>My position on that is that there
>is no possible use of the term that does not lead to absurdity.
>As follows:
>1) (Not counting boycotts) Does how a person spends her
>money have anything to do with her politics? Answer: No.
Kind of a big exception. What if they donate money to a politcal party?
>Final re-emphasis. The point of departure for and central concern
>of this post is your phrase, "position which you have argued is not
>marxist or radical enough." That is mere poisoning of the wells of
>discourse. And I'm really curious. Why is it so important to you to
>cling to the conviction that the only reason someone could disagree
>with you was because they thought you "weren't marxist enough."
>Can't you even contemplate the possibility that they disagree with
>you because they think you are wrong? Actually, I don't really
>understand what you mean by ascribing such a position to me or
>to anyone else.
So you wouldn't describe someone or some politcal party as too liberal or too conservative? At least as shorthand? Or do you not engage in shorthand?
I'm curious about how your position on moralism - and Yoshie's - compares with Nietzche's and his ideas in Genealogy of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil.
Peter