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