I must admit I am quite fond of the intellectual hit-man. Some great scholars have undertaken such tasks: Henri Lefebvre at the behest of the Parti communiste français, or Georg Lukács with The Destruction of Reason (1952). Basically a broadside against Western thought since Hegel, it attempts to trace the growth of irrationalism, and thereby fascism and imperialism. Breathtaking in its ambition, skewering, among many others, Kierkegaard (‘prophet of bourgeois decadence’), Nietzsche (‘hysterical brutality is always an intrinsic sign of decadence’), Weber, Mannheim, Schmitt and even a spate of Western Marxists. But perhaps its real beauty is in images such as the Grand Hotel Abyss: ‘A beautiful hotel, equipped with every comfort, on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity. And the daily contemplation of the abyss between excellent meals or artistic entertainments, can only heighten the enjoyment of the subtle comforts offered’ (p. 22).
Here we must include Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism from 1908. Taking a ‘common sense’ realist approach, in which science gradually approaches the objective reality ‘out there’, Lenin attacks the philosophy of Avenarius and Mach, fashionable among some young Bolsheviks to his left, as a species of phenomenalism that may be traced back to Bishop Berkeley. His position is quite unremarkable and widespread even today: we may come to know, by ‘reflection’, the way things exist independently of our minds, but our ability to perceive that external world is held back by our own limitations so that our knowledge ‘reflects’ external reality only approximately. But Materialism and Empirio-Criticism was also aimed at Bogdanov’s greater influence among the Bolshevik intellectuals (Lenin always had the support of the larger number of workers). As the product of a highly skilled hit-man, the book was a brilliant success, since Bogdanov was spectacularly ‘taken out’. Soon enough Lenin would return to Hegel (in the library in Berne in 1914) and rediscover a more dialectical approach.
Usually, the work of a hit-man is understood to be less-than-honourable, a compromise of intellectual integrity, in which one uses whatever influence one has to neutralise a specified target. But as a specific type of scholarship, it requires fine skill and marksmanship to do the job properly.
26 January, 2012 at 5:28 am
What a shame about Lenin’s retreat to Hegel and idealism – yet, this false path has seduced many people. So where especially, if anywhere, did Lenin publish his “return to Hegel”?
26 January, 2012 at 8:15 am
Oh dear, yet another superficial reading of Hegel in the name of chic Enlightenment positivism. As Lenin writes in his philosophical notebooks concerning the Science of Logic: ‘in this most idealistic of Hegel’s works there is the least idealism and the most materialism’. But the best instance of the difference is that between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in 1917: you would have agreed with the Mensheviks, since they argued that one needed to follow the iron laws of revolutionary progress, that February was a bourgeois revolution and that it needed to unfold fully and gradually approach the reality of the socialist revolution in due time. The Bolsheviks told them to bugger off and seized the moment in October, since ‘Man’s consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but creates it’. So DG, you show your true colours: a chic Menshevik positivist.
26 January, 2012 at 10:49 am
Oh dear, yet another superficial reading of Hegel in the name of chic Enlightenment positivism…
26 January, 2012 at 1:09 pm
And philosophical buffoonery (now there’s a word missing from contemporary intellectual debate).
26 January, 2012 at 1:10 pm
BY, you drinking?
26 January, 2012 at 5:23 pm
A “chic Menshevik positivist”? I haven’t felt this bemused since a former candidate for the ACT Party insulted me in Klingon.
26 January, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Flattery will get you everywhere, but come the revolution you’ll be sitting back waiting for the laws of history to unfold
26 January, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Yes, apologies, comrades. It was remiss of me not to recognize this internet discussion about Hegel amongst two biblical scholars in Australia and New Zealand as the matter of revolutionary urgency it clearly is. I hope that no important executions of class enemies have been delayed or somehow soiled by my rightest hooliganism. Tell me, comrades, have our cadres secured the wireless telegraphy exchanges as planned?
26 January, 2012 at 11:39 pm
You drinking again, BY?
27 January, 2012 at 12:18 am
If the implication is that you would have to be drunk or stoned to doubt the likelihood of an immanent Leninist revolution in Australia, then yes, O Great and Dear Roland, I have been drinking, sir.
27 January, 2012 at 1:43 am
Nah, you’d have to drunk to write so turgidly (been dying to use that word).
27 January, 2012 at 1:55 am
But sober fingers called Deane a “chic Menshevik positivist”?
Is that what teh kids are calling each other now on Jersey Shore?
And quit acting like some AA sponsor, maaaan. I’ve told you your Presbyterian piety and “Socialism in one Salvation Army homeless shelter” model isn’t going to take the left anywhere.
27 January, 2012 at 2:24 am
Nay, if Marx has turned Hegel’s dialectic on its head, Chairman Boer has done so yet again! And now, having accomplished a full 360 degrees, we can truly call this a revolutionary moment!!
Onwards towards the inevitable socialist epoch and again to the historically necessary comunist epoch! Victory to nineteenth-century ideas of progression!!
27 January, 2012 at 2:55 am
Get your Marx left Deane: he stood Hegel on his feet. Jeeez, show some scholarly, scientific care.
27 January, 2012 at 3:06 am
Well may you mock a dialectical understanding of the objectively revolutionary cleaver that is Lenin’s correct reading of Hegel, Deane, you cowardly petaQ! But Lo! and observe what was written in 2002:
The runaway success of Lord Of The Rings makes a Lantern movie a genuine possibility, given the heightened general interest in movies about rings that possess great power.
Less than a decade later it came to pass. And where were you, you lowly yIntagh? “Sitting back waiting for the laws of history to unfold” by any chance? Remember that petty bourgeois empiricists mocked Lenin in 1908 when he was little more than the objective fulfillment of History at the head of a small gang (called the disciples, high on crack and totin’ a machine gun).
How were such immense undertakings as the Green Lantern movie and the Russian Revolution achieved? Not with dishonour, you taHqeq, but with “a unified fan base to bring about the kind of feature film Green Lantern has so richly deserved for so long. Together, the world’s GL fans can make their voices heard and help create what could and should be the greatest superhero film of all time.”
I want my bootleg Alexandre Kojeve Live in Padua DVD back by Saturday, you QI’yaH
27 January, 2012 at 3:14 am
You drinkin’ again, Bunga Bunga?
27 January, 2012 at 3:24 am
27 January, 2012 at 2:54 am
Is that a youngish Zizek (as in, with less of a pauch and skinny arms in his polo neck) on the right?
27 January, 2012 at 3:10 am
It’s Steve Earle and you know it’s Steve Earle! baQa’!
27 January, 2012 at 3:11 am
You need glasses.
26 January, 2012 at 3:59 pm
A piece of trivia. Berkeley’s ‘immaterialism’ was subjected to to a fairly immediate practical refutation by his friend Jonathan Swift. Apocryphally no doubt, Swift is said to have kicked a stone while declaring ‘I refute Berkeley thus’. Another story has Berkeley visiting Swift, and Swift refusing to answer Berkeley’s knock on his front door, on the grounds that if the door was immaterial Berkeley would have walked through it.
26 January, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Did Swift hurt his toe?
27 January, 2012 at 8:28 am
I hope he did hurt his toe– best way to confirm that stones have the density associated with matter.
27 January, 2012 at 9:17 am
[...] … “chic Menshevik positivist”? Is that what teh kids are calling each other now on Jersey Shore? [...]