>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.
No, what makes Marxism a secular religion isn't any particular position or even a set of them. It's the way people have held it--as sometime believed a priori, immune from criticism, with a kind of worshipful devotion to (often unread) texts; with the language of orthodoxt, betrayal, etc.; and it's something that people have used to inspire the meaning in their lives. Not all of this is bad, especially the last. None of it has any connection to the truth value of any theoretical propositions in Marxism.
>
>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.
Of course not. Though the way that some people adhere to the claim--e.g. Andrew Kliman, strikes me as religious. Jim Devine, on the contrary, has a scoentifically founded, though I think erroneous, conviction that value theory is useful.
So I can argue with Justin. It's called being
>principled.
Same, Carrol.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com