On Apr 20, 11:14 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> As China is under discussion -- what could possibly be the
> justification for classifying Mao as a "reference" source, while
> classifying Castro and Tito as "Marxists"? Very strange -- and a bit
> supect, since of these Stalinist politicians, Mao is the most reviled
> by bourgeois intellectuals.
>
> [Did you all piss off the Chinese Stalinists, not by the content of
> your do***ents but by your classification of Mao as non-Marxist? Just
> a thought.]
>
> To anticipate sources of confusion--I understand that Stalin should be
> included among Marxists, because at least one of his works is canon.
> But Tito was never anything but a Stalinist, and Castro was even
> further from Marxism before becoming a Stalinist.
>
> There's a funny discussion somewhere between David Walters and some
> 1st or 3rd campist in which David says that Mao's work is a major
> current in 20th century Marxism and obviously deserves inclusion.
> What's funny is that, David's remarks notwithstanding, Mao is not
> included *as* a Marxist.
>
> srd
It is the 'Marxist' Internet Archive after all.
Why would classification be an issue when they include cold warriors
and lament their passing!!
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/rorty.htm
Source: Consequences of Pragmatism, published by the University of
Minnesota Press, =A9 1982.
Introduction only reproduced here, under the =93Fair Use=94 provisions;
Transcribed: by Andy Blunden 1998.
=97=97The Marxists Internet Archive regrets the passing of Richard Rorty
on June 8 2007.=97=97
This is where Andy Blunden comes into it I see. I dont lament a cold
warriors passing. Hope he rots in his grave...
|
