> Why do you keep thinkng of the notion of scientific discipline in
Marxism and connections between successive scientists as analogous to
religious dogma , such as your reference to the pope above ? <
a religious attitude toward knowledge (or science) asserts the possibility only of repetition of an already accomplished and whole doctrine, but that is neither what you are saying and nor what i was alluding to.
moreover, i did not insist on radical discontinuity, never have. i specifically asked: "is all we do "augment" and "develop", or is this also a process of critique and discontinuity, wrought by the force of changing circumstances, as much evident in the writings of (say) Marx and Lenin as between them?" read it again: it is a materialist supposition about the relation of these "scientists" to and in the world, and of the effects of the world on their science. and read your post again: you posed the relationship between marx, lenin and kautsky strictly as one of augmentation and development. this is papal, not because it is religious, but because it implies (falsely) that there is no discontinuity, no revision, etc.
eg., by presenting the different popes as continuous, even though everyone in the church hierarchy knows full well that there are substantial and radical differences between each pope, the assertion of papal infallibility is (it is hoped) secured from worldly (popular) contestation. it's not a question of religiosity per se, but of locating final authority over interpretation and practice away from the 'followers' into some apparently mystical realm that no one else can access but we must nonetheless follow, repeat, etc. private knowledge of the discontinuity between succession is rendered into public assertions of fidelity, continuity and 'discipline'. not a religious doctrine so much as a cynical one.
> Charles: Yes, quite. Why on earth would creation of a pool of cheapened
labour seem to disappear as an economic motive ? Only in your mind does it
seem to disappear. Of course, the imperialists are trying to create the
cheapest pool of labour in everything they do. Why would the war on
Yugoslavia be an exception ?<
you are not reading what i wrote. i wrote: "not quite, chaz. you tried to locate economic motives in the reductive sense of booty (ie., territorial grabs for resources), as did others who haven't to my knowledge called themselves marxists. within that framework, things like the creation of a pool of cheapened labour (ie., surplus value and class struggle) seemed to disappear as an 'economic motive'."
btw, that celebrated confidence of yours seems to evaporate into chest-beating 'me-tarzan-you-jane' anxiety pretty fast...
> As a matter of fact since idealism reduces to the equivalent to religion,
it is your arguments that are more like those of a pope. Your arguments are
not more creative, less religioius, more open minded or whatever it is you
think they are than mine. > I repeat. Your arguments are more religious
than mine are. I am the atheist, materialist, creative, non-dogmatist,
scientist. You are not.<
you talking to me? you talking to me?
i'll go you a few rounds on Quake, anytime, anycyberplace...
Angela _________