[OPE-L:7162] Re: fundamentalism

From: Riccardo Bellofiore (bellofio@cisi.unito.it)
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 17:23:49 EDT

At 16:21 -0400 13-05-2002, gerald_a_levy wrote:
>In [7l57] Riccardo wrote:
>>  What's wrong in being "fundamentalist"?
>Fundamentalism and Orthodoxy are terms which have
>strong  *religious*  connotations.  They are terms
>suggestive of an attitude towards a subject matter which
>is, IMO, deeply  and profoundly anti-Marxist. 
>Perhaps the terms were adopted (IMO, mistakenly)
>because they were first used in a dismissive way by
>critics and so rather than challenge the designations
>they simply adopted them?  E.g. consider the origins
>of  "Queer Theory".

iif I remember well, the term Fundamentalists was used in Fine & 
Harris Re-reading Capital with no overt dismissive tone - at least, 
if you think that neo-Ricardian is not dismissive for Sraffians.

However, I am in trouble with your answer, since I've always thought 
that Fundamentalism implied that there were no theoretical or 
analytical problems in Marx, so that the only thing to do for us 
followers was to apply and develop for an historically more advanced 
situation the original, 'fundamental', line of thought already there 
in Capital.

Riccardo Bellofiore
Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche
Via dei Caniana 2
I-24127 Bergamo, Italy
e-mail:   bellofio@unibg.it, bellofio@cisi.unito.it
direct	  +39-035-277545
secretary +39-035 277501
fax:	  +39 035 277549
homepage: http://www.unibg.it/dse/homebellofiore.htm

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EDT