M-TH: Rethinking Marxism

[Chris Burford]

OK Jerry, thank you for commenting directly on the question of 
personalities, but far more important than your personality, or
mine or Louis's is the question of what is the positive or 
negative role of a conference like the Amherst conference.

I most definitely think it is important for serious would
be marxists to link up with serious politically committed
people in the academic world. It is almost certain by 
definition that the Amherst Conference has a mix of tendencies
and contradictions within it. If the subject has been brought
up again on this list - by you - I would appreciate if you give
your own opinion, on the strengths and weaknesses of such 
a conference. 

Which are the most hopeful or interesting tendencies 
around it at the moment, which are the least interesting?
Which tendency has prospects of developing. Which tendency
should we watch most closely, not necessarily in order to rubbish
any one tendency, though clear strong criticism may be quite 
appropriate, but to have some purchase on a 
phenomenon going on in front of our eyes. If you can help to contribute
a more perceptive analysis than the one you have criticised,
please concentrate on doing so. That is the sought of 
competition that I would value.

What is Cullenberg doing these days for example? You must know.

But if neither you nor anyone else feels like producing 
a better analysis now, I agree it would be best not 
to pursue the Amherst conference at present on this list.



Chris Burford





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