Rahul and a vastly superior framework

Hugh Rodwell m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se
Sun May 26 04:00:02 MDT 1996


Replying to Rakesh's interesting (and not in the least 'superficial')
posting, Rahul makes a couple of significant statements`.

First:

>Your statement that Marx can be transcended only on the basis of Marx
>smacks of dogma. There is no a priori reason to disallow or ignore
>explanations which do not start with Marx; maybe someday someone will come
>up with a vastly superior framework that makes no reference to Marx. Who
>knows?

Rakesh wasn't making an a priori statement. He made it clear that this was
a conclusion he had reached rather reluctantly after ploughing through a
lot of stuff on the issue.

As for the speculation about some grand superior framework making 'no
reference to Marx', I wonder what planet you're living on and in what
times?

Second:

>My view is that Marxism requires extensive revision, even
>revolutionization.

This is your clearest statement yet on this, and quite consistent with the
principles underlying your interventions in various questions on the list
(most of which we have to guess at unfortunately).

These two statements are significant because with them you set yourself the
task of undertaking such a revision.

It's no easy task, and I wish you luck. If you come up with a start to the
'vastly superior framework' within, say, ten years, I'll be listening, and
I'll be astonished and very impressed. If you don't, however, I won't be
surprised.

I've always assumed you take Marxism seriously. That's why I also assume
your position on the need for revision is serious.

Science, as you well know, is *transcended* (a better word might be
developed) only on the basis of science. It doesn't throw out the baby with
the bathwater. Could you characterize your view of Marxism in this respect
for us?

Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list