[OPE-L:2769] Re: Proof from Marx that Hegel is NOT required

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 07 2000 - 13:20:55 EDT


[ show plain text ]

riccardo bellofiore <bellofio@cisi.unito.it> said, on 04/07/00 at 09:57
AM:

>That said, I would like to stress that:

>(a) I would fight so that positions different from mine are defended in
>the public arena;

>(ii) I would stress that mine is an interpretation;

>(iii) I would stress again that Marx's texts are full of conflicting
>statements;

>(iv) I would deny that it is possible to find the right interpretation of
>Marx, the *true* Marx, comparing the different readings with Marx's
>writings.

>But I would find quite strange to avoid that conflicting schools in
>Marxian scholarship do not argue that their Marx is in some way or the
>other 'better' than the competing ones!

>riccardo

Yes, Ricardo, and who is it who will educate the educator (Theses on
Feuerbach), i.e. who educates theoretists? Marxism can be coopted by the
bourgeoise or a bureaucracy (however insufficiently defined). In other
words, we need to be vigilant that theory is educated by the 'popular'
classes including elements which are not directly 'class issues'. This is
a very complicated problem to put it correctly but I hope my idea is being
conveyed. Paul Z.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:43 EDT