Marv: >>> What is "Marxism"? :) me: >> like the US Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart said about porn, you >> know it when you see it.
Marv. > Bad example. ... a bad example, but it's a good line. > Anyway, as you know, what constitutes Marxism and who is a Marxist are issues > which been kicked around for generations and, if anything, the disagreements > have widened. There are Marxists who consider the labour theory of value, the > falling rate of profit, and/or other doctrinal matters to be essential > components of Marx's system, and there are Marxists like yourself - at least > in respect of the FROP - who think otherwise. That's at the frequently arcane > level of theory. The divisions over what constitutes a "Marxist" program, > party, and strategy have been even more fierce and consequential. Perhaps the > only point of convergence is fidelity to the historical materialist method, > broadly speaking, applied to the past and present. There have been serious > disputes over the application of the method but not, it would appear, over > the legitimacy of the method itself.< I would define Marxism in terms of method (cf. Lukacs). But I don't think it's worth arguing about any definitions. Someone says: "you're not a Marxist" and I say "okay, maybe I'm not a Marxist but the logic and facts back up what I was saying...." Similarly, people say "you're a socialist!" (looking at me as if I have two heads) and I say "okay, maybe I'm a socialist but the logic and facts back up what I was saying...." (In both cases, I try to be more concrete than that.) Anyway, what's really important in the end is practice, not theory. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
