====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
[I apologize for the long, redacted, quotation that follows] I would respectfully disagree; I'm not sure the mission of this list is as is stated below, rather I think it is broader forum for those who have been involved in radical politics and the Marxist tradition, particularly those of us who have been activists and paid their dues over decades in the trenches of the class struggle to reconnect and discuss pertinent issues (which surely abstruse concepts of theory can be a part). Thus, I would concede that the work of academics and experts, including economists, is important and should not be belittled by churlish anti-intellectualism. We should not, however, become intellectual snobs and elitists either seeking to maintain the purity of our little club. Surely Marx was a great economic theorist, but what differentiated him from Adam Smith or whomever, was not just the different quality of his ideas, but that he was primarily a political activist on behalf of the working class. Thus I see a danger of certain of his ideas being "reified" by a real or aspiring intellectual elite as their province as high priests. Thus the slogan from the Cultural Revolution "Better Red than Expert" and Mao's theme in "Oppose Book Worship!" of the danger of theory becoming the self serving shibboleth of a privileged elite. Yes, Marx was an economist, but he was also a leader of the First International as well. Thus his epitaph, Philosophers have interpreted the world in different ways, the point is to change it. Anarchist, No-Bullshit Marxist, or whatever, the lesson from this tradition, the main precept, is one of class struggle and workers standing up for their own interests and becoming the ruling class of society that will organize the socialist transformation of the world (that the natural tendency in society is towards the dictatorship of the proletariat, Marx once said). We want no condescending saviours! Thank you. On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Ralph Johansen <mdriscol...@charter.net>wrote: > > > Marxmail's purpose as I understand it is to explicate and develop what > Marx wrote and more importantly to relate this as well as possible to > what we've experienced in the past and present, bringing in events as > they either raise problems for and call into question, are illustrative > of the utility of Marxist perspective, or call for further development > of Marx's incomplete theorization of capital. That is not a task for > dilettantes, which I call myself unless I am familiarizing myself with > Marx's precepts and method; it is nevertheless a task for those who > aspire to understand, and it might if more consistently implemented on > this list result in a much-reduced quantity of exchange (though I > suspect not for long) and a much higher quality. Without that effort, we > don't get very far past the current headlines. > > . . . . . > > I'm learning that, If what I understand to be the purpose of the > Marxmail list is correct, I don't see how people have the temerity to > hold forth here unless they as a prerequisite have thoroughly understood > or are with due humility in the process of trying to read and understand > what Marx wrote, as well as finding the more trenchant objections to his > critique of capitalism. Everything short of that largely results in a > surfeit of blather, and it dilutes and can destroy a list like this. > That's so basic to keeping our thinking caps on straight, or else losing > the vitality of discussion. Case in point is what happened several years > ago to the old unmoderated Socialist Register list, and what takes place > on other lists similar to this, as they atrophy and disappear. I don't > think shifting this range of tasks to Levy's invitation-only list, > however well it works there or whatever the original intent, is > appropriate any longer. As long as the discussion is moderated so as to > avoid one-upping and pettifogging. > > A now-deceased CP friend taught Capital during the 30s Depression in > workers' groups and observed that once it was presented clearly to > experienced wage workers, whatever their formal education, they got it > immediately. > . . . . > > So getting to know and appreciate the dialectical method of Capital > is essential to understanding Marx on his own terms. Quite a lot of > people, including some Marxists, would disagree. The so-called > analytic Marxists - thinkers like G.A. Cohen, John Roemer and Robert > Brenner - dismiss dialectics. They actually like to call themselves > "no-bullshit Marxists". They prefer to convert Marx's argument into > a series of analytical propositions. Others convert his argument > into a causal model of the world. There is even a positivist way of > representing Marx that allows his theory to be tested againsr > empirical data. In each of these cases, dialectics gets stripped > away. Now, I am not in principle arguing that the analytical > Marxists are wrong, that those who turn Marx into a positivist model > builder are deluded. But I do insist that Marx's own terms are > dialectical, and we are therefore obliged to grapple in the instance > with a diaslectical reading of Capital. > > Also, this recent article by Harvey on a transition is helpful > > http://davidharvey.org/2009/12/organizing-for-the-anti-capitalist-transition/ > > Ralph > > > > > ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
