CB on Monday, August 23, 2010 3:13 PM wrote: Subject: [lbo-talk] profits
> Mark Wain
>
>
>
> Lenin wrote (in 1914-1916):
>
> " Aphorism: It is impossible completely to understand Marx's Capital,
> and es- pecially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied
> and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a
> century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!! "
>
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm#LCW38_176
>
> The young novelist may have missed the chance to get through the three
> chapters because he or she did not study or understand Hegel's Logic.
>
> Mark
>
> ^^^^^^^^
> CB: Maybe, but Lenin wrote that 96 years ago ( twice as long as Marx
> was away from him) Since then, we Leninists know to study Hegel, so
> the problem is substantially abated (smile). There's a "Little" Logic.
>
> Lenin is by far one of the best teachers of Marx.
> ___________________________________
I agree on that Lenin was a great fighter, one who earnestly practiced what he advocated, and because of these, he became the great authority and teacher on summary, after Engels, of Marx.
His theorization of Russian Revolutions was never dogmatic or empiricist, hence mired in subjectivism. His aphorism: "Concrete analysis based on concrete situation," illustrates the poster child tradition of his deep-rooted revolutionary practices.
IMHO, the US revolutionaries failed to follow his exemplary historical path for various reasons. For example, bourgeois philosophies such as pragmatism, fetishism, utilitarianism, libertarianism, Sidney Hookiest revisionism, etc., never got serious and systemic critiques from Hegel's Logic viewpoints. This drawback means many criticisms already appeared against US imperialism and monopoly capitalism are less thorough and effective than expected from either a casual or serious reader's point of view; due to weakness of the philosophical fighting force in the US, leftist's theoretical fighting force tends to be small and or even non-existent. As a result, the efficiency of ideological struggle suffers a lot more than ever needed be.
US revolutionary intellectuals have taken advantages of the social and historical tradition of emphasizing practices and shunning empty talk, but they neglect the importance of the tasks to conclude from daily experiences, practices, and to theoretize and then solve the current problems, as Lenin taught us:
Lenin ("Plan of Hegel's Dialectics (Logic)", in 1915) wrote:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/misc/x01.htm
"If Marx did not leave behind him a "Logic" (with capital letter), he did leave the logic of Capital, and this ought to be utilised to the full in {solving} the {current problems}. In Capital, Marx applied to a single science - logic, dialectics and the theory of knowledge of materialism [three {terms} are not needed: it is one and the same thing] which has taken everything valuable in Hegel and developed it further. " ({.} are mine - MW.)
I am not sure that there's a "Little" Logic already well established. For example, glancing over Ollman's "Dialectics", I do not think he was discussing the identity of opposites or the revolutionary dialectics at all. Weak theory front implies weak overall position.
Post-modernism as an opportunist philosophical current needs Marxist-Leninist critique but is lacking. Even though its spell on some people is diminishing for now, people, in particular the discontent, nonetheless need a thorough concluding criticism to learn the lesson of credulity. Academic leftist reviews have completed their tasks and revolutionary leftist will have to take over their jobs, as capitalism developments have entered an advanced stage from the late stage since 1970s.