[OPE-L:2762] Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof from Marx that Hegel is NOT required

From: riccardo bellofiore (bellofio@cisi.unito.it)
Date: Fri Apr 07 2000 - 04:57:11 EDT

[ show plain text ]

At 15:57 +0100 5-04-2000, Paul Zarembka wrote:

>Actually, Fred (and please don't take this personally) but there is a
>nasty element involved here -- the element is "if you don't read Hegel I'm
>not going to give you full Marxist credentials", which is a form of
>attempting to dominate discussion, to FORCE a reading of Hegel. We DON'T
>need this kind of practice.

>You are asking a VERY big question. And your implicit presumption is that
>if I cannot give you a satisfactory response in an internet interchange
>(and of course I cannot as the question is too complicated), then whatever
>my understanding of Marx is should be "downgraded". If I were to cite
>Althusser I'd also accomplish little vis-a-via the pro-Hegel position
>unless I were to do an extensive discussion of Althusser's position and
>the manner in which his position to some extent shifted over time. I
>could do that, but the end result would not be different for those who are
>wedded to the importance of Hegel.

Dear Paul,

        I thought myself as an 'open-minded', non-dogmatic Marxian. But I
guess that all this will be shaken by my answer to you.

I personally think that *not a single word* by Marx could be really
understood, and especially his value theory, unless these two points of
method are elaborated:

(i) the positing of the presuppositions

(ii) the inversion of subject and object

These two points are exactly the ones where Marx is linked to Hegel. So the
study of Hegel is a necessary condition. Thus, I would say that those who
denies this are breaking with Marx.

At the same time, I would give Marxist credentials to them, in as much as I
accept as Marxists all those who say they are Marxist.

That said, I would like to stress that:

(a) I would fight so that positions different from mine are defended in the
public arena;

(ii) I would stress that mine is an interpretation;

(iii) I would stress again that Marx's texts are full of conflicting

(iv) I would deny that it is possible to find the right interpretation of
Marx, the *true* Marx, comparing the different readings with Marx's

But I would find quite strange to avoid that conflicting schools in Marxian
scholarship do not argue that their Marx is in some way or the other
'better' than the competing ones!


        Riccardo Bellofiore
Office: Department of Economics
        Piazza Rosate, 2
        I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
Home: Via Massena, 51
        I-10128 Torino, Italy
e-mail bellofio@cisi.unito.it, bellofio@unibg.it
tel: +39 035 277545 (direct)
        +39 035 277501 (dept. secr.)
        +39 011 5819619 (home)
fax: +39 035 249975

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:43 EDT