Re Paul Z's [6325]: > Aren't the 1844 Manuscripts a beginning, however, imperfect? Agreed. > What are your saying about Althusserians, here, Jerry. Where does > Althusser oppose the 'law of value' (I'm glad you have switched from > 'labor theory of value' which Rakesh uses, but is not in Marx). I was trying to make a point about Bhandarians not Althusserians. The point being that there is what I believe to be an inconsistency in Rakesh's perspective regarding who are the Marxists. Thus, it is no secret that he has not embraced Althusserianism yet he seems to be leaning towards Althusser's epistemological break perspective but for very different treasons. For Althusser, the first chapter of Volume 1 of _Capital_ is filled with traces of 'Hegelianisms' and 'Feuerbachianisms' and indeed he recommends that readers begin by skipping over the 1st chapter and only returning to it afterwards (in his rejection of Hegelian Marxism there is another source of agreement Bhandarianism and Althusserianism: yet RB looks to Aristotle rather than to Spinoza). Yet, for Bhandarianism Ch 1 is crucial not only to comprehending _Capital_ but -- evidently -- towards developing an understanding of the revolutionary role of the working class. Here lies a major difference -- which is why I (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) referred to Rakesh's perspective as 'reverse Althusserian'. Is Rakesh, then, a Bhandarian? In solidarity, Jerry between
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST