On 12 August 2010 12:01, <david@danyaf.plus.com> wrote:
Citing Marx or Lenin is not a problem for me if doing so clarifies the point
or makes the point in a far better way than I could do. What is wrong with
that?
Absolutely nothing is wrong with that. That is a misunderstanding.
There has to be some way of acknowledging the superior contributions of Marx
and Lenin, for example, in explaining the real world, otherwise what are you
really saying. If you disagree with their arguments then we require a
substantial argument against them not liberal protestations about their tone
of argument etc. I am sure you agree.
I think we all agree on that. The problem is that when we get to the
substance of analyzing what is relevant in the classical theories of
imperialism, no argument is good enough unless it axiomatically takes the
orthodox theory as valid. This is demonstrated time and again. It has
nothing to do with 'tone' but the way in which the entire issue is
perceived.
If anomalies are brought up, e.g. originating in the differences in the
operation of the capitalist world system in the periods 1875-1945 and
1945-1991, they are brushed aside, dismissed as 'opportunist' or 'liberal'
and never open for discussion. None of this will do us any good if we really
want a historical-materialist theory of imperialism with verifiable content.
//Dave Z
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Aug 12 07:52:35 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EDT