>Since I didn't know if I should call Doug a Marxist, a "Left-Keynesian"
>or as a poster on Marxism-list a while back insinuated a postmodernist
>"enemy of the people", inquiring
>minds want to know, "Who Are You? What are You? Show Us Your Ideological
>Papers!"
This wouldn't be an allusion to Adorno's: "The question 'what is to be done?' as an automatic reflex to every critical thought before it is fully expressed ... recalls the gesture of someone demanding your papers," would it?
Enemy of the people, ooh, that's a heavy charge. Will there be trials and executions after the wind-up Lenins have their revolution? Best indulge all my ludic and sybaritic tastes now, before it's too late!
Is there test one has to pass to be designated a Marxist? (If so, is there some kind of Princeton Review study course I can take to boost my score, or would that be cheating?) What are the criteria used in distinguishing a Marxist from a non-Marxist? I recall one arbiter of Marxist purity claiming a while back that Marx himself was non-Marxist on the indigenous question, which puts the whole idea of a purified Marxism as a goal of political thought in a very bizarre light.
My admiration for Marx is nearly boundless; nearly everything I think or say about political economy shows his influence. Does that make a Marxist? What exactly does it mean to be a Marxist in 1999.98? Maybe someone less confused than I, someone more down with The People, could help me out here.
I've learned a lot by reading Keynes, though I'm not a Keynesian, left or otherwise, as you'll find out if you follow through on this promise:
>sorry still have your Wall Street to read, will read, promise, in the next
>millenium
Doug