Paul Blk wrote in [OPE-L:4663]: > Fundamentalism... again in my sense > requires scientific application and development, but when so many > academics > in Universities spend so much of their time picking holes in Marx > where there are none, one can either say one is for him, or as > Marx said at one stage one isn't ( that sort of) Marxist. Yet, Marx didn't say that he isn't "(that sort of) Marxist". Rather, he said that he was not a Marxist -- period. (Rubel, btw, wrote on the origins of the statement in question). > In any case ther term orthodox > was thrown at us when we were taking up the Neo Ricardians (actually oftern > Smithians in many regards), so we took it up and said OK... Lenin did the > same of course (although i hasted to add that no comparison is at al > intended!!! ). I don't recall why Lenin chose "orthodoxy", but it strikes me -- now that you mention it -- that embracing a term that was intended to be derogatory by one's opposition, is not so unusual (e.g. the gay movement's embracing of "queer" as in "queer theory"). Nonetheless, I think it can be a concession which can create -- at a minimum -- unnecessary confusion. > Jerry - The 30,000 words I was refering to was the length of 'The > Crisis > and the Post war Boom'... did you read it? I did ... but it was a *long* time ago and I don't recall a lot of the particulars. Is the thesis of that article similar to that in any of the articles by David Y that are posted at: http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/marxism/articles ? If so, perhaps we could discuss one such article (maybe in connection with the thread on imperialism?). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST