Todd Archer wrote:
>
> Carrol said:
>
> >I don't think it is worthwhile replying to R -- if he can use as silly >a
> >non-marxist expression as "historical determinism," then he is >beyond the
> >reach of reasoned argument. Whatever you say he will simply >and quite
> >automatically and unconsciously translate it into his >preconceived fantasy
> >of what marxism is.
>
> Oh, come on, Carrol, don't be silly. If we all followed this advice, we'd
> be sitting in our own little corners, glaring at one another and refusing to
> communicate. "Chaqu'un son gout", eh? Especially in cyberspace. Maybe R
> might see something that'll modify his thinking for the future, who knows.
>
It's more fun and more profitable arguing with an Ian Murray or a Doug Henwood or a Justin Schwarz. There is also a matter of context. There is no shared practice to ground discussion in on a maillist. Hence for discussion to be at all fruitful there must be _some_ shared principles to depart from. (To put it another way, on a maillist we are all disembodied intellects or voices.)
Disagreement is one thing; simple ignorance or passive following of silly cliches is another thing. And a one line characterization of marxism as "historical determinism" is not a critique of even a disagreement -- it's willful ignorance. There are some people in the local anti-war group that have equally bizarre assumptions about Marxism, but it doesn't matter -- we can talk about the things that we do agree on in relation to the work. So I get along fine with them.
My initial post was a prediction: it will be nearly impossible (on a maillist) to speak to R about marxism. I'd be delighted if someone proved me wrong about R -- but I personally have better things to do with my time (like read third-rate crime fiction) than battle over historical determinism.
Carrol