Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 02:50:25 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Marxism: meat and potatoes questions




In a previous post, Hugh Rodwell (m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote:

>
>>Well, can you help me to understand, then, exactly what "Marxists"
>>all *do* have in common, and what separates them as Marxists from
>>other socialists?
>
>They don't have *anything* in common, except perhaps some kind of
>acknowledgement of the authority of Marx as the inspirer of a very
>influential socio-economic perspective. 
>
>As for the rest, Mark can be as determined as he likes. But I don't like
>his pretence of innocence on topics where he is gradually revealing quite
>solid anti-Marxist commitment.

How can I possibly be anti-Marxist when Marxism is, according to you,
nothing more than a nod of the head toward Karl Marx as an influential
thinker?  (And "perhaps" not even that.)  How can I possibly be 
anti-Marxist when, as someone else pointed out, Marxists themselves run
the gamut from slavish adherents of Marx to those who completely reject
his line, depending upon how orthodox they are?  

I don't know of anyone, including William F. Buckley, who would deny
that Marx inspired a very influential socio-economic perspective.  You
deal in banalities.  This definition, if accepted, would make everyone
a Marxist.

As for this supposed pretence of innocence, I can only assume that you
have run out of substantive comments (rather quickly in fact) and that
in desperation you have turned to ad hominem and conspiracy theories.
I came here intending to find out what *modern* Marxists think, instead
of reading Karl Marx, because I assumed (correctly as it turned out)
that contemporary Marxism is not synonymous with the writings of Marx,
at least, not for many.  If it were, I would be rather disappointed.
The world has changed considerably since Marx: capitalism, both
national and international, has radically changed, and so have the
governmental systems of Western European countries and the U.S.  
I wouldn't expect Marx to be any less in need of radical revision
than I would Adam Smith.

>Mark arrogates to himself the definition of what is 'substantive
>discussion', but he has a lazy mind. 

Naturally I use my own definition of what substantive discussion is.
Whose should I use?  Doesn't every free-thinking person set their own
standards in this regard?  

>He says the working class hasn't been defined.  But Mark will never dig
>into this.

I said no such thing.  I *asked* a user whose comments I was responding
to to define the working class *as he saw it*, since this was relevant to
the question of whether any movement based on the supremacy of such a
class could be considered popular and democratic if it did not constitute
an absolute majority.

I am digging into it.  The mere fact that I am digging into it on the
Marxist mail-list instead of at a library is beside the point.

--
What a curse these social distinctions are.  They ought to be abolished.
I remember saying that to Karl Marx once, and he thought there might be
an idea for a book in it.



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---