Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 17:04:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stephen Grossman <SGROSSMAN-AT-umassd.edu>
Subject: Re: marxism


Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 16:31:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam D Fassbinder <sfassbin-AT-magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: RE: marxism

>>Goldstein continues:>>

>>Another example of sub-rational, perceptual Marxism is the above appeal to
>>._only_ the self-evident. In tribal culture, the concrete tribal tradition is
>>taken for granted and no one asks "why." Equality of stupidity.

This is misleading since you should have included Goldstein's quote.

>One way of advertising one's own "rational" Marxism as superior to mere
>"perceptual" Marxism is to disparage the other guy's Marxism.  In the world
>of marketing this is called brand competition.  There are only so many
>dollars in the world going to soft drinks, so Coke and Pepsi must compete. 
>In the world of academic Marxism, one also looks to put out a competitive
>product; there are only so many dollars to go around toward the consumption
>of Marxism, so we need advertising to orient consumers toward the correct
>product and away from the incorrect product.  This is the "concrete tribal
>tradition" so famed in academic culture; turf wars.  And nobody here yet has
>asked why.

Ive sent several messages on a neglected point in Marxism, ie, the concern to 
create an economy of immediate gratification only, and, altho i got some good 
responses to my first messages, there were no replies to my replies. Then I 
noticed Goldstein validly applied this idea of immediate gratification only 
and i sent my above reply. I was not claiming that Marx was wrong or stupid but 
that he said or implied something worth discussing. Please reply to my 
messages on this point of perceptual Marxism. If they're not archived, I have 2 
that I can send to you. 


     ------------------