Carroll writes:
>This series of exchanges may be becoming fodder for my earlier
>attacks on irony in political discourse. We are dealing with
>ironies within ironies and everyone is getting confused as to
>who said what, what statements are direct, and what are
>ironic.
to be honest i don't know what you mean -- i had no idea i was being ironic -- do you think maybe it's habit-forming?
>That is, I don't know whether in the statement below you are
>asserting what you think or paraphrasing someone else (Marx).
>I shall assume the passage quoted is your own perception --
>namely, that *you* think that "there were fixed natural
>necessities (and relations) . . . into which history has intervened."
um no
>I find that position radically non-marxist -- to be verging in
>fact on a socio-biological position. If it is not your position, I
>apologize in advance for what I say below.
that's ok. really.
>Or are you ascribing this position to Marx? If so, nonsense --
i am saying i see some of this presumption in marx at times, yes.
but maybe i am just helplessly ironic...
Catherine