Rakesh Bhandari <email@example.com> said, on 01/13/02: >Paul, I think you are mistaking Mattick's reporting of Bukharin's >critique for Mattick's own critique of Luxemburg. The first quote offered in [OPE-L:6302] was Mattick himself in 1978. There are no citations at all to any of Bukharin in the entire article (www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/rosa.htm). Therefore, I take it as Mattick offering it as his own and most mature criticsm of Luxemburg (whether obtained from anyone else or not). The second quote was Mattick in 1974 in which Mattick CITES Bukharin. In this one, Mattick indicates AGREEMENT with Bukharin by buttressing his case against R. L. with citations from Bukharin, but without querying if Bukharin is reading Luxemburg correctly. As I have said, Bukharin is not reading Luxemburg correctly (and it is not an innocent misreading). Furthermore, the 1978 and 1974 Mattick texts are similar enough in substance. Given that I criticize Bukharin, I perforce have to criticism Mattick for accepting Bukharin's reading. I am not attempting to say more, nor less. In my published article, the text reads, "Mattick is reformulating and repeating Bukharin -- without critical attention." If we want to go further on this, I'd think we'd need to go line-by-line, thru 1935, 1974, and 1978 articles of Mattick, by long phone call or better in person, should our paths cross. I'd be happy to do that. Paul Z.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST