Aleksandr Bogdanov’s ‘From philosophy to the science of organization’ (1921-1924) John Biggart (2023)

Aleksandr Bogdanov’s ‘From philosophy to the science of organization’ (1921-1924) | John Biggart – Academia.edu

https://www.academia.edu/102019477/Aleksandr_Bogdanovs_From_philosophy_to_the_science_of_organization_1921_1924_?fbclid=IwAR2McKpPIrhIqcFsdbcs5IIbkoTOqI2GfdPwMc619TvQ-dxS1Uwb-MSIyyo

In the Ecology of Systems Thinking group on Facebook, Orsan Senalp says https://www.facebook.com/groups/ecologyofsystemsthinking/posts/6620027151409706/

This recently translated article of Bogdanov, by John Biggart, gives the most lucid summary of what he has done: https://www.academia.edu/…/Aleksandr_Bogdanovs_From…. There are all the elements of the wonder in this short piece. Gramsci’s absolute historicism, ‘philosophy of praxis’ interpretation, complex analysis of state-society and ideology relationship, and cultural hegemony theory become all parts in Bogdanov of a universal science of organization (the science of praxis to him) that encompassed conceptually all three ‘new scientific paradigms’ of the 20th cc. -developed mainly by scientific intelligencia / managerial classes after Bogdanov was buried. These are the systems theory, cybernetics, and complexity science. These elements were absorbed by the ruling classes and were sources of their success in adapting to the complexities of globalization of capitalism, global expansion of production and market, construction of the financial apparatus, and so on. They significantly increased their capability of ‘reflection’ (based on neo-Marxism & cultural analysis – some elements of which are attacked by the extreme right exactly for this reason under the rubric ‘Cultural Marxism’ [since it is assimilated and used by the ruling class]) and adaptation, through the management of the complexity of population growth, since the post-war era. The incorporation of Gramsci’s and other critical and Cultural Marxist approaches, as well as systems, cybernetics, and complexity theories into the ruling machine, also allowed the rulers to successfully disorganize the left and social opposition and maintain control globally – through the control of civil society by media and other ideological apparatus, like promotion of conspiracy theories, and identity politics, which has dismantled social forces and prevented them from gaining and scaling any capacity to organize their lives scientifically and popularly. Imagine now a founder of Bolshevism who was anti-‘Leninist’, was a companion to Lenin and turned into a most fierce rival to him after 1909, whose work incorporated the most fruitful elements and critically by the Hegel-Marx-Engels line as well as the Mach-Avenarius line (which paved the way to the noe-positivism of Vienna school and Einstein’s relativity theory) plus, included all that characterised as Western / noe-Marxism later on: the absolute historicism, ideology and culture analysis which was integral to the critic of the political economy all were integral in Bogndoav, as in Gramsci, and on top of that he developed Marx and Engel’s method and analysis (which was mistakenly and forcefully locked up into and fossilised in form of Plekhanov-Lenin-Stalin style Diamat) into the first (and from worker’s point of view) version of systems, cybernetics, and complexity paradigms. Well, that should have shaken the world from its fundamentals. The second chance was missed when Althusser attacked Bogdanov, and Hegel, and insisted on being Leninist; while it was Lenin who defended Hegel against Bogdanov. Then we know what happened with Althusser’s students, their post-structuralism, post-modernism, and post-marxism, serving for the survival of the existing system.