Apologies to all for confusing Angela's and George's posts. But also an
explanation. My post was an expression of irritation at the way the debate
is being carried on. No one involved in it has given an example
illustrating their point, let alone an example that actually distinguishes
their analysis from any other.
If Marxism is a "guide to action" (and my reading of George's original
post suggests to me that he would agree with this), then Marxist analysis
must deal with concrete historical events, circumstances, conjunctures or
what have you. So the distinction between an analysis of the state that
sees it as "tacked on" to capital and one that sees capital and the state
as inseparable should be clear from some example or other: the Blair
government in Britain? the crisis in Indonesia? or what?
So a challenge, to anyone: an example please that distinguishes their
analysis from anybody else's.
Maybe it's because I'm a historian, but I like empirical data in my theory,
Fraternally,
John Walker
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|