Textbook of Marxist Philosophy

by Leningrad Institute of Philosophy

Lectures on Marxist Philosophy

Genres: Philosophy

387 pages, Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 1937

Reviews

[Fran Globlek · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is quite an interesting book. Its historical context is very visible, as it was written in a time when the USSR was vital and when people were genuinely still excited about their State, but also under pressure by Stalin.

Dialectical materialism is the focus of this book. However, the 'Stalin us always right' dictum ruined this exposition in many ways. The most obvious one is that the book attacks dialectics when used by Plekhanov, Trotsky, Deborin, Bukharin and anyone who isn't Marx, Engels, Lenin or Stalin (to quote: "Directors must learn the dialectic of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, for without dialectic Bolshevik direction is impossible"). Diamat (short for dialectical materialism) becomes not a simple (yet profound) way of analyzing complex processes, but a murky pseudoscience that condemns any faulty conclusions that diamat gives as errors in the method's use, thus rendering diamat infallible and unfalsifiable. So you can go wrong by taking Hegel too literaly, by not taking him literaly enough, by thinking of contradictions as antagonisms, by not thinking of contradictions as antagonisms, by having a mechanistic view of diamat (whatever that means - or, better said: that means whatever you want), etc. ad infinitum.

Nevertheless, once you exlude the apologetical sections, this book will get you a good grasp on diamat. It is a good prelude to works where diamat isn't explained but used straight away.

The most obvious criticism to this 'scientific Marxism' is that actual people never seem to enter the equation. If capitalism brought us actual, authentic joy, then we wouldn't need a better system. A rule of dialectical materialism says that quantity can change to quality. Thus Marxism deals with qualities (class, proleterial, workers,...) while capitalism sticks to 'mere' quantities (number of goods in demand, in production, number of workers,...). Yet in no way does anything like love or joy participate in any of the systems. It still rests on authority and brute force, obedience to the State, while contradictions that are inane are allowed because diamat functions on contradictions (dictatorship vs withering of the State). The main concern of Marxism is to resolve contradictions that continually threaten capitalism with collapse and form a better, un-collapsable system. Contradictions, not people! That is its focus! This criticism was posed by Sartre yet he was to much a coward to break with dialectic materialism and therefore Marxism completely, instead just limiting 'diamat' to murky social grand-scale processes where the individual truly starts being unimportant. In other words, confining diamat to theory, not praxis. It is also perfectly unclear why a worker should join the 'party' if its main goal is the resolution of contradictions not necessarily for his sake. What is wrong with an economic collapse? Anarcho-communists are much more honest. But so was Engels when he said the State would wither away. The problem lies in this particular Stalinist state-communist tendency. Marx, but not Marxism.

[Vivek Singh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Full of stalinist non sense but still has some pedagogical benefits, so not completely useless.

[Eren Buğlalılar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Politzer'in açıklayıcılığına sahip olmamakla birlikte yine de ufuk açıcı bir kitap. SSCB'nin 1930'lardaki tartışmalarıyla çok iç içe geçtiği için izleyebilmek için o yıllar hakkında fikir sahibi olmak gerekiyor. Bazı bölümler ve tartışmalar artık eskimiş.

[David Harabagiu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best textbook on dialectical materialism