Re: [OPE] question re published letters Engels

From: howard engelskirchen <>
Date: Wed May 13 2009 - 01:52:30 EDT

I agree with this critique of Jurriaan's interventions and regret any withdrawal from discussion by Professor Bapuji and Ranganayakamma. Others I'm sure have often reacted the same way without saying so. The list depends on a diversity of voices. Intemperate interventions of the sort objected to without the patience and restraint that invites or makes space for others stifles exchange.


howard engelskirchen
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: B.R.Bapuji
  To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
  Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 11:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [OPE] question re published letters Engels

        Mr. Jurriaan,
        It seems either you have not understood or we have failed to convey our view/protest with regard to conducting a debate. We have pointed out that certain expressions are unwarranted in a discussion of this sort. Still you are articulating the same kind of language and making sweeping statements and assertions.Hence, we withdraw from participating from this kind of discussion on this particular subject.

        B.R.Bapuji, Professor,
        Centre for Applied Linguistics & Translation Studies [CALTS],
        University of Hyderabad, Central University post office,
        HYDERABAD-500 046. (Phone: 040-23133655,23133650 or 23010161).
        Residence address:
        76, Lake-side Colony, Near Durgam Cheruvu, [End of Road opp:Madapur Police Station], Jubilee Hills post, Hyderabad-500033.
        (Phone: 040-23117302)

        --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Jurriaan Bendien <> wrote:

          From: Jurriaan Bendien <>
          Subject: [OPE] question re published letters Engels
          To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <>
          Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 6:59 AM

Well Marx and Engels themselves were never afraid to say that bunkum was bunkum.
But okay, Professor Bapuji, if you feel it's unscholarly to vent an opinion
in this way, I will put it in another way.

The onus however is not on me to prove anything - Mr Bettelheim and Mr
Chattopadhyay themselves flipflopped from characterising the Russian revolution
as a proletarian revolution and then subsequently defining it as a fullfledged
bourgeois revolution, even although the Russian bourgeoisie was expropriated and
liquidated. Mr Bettelheim does this in the course of the same multi-volume book!

I think this is absurd, and I think it is even more absurd, that there should
still be people who are still in awe and reverence of this kind of
"scholarship". The apparently "super-radical" analysis of
the "value-form" by "Marxist authorities" has the result,
that these Marxists cannot even decide what the real class forces in a real
revolution are, and do a 180 degrees turn in their analysis!

The tyranny I refer to is the tyranny of orthodoxy and the tyranny of proofs by
definition, the dreary doctrinairism and schematism which has the result, that
today we are asked to believe the exact opposite of what we were asked to
believe yesterday about very fundamental questions, because some reverent
Marxist authority has suddenly changed his mind on the topic. I feel zero
affinity with that kind of "intellectual culture" and Marx and Engels
did not either.

So Professor Bapuji, give me a good reason why I should take people who perform
such intellectual about-turns about very basic questions of social analysis at
all seriously!


E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (
Database version: 5.10260
ope mailing list


  ope mailing list

ope mailing list
Received on Wed May 13 01:56:55 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 31 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT