As Charles Brown pointed out, Nitzan appears to be criticizing the "classical" (or traditional) Marxist position without stooping to debate people who hold that position. At the same time, Nitzan wants to distance himself from other critics of the traditional position, whom he dismisses wholesale as "post-Marxists".
My own quarrel with Nitzan is neither Marxist nor post-Marxist. If anything it is pre-Marxist. Nitzan seems to want to redo what Marx already did too much of -- demonstrating some new internal dynamic of capital. I don't dispute that there are new "laws of development" at play, nor do I dispute that what Nitzan seems to be doing parallels what Marx did in Capital. I simply think it is an exercise in intellectual hubris. My reticence toward understanding these new laws of development doesn't come from thinking I already know what they are. It comes from suspecting that such knowledge would be largely incommunicable and, furthermore, of limited practical political value. Wily E. Coyote has run off the cliff and yet doesn't fall into the canyon below. Nitzan says we must re-evaluate the laws of aerodynamics and canine physiology. I say it is the conventions of cartoon animation and narrative that are at stake. Charles Brown wrote: > Basically, in case you didn't notice, I am upholding > the classical Marxist > position in relation to your challenge to it. So, > are you saying the gap > between your ideas and classical Marxist ideas is > too wide for you to debate > classical Marxists ? That seems , oh, a bit much , > since you seem to be > putting forth a critique of the classical Marxist > ideas. That would seem to > make it incumbent upon you to reply to responses > from classical Marxists. > Otherwise, you are sort of saying "Marx is wrong, > but I won't debate > Marxists." ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
