Soviet philosophy "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> Subject: Re:
>
>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,
^^^^^
CB: This is circular. It is one of the issues in dispute that you can't settle by assertion.
^^
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.
^^^^^
CB: The heart of the bourgeois and idealist conception of tyranny. A Marxist conception of the heart of tyranny is the material deprivation of the masses , not the freedom of speech and thought of the intelligentsia. This difference is one of the issues in the underlying difference in our assessment of philosophies. We say you have an inferior conception of freedom and liberty to ours.
I don't consider it very tyrannical to force people to espouse the truth at all. The "freedom" to tell lies is not a freedom. One example is the "freedom" (not) to espouse Nazism or KKKism.
We should dwell on this point as it is a fundamental philsophical difference between us.
^^^^
>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.
^^^^^
CB: Here we go with the namecalling. Don't you think Soviets considered you a bourgeois academic hack ?
^^^^^^
>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.
^^^^^^
CB: Now what if I had said art must be politically correct. What would be your smart ass comment then ? Art is all over the map politically. There is no tendency for it to contribute to changing things in a fundamental way. Was Virgil , who according to T.S. Eliot wrote THE classic of Western civilization anything but a consevative. List the greatest artists. Weren't how many contributed to revolution ? I'm just telling it like it is about art.
^^^^^
Does that mean you would not repress art that you found not to be a useful weapon in the struggle, just philosophy?
^^^^^
CB: The only art or philosophy that would be repressed would be that which was a weapon AGAINST the revoluton. Politically neutral art or philo, who cares. Should the People pay people to do these ? I doubt it.
^^^^
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: The police would only enforce the repression of extreme lies and counterrevolutionary or anti-socialist views and incitement. The university faculties would be deciding a lot of things just like in the good ole USA
>
>^^^^^^^^
>
>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?
^^^^^^^
CB: You don't know your history too good. Ever hear of the Palmer Raids, the McCarthy era ? Did you see _Reds_. Did you notice that the very first First Amendment case , opinion Mr. Justice Holmes, created exactly such a worry. Or you realize that abolitionists had such worries, or Black people in the South ( and North ) for ever. That is an extremely ignorant historical statement.
^^^^^^
>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.
^^^^^^
CB: You seem to have forgotten the genocidal usurpation of Indian's land and the enslavement/Jim Crow of Black people, which involved grotesque repression of their freedom of speech and inquiry. Black people were not even allowed to learn to read ! freedom of inquiry my ass !
Then you forgot about the jailing of Communists, and chilling of the entire left's freedoms, The murder and repression of Black Panthers
^^^^^^
>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: You haven't established much.
So, let me get this straight. Repression of the Nazis in Germany was bad because repression in the abstract is bad , according to you ? Of course, it depends who is being repressed that matters.
The role of the socialist state is to repress the bourgeoisie. You do recall that Marx called for the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat ? Did you think "dictatorship" was a metaphor ? I agree with Marx.
If the U.S. were repressing the bourgeoisie , that would be good.
>^^^^^^^^
>
>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?
^^^^^^^
CB: I am not admitting in the sense that I am saying something I ever denied.. I have always said I follow Khruschev on Stalin. Have you read Khruschev ? Stalin' crimes were enormous and unforgiveable, or words to that effect. On the other hand , before 1930 or so , Stalin played a good role.
^^^^^^
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.
^^^^^^^
CB: Yes, I have frequently said that the American method of repression, with only strategic use of violent repression as against the Communists and others is more effective than uniform heavyhandedness.
Also, I think imperialism was able to sort of force the SU to militarize itself by its constant wars and threats of war throughout the existence of the SU. The U.S has suffered nowhere near the "repression" from outside, from communism, that the SU suffered from the Cordon Sanitaire to the Nuclear Arms Race. The SU HAD to militarize , but this killed their socialism, because socialism needs democracy more than capitalism does. This is the enormous lesson from the first efforts to build socialism. It also is the unexpected way in which Marx and Engels idea that socialism had to come first in an advanced capitalist country has been fulfilled. If the revolution in Russia had been accompanied by one in Germany or France, I don't know that the remaining imperialist countries would have been able to bludgeon the Socialist countries into militarizing as much as the SU had to to survive.
>
> 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.
^^^^^^
CB: That is in dispute here
^^^
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.
^^^^^^^
CB: 8=58==-0-02k4=t02= :>)
>
>
> >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.
^^^^^^^
CB: You make a joke, but , yes, revolutions are violent. Name one that has not been. A lot of other people besides philosphers and academics die in them, and the fact that some philosophers and academics die is not a reason not to have them. Your comment exhibits the very academic elitism that probably got them in trouble.
^^^^^^
We have now establsihed, Charles, that you really are a full-fledged Stalinist:
^^^^^^
CB: You have not established a thing.
^^^^^^^
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.
^^^^^
CB: I have always been very clear where I stand. You have just been confused and still are. I am more of a Khruschevite , critical of some of Stalin's actions, but recognizing that he was radically contradictory
Your reprise of my position is your distorted rephrasing of what I said. My position is what I have said, such as many philosophers were reactionary carrryovers from Czarism etc. It is not any old state repression is ok, but socialist repression of reactionary philosophers who promote counterrevolution is what the socialist state is about. In other words, I am with Marx , for the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. That's Marxism from Marx.
^^^^^^^
>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?
^^^^^^^ CB: Your whole discussion here wreaks of this. Bourgeois Philosophers get some special exception to the repression of the bourgeoisie
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!
^^^^^^^
CB: Being smart shouldn't get someone special privileges in the transformation from bourgeois to socialist society. If you are a counterrevolutonary philosopher you are treated the same as a counterrevolutionary government official or whatever.
You get no points for not thinking I should be shot or jailed for my view. I should be hailed for my points of view.