Jurriaan Bendien <[email protected]> wrote: > It is not much use either to recycle a few Marxist deities such as Rudolf > Hilferding (who, incidentally, got it wrong about many important issues > regarding monetary theory, corporate structures, and imperialism).
Who said that Hilferding was a "deity"? No-one. Was it Julio who cited his work? I know for a fact that he's not a religious-style Marxist. It is very common for academics (and even non-academics) to cite academics of the past, and that was essentially what Hilferding was (even if he was never a tenured professor). Just because someone cited him does not mean that anyone sees him as some sort of god or demigod. Sure he was wrong on a lot of stuff, but that does not mean that he was wrong in the material that was cited. Also, some people's "incorrect" work can be extremely useful for others to develop more empirically accurate and theoretically coherent work. I don't see how we can learn from the past without studying the views of old thinkers. > Quite simply, [according to Jurriaan's perspective] the Marxists made a big > mess of Marx’s thought, but nevertheless, the [unnamed] Marxist faithful > still want to project a glorious tradition of Marxist righteousness. < Please be specific. Since you didn't provide any details, all that I can conclude is that you are seeing the opinions of a small group of Marxists who haughtily describe themselves as being "orthodox" and then turning around to see them as really being the "Marxist orthodoxy." Then you attribute their dogmatism to people outside of that group. I didn't read Julio as describing his opinions as "orthodox." -- Jim Devine / "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
