>You (Doug) say: "these abstract universals don't exist. They're
>creatures of imagination, of social convention. I would have thought
>that a Marxist would find this point obvious."
>
>Only a very poor Marxist
So that's it then. You're deciding who's a good Marxist and who's a bad Marxist? Pissing on Derrida et. al. helps somehow?
>Marx himself rubbished the idea (as for example in his treatment of
>the proposition that money was a social convention Galiani's, if I
>remember right).
If I remember right he doesn't "rubbish" the idea. He takes it as an initial approach to understanding and deepens it.
>It is a common error to equate social constructionism with Marxism
You are making the common error of equating "creature of imagination" with delusion.
>Ten years ago I wrote an article distinguishing the two (published
>in a collection edited by Suke Wolton, Marxism, Mysticism and Modern Theory).
If we read that would it make us good Marxists?