Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 08:03:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu> Subject: RE: M-I: Not committed to Goldhagen? On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Greggor, Martin wrote: > Andy Austin claims to be...the ONLY real marxist on this list... I never made this claim. This is a lie. To continue repeating this lie in this discussion is to admit to having no real argument against Goldhagen or me. If Martin doesn't like being a liar, then let's just say he can't read; how might somebody be capable of passing judgment on Goldhagen when he can't read? Nothing you said in your post, Martin, adds to this debate. Goldhagen left too many important structures and conjunctures out to be doing historical materialist analysis. I said this first. And he is clear in his argument that he is not doing Marxian analysis. I was one of the first to point this out. But this is no reason to reject his analysis. Most history is not constructed from a historical materialist standpoint. We don't throw it away. Since Marx argued that ideas could have central importance in historical transformations and events (or else there would be no possibility of revolution) and since Engels held that dogma could predominate in altering social formations, Goldhagen's book is not incongruent with Marxism; rather, it is incomplete from a Marxian perspective. I made this argument. But, please, be my guest, stand in line, take your shot. Andy --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005