====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
This will be for today my last post on the topic, since I am trying to stick to the five-post-per-day limit. So I will try to bundle a few responses here, and any other responses must wait until tomorrow. S. Artesian understands my point perfectly. And he also writes; > not even I'm perfect when it comes to making all the connections between > Marx's analysis and the concrete tasks ahead of us. And that is exactly why I thought Carrol's post was excellent. Because Carrol posits that there is a necessary disconnect between the critique of political economy, Marx's actual theory, on the one hand, and revolutionary praxis on the other hand. Marx's theory is not a theory of revolution, since there can be no theory of revolution. What Marx offers is a theory of the operation of capitalism, of the mediation forms of social life in bourgeois society. At best, the critique of political economy can explain why revolutions are so rare and difficult. It is not a user's manual for one. Louis Proyect: > But Angelus is not interested in the transition period There can be no "theory of the transition period", because whatever transition periods emerge will be the result of historical contingency under widely varying circumstances. In that sense, trying to take some historically-situated comments Marx made in the 19th century and apply them to the Post-Fordist era strikes me as a waste of time. Marx's political writings are _interventions_; they engage with the figures and events of his time. They are quite a different kettle of fish from his theoretical writings, which apply to capitalism as such. Lukewarm wrote: > I want to read in YOUR words what YOU intend to do in order "to abolish > the working class But Marx speaks for me on this question. I can't say it any better than he does. No point in trying to improve upon Marx's prose, he says it better than anyone could. But really Lukewarm, you're just one of those sad old Icepick-head Trotskyites who never bothered to read Marx. Instead you probably got spoonfed George Novack popularizations of Engels' Dialectic of Nature or some other turgid crap. If so I can understand why you're resentful against people whose point of reference is _Capital_ or the _Grundrisse_ rather than the collected works of James Cannon. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com