[ show plain text ]
I do not care one way or the other about such a line. When I write I could
footnote were it seems I am following Marx and when it seems I am not but
really there is little point. I got into it in the Mail for purely ad
hominem reasons because Geert had claimed his conclusion was equal to
marx's (i.e. not just simply Marxist - as I wrote - in some braoder sense
which he is certainly entitled to). i agree that in the book there is
careful discrimination between where they think they follow marx and where
not. If I remember rightly however on this particular point they do not
realise they have departed from Marx, rather than simply providing a novel
derivation of marx's conclusion. Hence simply in the interests of
theoretical clarity it is important surely for me to call attention to this
without any implication of appeal to authority - hence my parenthetical
comment. Likewise if they think I am wrong the point again would not be to
assert fidelity but to restore the sense of their theory.
To reassert my position: I think one of Marx's great contributions was the
distinction between labour and labour power; it seemed to me that (without
realising it perhaps) R&W had lost it.
>Re Chris's [OPE-L:2289] & [OPE-L:2293]:
>> Conclusion: In spite of Geert's EMail claim to be Marxist his theory is
>> the converse! <snip>
>> (Of course it does not follow he is wrong because unmarxist!) <snip>
>Indeed it does not follow that one's theory is wrong because it is
>"unmarxist"! It *also* does not follow that because one's theory in some
>way departs from Marx's theory it is therefore "unmarxist"!
>Yet, Chris seems to be asserting that if VFS departs from Marx in some
>way it is therefore "unmarxist" or not Marxist. I wonder: how are you
>defining the term "unmarxist"? Relatedly: what qualitatively
>constitutes the line of demarcation between Marxists who in some way
>differ from Marx and "unmarxists"?
>It should be noted, btw, that the authors of VFS are very up-front in
>recognizing that their theory is not the same as Marx's. Therefore, to
>claim that their theory is not Marx's is to point out what they themselves
>have acknowledged all along.
>In solidarity, Jerry
P. S. Please note that I have a new Email address,
but the old one will also run until next summer. (To be doubly sure load both!)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:09 EST