>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> 06/07/99 10:45AM >>
The larger point is that political rhetoric from some persons on
this list and on PEN-L takes the form of drawing 'us and them'
lines, rather than dealing with substance. "We" are
Marxist/Leninist/revolutionaries (take your pick), 'you' are
something else. Sometimes this takes the form of personal
offense at statements not directed at persons, thus reflecting an
effort at emotional blackmail. "Criticize my hero and you have
insulted me, you shit" is a mode of argument that should be
rejected. Even worse is, "criticize me and my hero, and you have
insulted our entire people."
((((((((((((((( Charles: Problems with what Max says here are that non-Marxists/Leninist/revolutionaries on PEN-L and LBO use just as much political rhetoric ( in the negative connotation of "political rhetoric") as anyone. The political rhetoric of the status quo is typically not admitted to be political rhetoric, and Max tries to use that false consciousness to remove his discussion from the category of political rhetoric. There is a general misrepresentation by the "non's" that marxists use more inflated rhetoric than the "non's" do. The further implication is that marxists and leninists are less scientific and objective in their political and economic analyses than the "non's" , but this is a slander of marxists. It is one of the fundamental techniques of bourgeois , anti-communist propaganda: that bourgeois thought is "free"and "democratic" and communist thought is not.
Another related misrepresentation by Max is that marxists, leninists and revolutionaries are more into intellectual "hero"worship in these arguments than the non-marxists, non-leninists and non-revolutionaries. This is an unsubstantiated , biased assertion by Max here. Non-communist intellectuals have just as many heroes as anybody.
Max does not "deal with substance" more than his opponents in these arguments.
These specific misrepresentations by Max were expressed in his exchange with Brad D. mocking Maoist thought as basically dumber than Delongist or Sawickian thought or other western economist thought. The comedic exchange sought to continue the general bourgeois and western stereotype of communist and eastern thought as lacking critical capacity and sort of mindless brainwashed utterances. The underlying implication is of course that bourgeois and western thought is superior in these ways.
I'm all for humor, but Max's careless use of it here has compounded the aggravation and confusion. Jokes do not help when communication lines are already unclear.
Charles Brown