Shane Mage wrote: > 'Orthodoxy" is irrelevant . An "orthodox" marxist is no marxist.
Of course. And of course, almost no-one describes themselves as "orthodox."[*] But some think in an "orthodox" (or dogmatic) way. > The Law > should be regarded as a touchstone of Marxian political economy because > Marx himself insists on it: This is an example of "orthodox" thinking: Some theory is the touchstone of a Thinker's thought because he said so. (Didn't Marx and Engels say in THE GERMAN IDEOLOGY that nobody should be evaluated solely on the basis of their self-perception? Might the _true_ touchstone be something else? Perhaps it's class struggle? or the idea that any social system characterized by class relations has internal contradictions?) But any mortal human being -- including Marx -- can be wrong. (For example, how about some of those things he said about Jews?) That means that no-one's writings should be read uncritically. Instead, we have look at the logic of their ideas, how they fit with empirical reality, and how they mesh with dialectical heuristics. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. [*] there are exceptions, I'm sure. If my memory isn't failing me (again!), Anwar Shaikh embraced the term "fundamentalist" at one point in order to get beyond accusations of his being a fundamentalist. It's like some gay folks using the word "queer." _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
