxpect of such a work. Hilary Putnam used it as a text in his phil of science class at Harvard in the late 60s, back when he was a Marxist. The Hegel stuff is deeper, but far lessd polished.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com