Re: (OPE-L) Re: Paresh Chattopadhyay 'Capital, The Progenitor of Socialism'

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Sat Dec 20 2003 - 11:46:48 EST

>At 09:28 17/12/2003, jerry wrote:
>>Mike L wrote:
>>Rather, it was a bit of information to add to
>>>  the  material that Rakesh sent from Paresh and is, I think, a good
>>>  indication of  where Paresh's reading of Marx has taken him. In the
>>>  Preface to the new  edition of 'Beyond CAPITAL', I referred to this
>>>  perspective as follows: 'Of  course, in one of those ironies that Marx
>>>  would have appreciated, it was  possible to find conservatives of
>>>  various hues quoting scriptures and  declaring that capitalism's
>>>  successes and the failures of AES ['Actually  Existing Socialism"]
>>>  confirmed that Marx was right.'
>>You're not actually suggesting that Paresh is a "conservative",
>>are you?
>>In solidarity, Jerry
>No more so than Nathan Rosenberg who made much the same argument, I
>believe, and to whom Harry Cleaver responded. Seriously, what would you
>call someone who, if Cuba's project were to collapse, might say Marx had
>the last laugh or who might argue against accelerating the process in
>Venezuela because, in the absence of the fully developed capitalist mode of
>production, all attempts at exploding the society would be Don Quixotism?

in the absence of workers' revolutions in the so called North or
West, such accelerations of the process are likely to fail, to be
quixotic.  It's absurd to say that Chattopadyay's analysis points in
the same direction as Nathan Rosenberg's.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 22 2003 - 00:00:01 EST