At 16:21 -0400 13-05-2002, gerald_a_levy wrote: >In [7l57] Riccardo wrote: > >> What's wrong in being "fundamentalist"? > >Fundamentalism and Orthodoxy are terms which have >strong *religious* connotations. They are terms >suggestive of an attitude towards a subject matter which >is, IMO, deeply and profoundly anti-Marxist. > >Perhaps the terms were adopted (IMO, mistakenly) >because they were first used in a dismissive way by >critics and so rather than challenge the designations >they simply adopted them? E.g. consider the origins >of "Queer Theory". iif I remember well, the term Fundamentalists was used in Fine & Harris Re-reading Capital with no overt dismissive tone - at least, if you think that neo-Ricardian is not dismissive for Sraffians. However, I am in trouble with your answer, since I've always thought that Fundamentalism implied that there were no theoretical or analytical problems in Marx, so that the only thing to do for us followers was to apply and develop for an historically more advanced situation the original, 'fundamental', line of thought already there in Capital. r -- Riccardo Bellofiore Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche Via dei Caniana 2 I-24127 Bergamo, Italy e-mail: bellofio@unibg.it, bellofio@cisi.unito.it direct +39-035-277545 secretary +39-035 277501 fax: +39 035 277549 homepage: http://www.unibg.it/dse/homebellofiore.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EDT