[ show plain text ]
Re Chris's [OPE-L:2289] & [OPE-L:2293]:
> Conclusion: In spite of Geert's EMail claim to be Marxist his theory is
> the converse! <snip>
> (Of course it does not follow he is wrong because unmarxist!) <snip>
Indeed it does not follow that one's theory is wrong because it is
"unmarxist"! It *also* does not follow that because one's theory in some
way departs from Marx's theory it is therefore "unmarxist"!
Yet, Chris seems to be asserting that if VFS departs from Marx in some
way it is therefore "unmarxist" or not Marxist. I wonder: how are you
defining the term "unmarxist"? Relatedly: what qualitatively
constitutes the line of demarcation between Marxists who in some way
differ from Marx and "unmarxists"?
It should be noted, btw, that the authors of VFS are very up-front in
recognizing that their theory is not the same as Marx's. Therefore, to
claim that their theory is not Marx's is to point out what they themselves
have acknowledged all along.
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:09 EST