Doug Henwood wrote:
> Nathan Newman wrote: [snip]
>
>
> How did Joel Kovel react, if at all?
Neither Ollman nor Kovel reacted to this part of Foster's argument. More
interesting, actually, was Foster's point of departure: his general emphasis
on Marx's debt to Epicurus. While listening, I found Kovel's presentation
interesting and mostly persuasive -- but on looking back on the panel, I
find that while I remember the arguments of Foster and Ollman fairly well,
I don't really remember what Kovel had to say.
Ollman provided the clearest exposition that I have ever encountered --
clearer and more forceful than anything in Marx himself, Engels, Lenin,
or Luxemburg -- of the rationale for marxism's emphasis on class as the
primary analytic and political category. What was remarkable -- and
what Ollman himself remarked on in some of the responses to his
presentation, was the reductivist view of class and class interests implicit
in many of the questions directed to him.
Carrol
