>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.)
Yes, agreed. An argument that leaves room for debate is far superior to one in which either or both of the participants effectively ignore one another totally, speaking or not. However, unless we have a right-wing equivalent to Michael Pugliese lurking here, I think we all do have, by and large, enough shared priniciples to depart from.
>
>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.
That's R's willful ignorance. If you or anyone else wants to comment on his/her words, fine, but I'm commenting on your comment (forgive me, all!) about replying to R. What looks like an attempt by you to shut down conversation with R (which, granted, you have no way of actively enforcing except, possibly, by harrasment, which I've never really seen you do) is almost the same thing as R's willful ignorance; it prevents communication. The upshot of all this is that I saw no need for the manner in which you phrased your comment.
>
>My initial post was a prediction: it will be nearly impossible (on a
>maillist) to speak to R about marxism.
I'd be delighted to see you proved wrong, but that won't happen anyway if we follow your advice and don't think it worthwhile to reply to R at all.
>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.
Ok, then relax, sit back, and roll your eyes at R's statement. Don't discourage others from having their say.
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com