> Justin Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > It's not irrelevant. I think Nathan's "acceptance" is cheap and merely
> > verbal because it is idle, particualr in view of his waffling on Israel
in
> > other contexts. jks
Carrol Cox wrote:
> I do not know how to draw the line, but even in my pre-marxist days I
> was suspicious of those who had no power over events taking rigorous
> moral positions.
Marxism, like any other substantive set of political positions, relies in large part on value judgments for whatever force it may be said to possess. Slightly more succinctly: the Marxist eschewal of "rigorous moral positions" is ultimately self-defeating.
> Such positions (or posturings) always reminded me of
> the astronomer in _Rasselas_ who was anxious to find a replacement
> before his death to carry on his important task of causing the sun to
> rise each morning.
"Such positions" may reveal how we would act in circumstances where we _do_ have "power over events."
-- Luke
> Carrol