Re: Welcoming Stan Goff Out of Marxism

[Angelus Novus <fuerdenkommunismus@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Angelus Novus wrote:
> >
> >
> > As far as Stan Goff's departure goes, I think the
> > burden of proof is on the advocates of Marx-ism to
> > make their case for Marx-ism's relevance.
>
> Why? Why debate the issue at all?

Because, at least to me, Capital, passages from the
Grundrisse, and the Results of the Immediate
Production Process are invaluable tools for
understanding social reality at a fundamental level.
And when I'm engaged with activists blockading a
Neo-Nazi demo, or mobilizing to protest a G-8 summit,
it is worth it to me to explain why they can embrace
those analytical tools while rejecting the extra
baggage brought along by organized Marxists.

> implies, though I'm sure
> that is not A.N.'s intention, that Marxism is a
> religion

Certainly not a religion, but an ideology.  I
appreciate that PEN-L and lbo-talk are full of all
sorts of critical, non-dogmatic people who apply the
label Marxist to themselves.  My question is: why?
Isn't it confusing to then clarify why one is a
Marxist despite not adhering to this or that aspect of
Marxist orthodoxy?





____________________________________________________________________________________
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.