IF WITTGENSTEIN WAS attracted to the Soviet Union, it may well have been for largely conservative reasons: his respect for order, discipline, and authority; his Tolstoyan idealizing of manual labor (at which he himself was remarkably adept); his high modernist affection for austerity (which he called “going barefoot,” but which in the Russia of the day might more candidly be called destitution); not to speak of his sympathy for a nation that had produced his beloved Dostoyevsky along with a precious spiritual heritage. As for idealizing manual labor, Wittgenstein regularly exhorted his colleagues and students to give up philosophy and do something useful for a change. When a gifted young disciple took him at his word and spent the rest of his life toiling away in a canning factory, Wittgenstein was said to be overjoyed. He did, to do him justice, try to heed his own advice, fleeing from Cambridge from time to time to some more menial way of life, only to be hunted down and taken back into intellectual captivity.
Yeah, I’ve read the article and I can’t help but feel that I’m looking through a warped lens reading this, not that I take Eagleton lightly.
Incidentally, I was looking at Wikipedia’s summary of his Why Marx Was Right to remind myself of what his perspective was and it had this claim (emphasis mine):
African nationalism incorporated Marxist ideas and Bolsheviks supported self-determination, despite Marx speaking in favour of imperialism in some cases.
I don’t think that I’ve ever heard even ardent anti-communists make this claim, much less seen what statements by Marx they might be talking about.
I imagine the “speaking in favour of imperialism” claim is probably regarding young Marx’s statements about how history is progressive and to get to communism you have to pass through capitalism and the imperial ventures in Africa were therefore “good” because they hoisted capitalism upon Africans. Not an entitely fair reading, and something the more mature Marx would definitely disagree with, but that’s how I could see somebody arriving at that statement.
Yeah sounds like they are quoting from his pre-Engels collaboration era.
Genuinely, I really hate people who only read Marx and don’t actually read Engels, when Engels was the one who really was able to hone Marx’s extremely keen intellect and voracious appetite for the truth away from just reversing Hegelian causality, and towards more journalistic and economic works. Like, Marx’s sudden shifts in thought don’t really make sense without Engels.
Yeah the article covers this a bit
Yeah, I’ve read the article and I can’t help but feel that I’m looking through a warped lens reading this, not that I take Eagleton lightly.
Incidentally, I was looking at Wikipedia’s summary of his Why Marx Was Right to remind myself of what his perspective was and it had this claim (emphasis mine):
I don’t think that I’ve ever heard even ardent anti-communists make this claim, much less seen what statements by Marx they might be talking about.
I imagine the “speaking in favour of imperialism” claim is probably regarding young Marx’s statements about how history is progressive and to get to communism you have to pass through capitalism and the imperial ventures in Africa were therefore “good” because they hoisted capitalism upon Africans. Not an entitely fair reading, and something the more mature Marx would definitely disagree with, but that’s how I could see somebody arriving at that statement.
Yeah sounds like they are quoting from his pre-Engels collaboration era.
Genuinely, I really hate people who only read Marx and don’t actually read Engels, when Engels was the one who really was able to hone Marx’s extremely keen intellect and voracious appetite for the truth away from just reversing Hegelian causality, and towards more journalistic and economic works. Like, Marx’s sudden shifts in thought don’t really make sense without Engels.