I don't see how Rorty is even a reference authority, although I know
nothing of his cold war positions. He is an exponent of relativism in
epistemology. Here is a sample of his current political outlook:
___________
This means that the European Union is the only likely sponsor of an
alternative to Wa****ngton's project of a permanent pax Americana. The
leaders of the still-fragile regimes that govern Russia and China are
too preoccupied with their own hold on power, and with domestic
problems, to ask themselves questions about the best course for the
world as a whole. Their resentment at Wa****ngton's arrogance will
remain tacit. They can afford to wait for their own day to come-the
day on which they tell Wa****ngton that they can and will challenge its
military power. If America refuses to recognize that that day will
come sooner or later, and if Europe does nothing to offer an
alternative scheme for world order, then nothing is likely to change.
Sooner or later we shall recreate the situation that prevailed during
the cold war-nuclear powers daring each other to be the first to
launch their missiles.
--------------------
The above was published, however, in a major pro-imperialist/Zionist
outlet - http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3D454
srd
On Apr 20, 3:38=A0pm, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
