Andrew,
I do not appreciate your insinuation that I "embraced" Laibman's label of
"new orthodox Marxism" with the connotation that this is an attempt to
impose a new single dogmatic hegemonic point of view on Marxian scholarship.
No doubt "orthodox" does carry this connotation in some contexts, but in my
response to Laibman (that I "kind of liked it"), I was identifying with
people like Rubin, Grossman, Mattick, and Rosdolsky, who are often called
"orthodox Marxists". To me, the term applies to someone who: tries to
understand Marx's theory as thoroughly and rigorously as possible, is of
the general opinion that Marx's theory contains no serious logical flaws and
also has significant explanatory power, and tries to develop Marx's theory
further as a means of understanding contemporary capitalism. Thus, in these
terms, I would call you an "orthodox Marxist", but I won't if you don't want
me to for other reasons.
In any case, I would hope that you could tell the difference between these
two connotations of "orthodox" in my own case.
Comradely,
Fred