[OPE-L:2769] Re: Proof from Marx that Hegel is NOT required

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 07 2000 - 13:20:55 EDT

[ show plain text ]

riccardo bellofiore <bellofio@cisi.unito.it> said, on 04/07/00 at 09:57

>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!


Yes, Ricardo, and who is it who will educate the educator (Theses on
Feuerbach), i.e. who educates theoretists? Marxism can be coopted by the
bourgeoise or a bureaucracy (however insufficiently defined). In other
words, we need to be vigilant that theory is educated by the 'popular'
classes including elements which are not directly 'class issues'. This is
a very complicated problem to put it correctly but I hope my idea is being
conveyed. Paul Z.

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