From: MSPRINKER-AT-ccmail.sunysb.edu Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 19:32:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: BHA: Classical marxism To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu State University of New York at Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-3355 Michael Sprinker Professor of English & Comp Lit Comparative Studies 516 632-9634 15-May-1997 07:23pm EDT FROM: MSPRINKER TO: Remote Addressee ( _bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu ) Subject: Classical marxism To be brief: "classical marxism" says a great many things (if one includes under that designator, for example, the texts of Marx and Engels) about class, class struggle, about what is being called "the primacy thesis" here, and so forth. I've been at those "classical marxist" texts for a couple of decades, along with a shitload of commentaries, debates, revisions, etc., etc., and if there's a single, correct reading that establishes once and for all that, in marxism, class action depends on class interest or its recognition (aka as class consciousness), it's just gone right by me. Some folks hold to this view (which I happen to think is incorrect, for what it's worth--a previous phrase used skeptically about history being made "behind people's backs" being more like what marxism can helpfully contribute to notions of social action), but it is not established without doubt and certainly not without powerful, cogent rivals in "classical marxism." I'd quote Lenin at this point, but instead ought just to shut up and say that proclaiming the univocal truth about "classical marxism" is something no marxist, let alone a Bhaskarean ought ever to do on pain of being called at the very least a dogmatist. Come back Kant and Hume, all is forgiven. Fraternally, Michael Sprinker --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005