Oh, I am aware of that line of thought. If I remember correctly, there was also a lot of criticism of Marx's use of Hegel.... I'm also aware of the fact that Marxists have never been shy of using the word as well. Marx was comfortable with accusing his opponents of dogmatism, even ones in the worker's movement. Mao, Korsch, Althusser, and others were perfectly willing to use it to not only critique religion, but forms of Marxism that they were not so fond of.
> Your Marxism must be pretty saturated with liberalism if you've never been
> "criticized" by some liberal for being a dogmatic thinker. In fact, I
> would
> propose as a test of the authenticity of one's Marxism the number of times
> one has been called dogmatic by liberals. The more times , the "mo better"
> your Marxism.
I don't actually go out of my way to discuss Marxism with liberals. Although your definition of Marxism seems to tie in with that of a wounded identity. If you look at my conversations with andi, I'm fairly critical of liberalism. I think that the problem may be that you operate with two categories, rather than recognizing that one could perhaps be radical, a critic of liberalism, and still not be particularly enamoured with your truth of Marx.
> Furthermore, on this thread, making the claim that Marx's thought and N's
> thought are significantly in conflict, especially concerning the issue of
> class, is not treating Marx "dogmatically". To say so evinces ignorance of
> the meaning of "dogmatic". I'm just giving an accurate reprise of Marx's
> thought (and, obviously, favoring it over N.'s thought).
No, but the problem is your constant misreading of N. (or perhaps the term 'non-reading' would apply....
> Of course, someone espousing Marxism _can_ do so without thinking
> critically. But you haven't adduced much or any argument that my thinking
> or
> writing on this thread lacks critical thinking, except to claim that I am
> adhering too rigidly to Marxist principles. But that's sort of back door
> question begging, because the dispute between us is " what is M's thinking
> on these issues, does it conflict with N.'s, and ,if so, is M or N correct
> ?" To demand that I stop treating M. "dogmatically" in that context is to
> just boldly demand that I agree with you about what we are disputing.
No, actually if you go back to the conversations that you are discussing, the responses tended to insist that there is intellectual value contained in non-Marxist materials... namely Keynes (which was preferred over Preo.)
I would instead insist that a non-dogmatic approach would be to read those authors critically but honestly. Marx is particularly good about finding the value in political economy for instance, while showing the gaps and weaknesses in their thought.
As for N., my thought is that he provides some critical tools to think about the question of 'voluntary servitude' and genealogy (see Foucault's work on this question). The primary weakness seems to be an investment in the same obsession with 'genius' that he critiques in others and a refusal to see the possibility in the common (unlike Spinoza). What you don't seem to recognize is that 1. N. and Marx ask different questions and 2. N. is not interested in obtaining followers so much as getting folks to ask questions.....
robert wood
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>