>I see Hyman Blumenstock slipped in here unnoticed. Folks wishing to keep up
>with his foodist theories of political economy are invited to do so on Post
>Keynesian Thought.
and warns:
>I also see that my favorite British Morenoite in Swedish exile, Hugh
>Rodwell, is sounding off in his usual catechistic manner. As Carrol Cox
>pointed out a couple of weeks ago, Hugh is sometimes a useful foil. But I
>want this list to be open to people other than adherent to High Church
>Marxism, Trotskyist Branch, and there's nothing that can drive people away
>more quickly than empty pronunciamenti of the Rodwell sort. Cool it, Hugh,
>or you'll follow Hyman out the exit.
>
>Doug
I disagree. Not empty -- the party is an extremely important concept in the old tradition Cox took up. So mentioning it is meaningful.
Not catechistic. I made my point in general terms open to the mainstream of Marxist tradition. The party is very important for the degenerated Second International (Social-Democracy) and the degenerated Third International (Stalinism). I rooted my take on the party in the founding programmatic intentions of Marx and Engels (I and II) and Lenin and Trotsky (III both, and IV, Trotsky). These intentions, their documents and history, are a material part of current left tradition.
Also, *I'm* not the foil.
Cool, however.
As for who is whose favourite, each to his own.
Now let's have a broad, open, tolerant discussion of alternatives for the left!
Cheers,
Hugh