Todd Archer wrote:
>
> Joe said:
>
>
> What characterises a "secular religion", anyway, aside from having an "-ism"
> in its name?
>
Someplace Engels jokes about the acquaintances who, told that one is an atheist, exclaim "Oh, then atheism is your religion."
But notice, this whole discussion has not touched on either marxism or religion. Rather, it has consisted of a series of free-floating assertions about _people_. The argument is not that marxism is a religion. To make that claim would require an analysis of actual marxist positions. Rather Joe & others are claiming to be mindreaders -- they know better than I do what is going on in my head when I affirm a position about the world.
Todd is probably correct about my first response to R -- I made the mistake of responding in the mode he introduced: that is, the mode of talking about the people who hold a give conviction rather than the conviction itself.
Justin argues that the theory of surplus value is not a necessary (or even desirable) basis for explaining exploitation. He _doesn't_ (at least ordinarily -- we all slip) say that anyone who believes that theory is a robot, etc. So I can argue with Justin. It's called being principled. One can argue about principles but there is nothing to say in response to someone who engages in reading my mind to describe my secret or unconscious or whatever motivation in holding that conviction.
Rhetoricians have described R's mode of argument as "polluting the waters of discourse." That is, he has attempted to establish a context in which anything I or Yoshie or other "marxist" says is irrelevant and merely proves his position. He does not make statements about marxism. And he pulled both me and to some extent Yoshie into that shithole with him -- of unprincipled statements about people rather than principled statements about theoretical or practical positions.
Carrol