Not by me - Lenin both developed and applied materialist dialectics. Andy On 10 Feb 2002, at 17:42, paul bullock wrote: > I note the fact that no one seems to think Lenin developed and applied > Marx's contribution. > > Is this taken for granted? > > > Paul Bullock? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> > To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> > Date: 08 February 2002 12:24 > Subject: [OPE-L:6534] Re: * poll: who has advanced political economy > since Marx? * > > > >Re Andy B's: > > > >> Jerry [6527] wrote, > >> > So, in summary, there have been a number of material conditions > >> > which > >have > >> > conspired to retard the advancement of heterodox and Marxian > >> > political economy. NONETHELESS, a very major reason imo for that > >> > lack of > progress > >> > is (as I suggested previously) that so few Marxians have even > >> > attempted > >to > >> > extend our understanding of capitalism beyond Marx. > >> I think Jerry's summary fills out a little bit my earlier statement > >> that the separation of intellectual and manual labour, and more > >> generally the perverse appearances of capitalism lie at the heart > >> of the 'problem' re development of Marx. However, I disagree with > >> the 'NONETHELESS' Jerry adds above. You cannot go beyond what you > >> don't understand. The 'problem', from my perspective, is that Marx > >> is little understood. > > > >Brief questions: > > > >1) If the problem is as you say that "Marx is little understood", > >then: > > > > a) do you think you understand Marx? If you think you do, then > > why do you think you have developed that understanding when > > all but a handful of others by your reckoning have failed? > > > > b) if you are not sure you understand Marx, how do you know > > that > > so few others have understood him? > > > >2) If Marx is so 'little understood' can at least part of the reason > >why > > be something with what and how he himself wrote? How is it > > even conceivable that a writer who wrote clearly and without > > being self- contradictory can not be substantially understood > > 119 years after his death -- especially given the thousands of > > scholars who have poured over those writings? > > > >3) Since you want to talk about how the perverse appearances of > > capitalism have affected the way in which Marxists conceive of > > that subject, wasn't Marx presented with those same perverse > > appearances? Let us consider Marx's material conditions. How is > > it possible that a 'Young Hegelian' with a PhD turned > > revolutionary socialist who for > most > > of his life was supported by the charitable contributions of a > > wealthy revolutionary who was a capitalist (FE) could penetrate > > those appearances when all else -- before and since -- have > > failed? > > > >4) Could it be that Marx had a distinct advantage over Marxists in > > that he could create a theory without reference to a Marx-figure? > > That is, he showed intellectual deference to no one. Can the > > same be said for the Marxists or don't they often (habitually > > even) defer to Marx? Thus, perhaps it is the 'Specter of Marx' > > which > > haunts many Marxists and inhibits forward movement? Perhaps you > > have then suggested a very good reason for _not_ studying Marx > > -- after all, if so few have attained that understanding might > > it not be > a > > Utopian quest -- a search for the 'Revolutionary Holy Grail' so > > to speak? > > > >5) An idealistic thought experiment: > > > > You get a job as a TV script writer. You are asked to develop > > a plot along the following lines: > > > > Suppose that Marx came back from the grave and joined OPE-L > > (assuming he was recommended for membership, invited, and > > accepted). What do you think he would say to us now? What do > > you think he would say to the suggestion that low these many > > years after his death we are still trying to understand wtf he > > said and > can't > > attempt to move beyond his understanding until we come to > > appreciate that understanding? > > > > Sounds like an amusing plot for 'Mad TV', doesn't it? > > > >In solidarity, Jerry > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EST