From: glevy-AT-acnet.pratt.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:02:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Orthodoxy


Louis N Proyect wrote:

> In my mind, orthodox Marxism is not "Trotskyism", "Maoism" or any 
> other current that tries to establish some sort of "revolutionary 
> continuity". There is no such thing as "revolutionary continuity". This 
> concept has lead to all sorts of dogmatic and sectarian dead-ends.

I agree. In fact, this was one of the points I made in the post you 
responded to. Beyond that, I would also say that there is no such "thing" 
as "orthodox Marxism" since it is such an ambiguous term that people from 
wildly divergent theoretical and political positions lay claim to. It is 
also a kind of "reasoning" that goes as follows: since I am an "orthodox 
Marxist" that makes you a ... revisionist, reformist,   
class-collaborationist, etc. pig. 

> What is apparent, however, is that there are rather broad demarcations 
> that can be made between Marxists who defend the primacy of class against 
> a myriad on thinkers who deny it. This battle has been on-going for some 
> decades now.

That is *a* "line of demarcation" among today's Marxists. There are many 
others as well. 
 
> Those who attack the primacy of class: the Amherst school, Laclau/Mouffe, 
> the Market Socialists, most of DSA, Deleuze/Guattari/Negri, etc. 

Well ... the "Amherst School" is a rather vague expression since it 
includes divergent perspectives like those of Resnick and Wolff and SSA 
(Social Structure of Accumulation). Neither of these perspectives 
explicitly *reject* the "primacy of class." David M. might want to add 
something about R&W who are broadly sympathetic to the Althusserian 
perspective.

I'll let the "market socialists" themselves speak to the above. I don't 
think it is an accurate characterization.

On what basis are you combining Delueze/Guattari with Negri? 

Jerry


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

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