Sorry Atefeh,
you got me wrong, I think. If my english is not *totally* mixed up, it should
come out clearly from my former message, which referred to Mbayiha's last one.
What I was trying to say is:
1) I don't believe that F's analysis of historical structures is
comparable to what marxists are doing or Marx did
2) I don't believe that, even if you do so, F could be called a marxist
anyway.
>"the bourgeois and proletarian conflict is
>nothing but ripples on the surface " (or something like that !!!!)
hits what I meant when I said one should be careful claiming that F did
*social* analysis.
The one about Plato and Hegel was an ironical reference to Mbayiha's
statement:
>Marx called these: (1) "the materialist conception of history," (2) "the
>dialectical method", and (3) "the critique of political economy."
[...]
>Well, not IMHO. My definition is a bit looser: to belong to the <marxist
>intellectual tradition>, 1 has to fulfill AT LEAST (1), OR (2), OR (3).
Conclusion: each dialetical thinker (2) is a marxist, too.
I personally even wondered about M.Jay subsuming Adorno to 'Western Marxism'... so
this is not MY point of view.
Benjamin
p.s.: ...or did I get you wrong somehow?
___________________________
Netzadresse:
joeriben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
you got me wrong, I think. If my english is not *totally* mixed up, it should
come out clearly from my former message, which referred to Mbayiha's last one.
What I was trying to say is:
1) I don't believe that F's analysis of historical structures is
comparable to what marxists are doing or Marx did
2) I don't believe that, even if you do so, F could be called a marxist
anyway.
>"the bourgeois and proletarian conflict is
>nothing but ripples on the surface " (or something like that !!!!)
hits what I meant when I said one should be careful claiming that F did
*social* analysis.
The one about Plato and Hegel was an ironical reference to Mbayiha's
statement:
>Marx called these: (1) "the materialist conception of history," (2) "the
>dialectical method", and (3) "the critique of political economy."
[...]
>Well, not IMHO. My definition is a bit looser: to belong to the <marxist
>intellectual tradition>, 1 has to fulfill AT LEAST (1), OR (2), OR (3).
Conclusion: each dialetical thinker (2) is a marxist, too.
I personally even wondered about M.Jay subsuming Adorno to 'Western Marxism'... so
this is not MY point of view.
Benjamin
p.s.: ...or did I get you wrong somehow?
___________________________
Netzadresse:
joeriben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx