Sunday, February 25 Another day, another scandal. A minute or so after the last Saturday session of the IWGVT mini-conference in NYC and in the room where the session was held, I approached Ted McGlone whom I hadn't seen in a couple of years. I shook his hand and we had a pleasant conversation for about a minute. Andrew Kliman then put his hand on Ted's shoulder and said: "You know you're talking to the enemy? He's going to post on OPE-L ...." At that point, I simply said "I'm not going to talk about this now" and removed myself from the room. In referring to me as "the enemy" there was no indication all that he was joking. So on Friday Andrew Kliman, in open session, suggested that we needed to become "defenders of Marx" (which sounds to me suspiciously like the Jesuit idea that they are "defenders of Christ"). The next day a Marxist who does not share all of his perspectives on Marx's theory is called "the enemy". The IWGVT has always claimed that they are in favor of "pluralism". Andrew is a former Co-Organizer of the IWGVT. This is a strange idea of pluralism, it seems to me: we, the "defenders of Marx", are going to sponsor a conference at the EEA and we invite our "enemies" to participate. Another troublesome question that could be posed is how different tactics against those Marxists who are now understood to be part of "the enemy" can be rationalized. Lastly, as a Marxist I have always thought that our enemies are *class enemies* rather than other Marxists who adhere to differing interpretations of Marx. I thought other Marxists shared that understanding ... I guess I was wrong. Does anyone else think I am "the enemy"? Who are the other Marxists who are "the enemy"? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST