[OPE-L:6328] Re: recent science and society and Fred M's interpretation (fwd)

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Wed Jan 16 2002 - 12:59:09 EST

Re Paul Z's [6325]:

> Aren't the 1844 Manuscripts a beginning,  however, imperfect?


> What are your saying about Althusserians, here, Jerry. Where does
> Althusser oppose the 'law of value' (I'm glad you have switched from
> 'labor theory of value' which Rakesh uses, but is not in Marx).

I was  trying to make a point about Bhandarians not Althusserians.
The point being that there is what I believe to be an inconsistency
in Rakesh's perspective regarding who are the Marxists.  Thus, it is
no secret that he has not embraced Althusserianism yet he seems to
be leaning towards Althusser's  epistemological break perspective
but for very different treasons.   For Althusser, the first chapter of
Volume 1 of _Capital_ is filled with traces of 'Hegelianisms' and
'Feuerbachianisms' and indeed he recommends that readers begin
by skipping over the 1st chapter and only returning to it afterwards
(in his rejection of  Hegelian Marxism  there is another source of 
agreement  Bhandarianism and Althusserianism: yet RB looks to
Aristotle rather than to Spinoza).   Yet,  for Bhandarianism Ch 1
is crucial not only to comprehending _Capital_ but -- evidently --
towards developing an understanding of the revolutionary role
of the working class. Here lies a major difference -- which is why
I (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) referred to Rakesh's perspective 
as 'reverse Althusserian'.

Is Rakesh, then, a Bhandarian?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST