Re: Re: rev and reform

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

please take it off list.  Thanks.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:48:01PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> >
> >^^^^^^^^
> >
> >CB: You do accept that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is Marx's
> >formulation though, right ?  So, what is the Luxemburg, Mattick ,
> >Draper, Thomas formulation of the dicatatorship of the proletariat ?
>
> It's not the Bolshevik one, don't you know.
>
>
> >
> >^^^^^^^^
> >
> >CB: You can't dismiss an argument by mislabelling it sloganeering.
> >
> >Put it this way, if not for the _fact_ of the Russian Revolution,
> >regardless of the interpretation of Marx by the Bolsheviks,  Marx
> >would be as obscure as Compte or some other academic figure,
>
> evidence?
>
>
>
> >and it is not as likely that your teachers would introduce you to
> >him.  Look how obscure Hegel is.  It really is not a very
> >controversial idea that Marx is famous because of the revolutions
> >that were carried out in his name more than his writing by itself.
>
> Well yes but there are others who have tried to make Marx famous for
> what he did in fact write, not infamous as the putative father of
> Bolshevism which he would have repudiated.  You claimed we read Marx
> because of the Bolsheviks; I read Marx independently of and in
> contradiction to Bolshevik interpretation. You do not speak for me.
>
>
> >
> >^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >CB: It doesn't "come together" , according to Rudy Fictenbaum. It
> >remains scattered. This is another, second, reason by which I infer
> >that it was high priority.
>
> You obviously don't know the quotes in which Marx described the
> importance that he gave to his solution to the FROP.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >But the most direct reason I gave you on this, to which I have not
> >noticed a reply from you, is that Marx doesn't think that the
> >business cycle can be remedied under capitalism. Do you agree with
> >that ? From that it follows that explaining the business cycle is of
> >secondary importance to the Marxist project.
>
> No reasoning given why Y follows from X.
>
>
>
> >  The Marxist project is revolutionary: ending the business cycle by
> >ending capitalism. What is your reply to that logic ?
>
>
> ending capitalism to put an end to widening and deepening business
> cycles? so you are implying that the business cycle is important, no?
>
> but let's be frank why you are doing all this bizarre dancing around
> the business cycle.
>
> What you are trying to avoid is the fact that crises of general
> overproduction happen *periodically* which does not make sense if
> their cause is simple underconsumption since the consumption of the
> masses is *constantly and always* restricted by their exploitation.
>
>
>
> You have yet to explain this; knowing that you can't explain periodic
> crises of general overproduction with your simple underconsumption
> theory, you have denied that Marx  wanted to explain the business
> cycle, i.e., periodic general crises, at all.
>
> RB
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >CB: Oh I missed that. Where was it ? So,  you are a reformist ?  Are
> >you saying that Marx's program was taming the business cycle,
> >deferring it contradictions for some time ?
>
>
> These are such  dishonest questions I see no reason to continue this dialogue.
> Mat F had no trouble understanding me. So I attribute a refusal to
> understand to you.
>
> Good bye,
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> >
>

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx