[OPE-L:4696] Re: David Yaffe on Ricardo and Marx

From: glevy@pratt.edu
Date: Thu Dec 14 2000 - 15:12:22 EST

Paul Blk wrote in [OPE-L:4663]:

> Fundamentalism... again in my sense
> requires  scientific application and development, but when so many > academics
> in Universities spend so much of their time picking holes in Marx 
> where there are none, one can either say one is for him, or as 
> Marx said at one stage one isn't ( that sort of) Marxist. 

Yet, Marx didn't say that he isn't "(that sort of) Marxist". Rather, he said that he was not a Marxist -- period. (Rubel, btw,  wrote on the origins of the statement in question).

> In any case ther term orthodox
> was thrown at us when we were taking up the Neo Ricardians (actually oftern
> Smithians in many regards), so we took it up and said OK... Lenin did the
> same of course (although i hasted to add that no comparison is at al
> intended!!! ).

I don't recall why Lenin chose "orthodoxy", but it strikes me -- now that you mention it -- that embracing a term that was intended to be derogatory by one's opposition, is not so unusual (e.g. the gay movement's embracing of "queer" as in "queer theory"). Nonetheless, I think it can be a concession which can create -- at a minimum -- unnecessary confusion. 

> Jerry - The 30,000 words I was refering to was the length of   'The > Crisis
> and the Post war Boom'... did you read it?

I did ... but it was a *long* time ago and I don't recall a lot of the particulars.

Is the thesis of that article similar to that in any of the articles by David Y that are posted at:


? If so, perhaps we could discuss one such article (maybe in connection with the thread on imperialism?).

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST