Re: [OPE-L] GPM, "Critica al neomarxista Samir Amin"

Greetings Jerry (et al),

 

Nice to see you at Bertell's Marxist Colloquium Jerry.  I am attaching information regarding our 2008 Critical Perspectives Conference on Accounting Conference.  There are four events in one; and what might be of particular interest to "the list" is the European Critical Accounting Symposium (ECAS) scheduled for Thursday April 24, 2008, all day.  We typically have good labor process people from the UK, Europe (the UK isn't really part of Europe -- it just joined the EU to destroy it) and the U.S. (Stanley Oronowitz and Randy Martin have both spoken at previous ECAS meetings).  The remainder of the CPA meeting may be of interest, as we in accounting are alway looking for our (next) historical moment for the next a surgical strike (from Enron to Subprime).

 

On the "Neo": I was about to suggest that Marxists shouldn't be too attached to names, however, a few years ago, Mandel stayed with me years ago during a visit to the then New York Marxist School.  This was later rebranded as the Brech Forum -- to my disgust. I guess there is something to a name worth defending. I've always thought that "neo" was a positive attribution (but I really depends on whose mouth it comes out of).

Tony Tinker
Baruch College at the City University of New York
Box B12:225
Co-Editor: Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Co-Editor: The Accounting Forum
Fellow of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
One Bernard Baruch Way
New York, NY 10010-5585
USA
Tel: 646 312 3175
Fax: 646 312 3161
Email: TonyTinker@msn.com
CPA Conference 2008:
http://aux.zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/tinker/CPA2008/
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~cpaedit/2008CPA/
Editorial Office:
http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/research/editorial_offices.htm
Blog on Baruch
http:\\evaluatingbaruchcollege.blogspot.com
-----OPE-L <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> wrote: -----

To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
From: GERALD LEVY <gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM>
Sent by: OPE-L <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Date: 12/02/2007 08:25AM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] GPM, "Critica al neomarxista Samir Amin"

Hi Jurriaan:
 
I don't think that "Neo-Marxism" has any precise meaning: rather
it is basically a term of abuse.  There are certainly examples
aplenty for its mis-use in Marxist polemics: e.g. (to cite something
you're familiar with) Ernest Mandel was accused [and indeed, it was
an accusation rather than merely a neutral descriptor] of
being a "Neo-Marxist".  Isn't Samir simply getting a [foul] taste of
what Mandel received in the 1970's?
 
If it is so bad and heretical, supposedly, to put forward a "neo-"
perspective (recall the abuse that Mandel got for the expression
"neo-capitalism"?  - later ammened to "late capitalism"), is
there anything at all in favor of  revolutionaries saying that they
are "orthodox", "classical" or "fundamentalist" anything?
 
In solidarity, Jerry
 
 
 
 
 
> As far as I know, "Neo-Marxism" is a loose term to refer to various
> intellectual approaches (mostly post-WW2) which amend, modify or extend
> (orthodox or classical) Marxist theory, usually by including insights from
> other intellectual traditions. Examples would be the theories of the
> Frankfurt school, the "surplus approach" pioneered by Paul Baran, EO
> Wright's Marxist sociology or Althusser's structuralist Marxism.
>
> The presumption of the "neo-" stance is, that some aspects of Marxist
> orthodoxy are either inadequate or faulty, and therefore that some other
> theorems need to be added.
>
> The force of the "neo-" distinction therefore depends very much on how
> Marxist orthodoxy or classical Marxism is defined. For example, Lukacs
> defined Marxist orthodoxy exclusively in terms of adherence to Marx's own
> method, and not in terms of any particular Marxist doctrine or result. In
> that case, neo-Marxism would be defined as an approach which in some
> respects deviates from Marx's own method (if we can agree what it is).
>
> However, notions of "orthodox Marxism" and "classical Marxism" are
> themselves highly suspect (since Kautsky, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Stalin,
> Gramsci and others also modified some of Marx's insights) and therefore what
> is "neo-" about neo-Marxism is a controversial matter. It presupposes that
> we can define the necessary and sufficient conditions that distinguish
> Marxism from all other approaches.