> >^^^^^^^^ > >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 >
