Re: book promotion

From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@SFU.CA)
Date: Mon Dec 01 2003 - 15:29:20 EST

At 07:42 01/12/2003 -0500, jerry wrote:
>Mike L:  thanks for your reply to my "lob". What I find most
>interesting about your reply is that much of it (see below)  could
>have been written by John H, Harry C, or even Tony N.  More
>specifically, I find it interesting that Marxists who have very
>different methodological understandings and interpretations of
>_Capital_ can arrive at similar theoretical and political conclusions.
>Another example of this enigma is the intellectual relationship
>between Harry C and the late Paul Mattick Sr.  Clearly they
>utilized different methodologies and interpretations of _Capital_
>but their political  conclusions  were very similar.  Yet,  all of
>these authors would claim that the process of the development of
>theory is integrally connected with political perspective and praxis.
>How is it then that those with very differing methodological and
>philosophical perspectives can still come to very similar political
>conclusions?  What does that then tell us about the character of the
>link between the reconstruction of capitalism in thought and
>praxis and political world-view?
>In solidarity, Jerry

Hi Jerry,
         I think that the point you make is fascinating. I don't want to
comment on my views of John, Harry and Tony--- their readings and political
perspectives, etc because it's not a subject I've given much thought and
think the question is far less interesting than the general question of the
link between our readings of Capital, our intellectual practice and our
political practice. I'm interested in how others on OPE-L see the link
between their own theoretical work and their political perspective--- or,
if they think this is not relevant.
         For example, I can recall it being argued some time back that
there was a link between one's crisis theory and one's politics--- eg.,
certain readings marked you as 'reformist' (which, if I'm right, Anwar
strongly rejected). Further, I've often mumbled about spending much time on
'the transformation problem', questioning its political relevance---
although someone not on this list (any more) proposed that it was central
to demonstrating the correctness of Marx. I wonder if people here are
prepared to share their own self-conceptions on this.
         in solidarity,

Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office Fax:   (604) 291-5944
Home:   Phone (604) 689-9510

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 02 2003 - 00:00:00 EST