>
>CB: Again, there is significant circularity to your argument. You assume
>part of what is at issue: that what they were "told to say" had no
>validity.
It had no validity, but it would be quite irrelevant if it did. The view that it is OK to force people to espouse The Truth whether they believe it or not is the heart of tyranny.
>Also, you assume that nobody agreed with dialectical materialism, and they
>all had to be forced to work in that school.
Not at all. I knew any number of hacks who actually believed that shit, or said they did. I do think that no one who was any good agreed with it.
>I'm thinking that a difference between the "planets" we are on is that you
>consider social philosophy as more akin to art. Whereas , I see it as a
>theoretical guide to the revolutionary transformation of society.
>
Well, I'm glad you consider art irrelevant to the transformation of society. Does that mean you would not repress art that you found not to be a useful weapon in the struggle, just philosophy? I do think philosophy is relevant to the transformation of society, it's just not everbody's cuppa. But I am not interested in transforming society to a situationw here the police tell people what to think and say, whether or not I agree with the views required by the police.
>
>^^^^^^^^
>
>CB: Well, where exactly have two hundred years of "freedom" of speech and
>thought ( for them that owns the presses and universities) led ?
A situation where you and I don't haveto worry about a knowck on the door in the middle of the night when we write stuff that the government disagrees with, how's that for starters?
>The slander is in the implied comparison with the U.S. , and that the U.S.
>has freedom of speech and inquiry.
Compatively, yes, In fact, absolutely, probably as much as any society in history.
>And , yes, given that most philosophy and philosophers leftover from
>Czarist Russia would be reactionary or bourgeois, it was a good thing that
>a lot of it was repressed.
So what's your problem with US repression, jsut taht it hurts the guys you like, right? Not that it's repressive. We've established that.
>^^^^^^^^
>
>CB: The "bottomline" on the point in dispute is not the level of
>criminality of the methods used, but how effectively that unfavored
>philosophy or theory is excluded from being broadcast within the given
>system.
So you admit that Stalinist methods were criminal? Now in fact the question of effectiveness you pose is complex. Here, academics and others may profound Marxist ideas, oublsih them, as I did, in leading journals, teach, and sometimes (as I did not) get tenure. They may agitate and organize and espouse their views. And yet their viewsa re very effectively excluded. In the FSU, you could be jailed or exiled or (under Stalin) shot for even thinking critical thoughts, and you couldn't do any of the things you can do here. Yet by the late 1960s. certainly after Prague 1968, Marxism was a hollow shell in the FSU, and hourgeosi and right wing nationalist ideas, though prsocribed, were on the ascendent. A lesson: if you want to amrginalize your ideologiacl opponents, tolerate them, publish them, give them tenure.
>
> The example that always comes up is Heidigger. He was a Nazi. So what,
>that doesn't mean he wasn't a good philosopher. Analogously, such and such
>a Soviet philosopher was in their position because of Stalinist repression.
>So what, that is a tu quque argument on the content of their philosophy.
No, the repression explains why Stalinist philosophy was so bad. It even
falsifies the Stalin-era work of the greatest Marxist philosopher to make
accomodationw ith Stalinism, Lukacs, whose work done during the Stalin era
isn't a patch on his work of the 20s.
>
>
> >It is not surprising that a revolution would result in significant
>changes
> >in personnel in many segments of society.
>
>That's one way of putting it, a whole new meaning to "fired." (Bang!)
>
>^^^^^^^^
>
>CB: I hate to break the news to you, but revolutions are violent. To claim
>to be a Marxist , and not recognize this is frankly typical of academic
>Marxism.
Omlettes and eggs, eh. Well, too bad about Rayzanov and Pashukanis, but hey! Revolutionas are violent.
We have now establsihed, Charles, that you really are a full-fledged Stalinist: you defend repression of philosophies taht deviate from state orthodoxy and execution of those who espouse differeny views. You think this is a great if done in a cause you support. I just wanted to be clear where stood.
>Frankly, it disgusts me that you would try to imply that academics and
>philosophers are somekind of "angel" strata who had no cupability for the
>old society just as much as other officials and rulers.
Who said anything of the kind? But there's a difference bgetween whar someone called the criticism of canonns and the canons of criticism. I think that the likes of the late Robert Nozick deserve to be utterly refuted. But they're smart, so they ought to be hired and published, at leasr the ones who are smart. I don't think they should be jailed or shot because of their views. But hey, I am just a wimpy liberal. I don't even think taht you should be jailed or shot because of your views!
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com