[ show plain text ]
Reply to Paul Z[ope-l:2878]:
>If Hegel was Marx's detour on the way to the foundation of the scientific
>study of social formations, Rakesh and the rest of us have the option of
>moving forward, or going back over old intellectual history. Sure, one
>can spend time with all this Hegel stuff and there surely would be some
>payoff, but is it the more productive use of our time and energy? Won't
>working for a demo for Mumia, for workers on strike, for a demo against
>the IMF/World Bank, for minority/gay rights be time better spent?
Lenin was a revolutionary and he clearly didn't think it an unproductive
use of his time to read Hegel. It is academics like you, Paul, who seem
most reluctant to delve into philosophical background materials! I find
this odd.
>
>For myself, I don't have the time or interest to retrace steps Althusser
>did for us (unless I will arrive at the point that Hegel's influence seems
>so damaging that a direct confrontation would be needed).
You don't have the interest. That about sums it up.
>
>Condemning "those who have attacked Marx without bothering to read Marx
>seriously" is too vague in its lack class content. There is no reason why
>we should ask the latest, publicized attacker of Marx -- Mayor Guiliani of
>NYC -- to read Marx, nor any of those on the streets in front of Lazaro
>Gonzalez's home in Miami.
I think that we SHOULD ask people to read Marx, if they are attacking Marx.
It's a debatable point whether the people outside the Gonzalez home are
attacking Marx, except in a round-about way to promote their own
anti-Castro cause. Conversely, in Zimbabwe, Mugabe is promoting a
so-called 'Marxist' agenda - attacking white farmers, to draw attention
away from himself. Are you attacking Hegel, or promoting Althusser?
comradely,
Nicky
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:44 EDT