<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=furuhashi.1@osu.edu href="mailto:furuhashi.1@osu.edu">Yoshie Furuhashi</A> </DIV> <DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=lbo-talk@lists.panix.com href="mailto:lbo-talk@lists.panix.com">lbo-talk@lists.panix.com</A> </DIV> <DIV><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, June 29, 2002 8:24 AM</DIV> <DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: Determinism</DIV></DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>>This obsession with 'what Marx said' is one of the weaknesses of <BR>>Marxism.  Marxists have a tendency to see Marx as a sort of prophet <BR>>whose writings comprise a perfect materialist 'revelation' that can <BR>>.  I prefer to think <BR>>for myself instead of follow some old dead guy.<BR>><BR>>Joe<BR><BR>You are not "thinking for yourself" here, as what you wrote above <BR>simply reproduces an old charge that "Marxism is a secular religion." <BR>In fact, the charge that "X is a secular religion with its own dogma" <BR>must be at least as old as conservative reactions against modern <BR>revolutions in the age of the Enlightenment.  Here's an example from <BR>Edmund Burke: "It [the French Revolution] is a revolution of doctrine <BR>and theoretic dogma.  It has a much greater resemblance to those <BR>changes which have been made upon religious grounds in which a spirit <BR>of proselytism makes an essential part" ("Thoughts on French <BR>Affairs," 1791).  In short, your rhetoric is stuck on the right in <BR>the 18th century!<BR>-- <BR>Yoshie<BR><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>yoshie, i'm surprised at you.   i've grown accustomed to your comments being the even tempered voice of reason so often on this message board.      </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>the fact that the charge about marxism being a secular religion is old or has parallels in the 18th century is irrelevant.    it's still true that marxism is accepted in many quarters with faith at the level of religion; true long ago and true now.    most politics produces a reaction in the "true believers" that is indistinguishable from religious faith.   organized religion is deeply involved in politics and power, to a fault in my opinion.   also, most politics is an accident of birth as is most religion.  (not including the free thinkers on this message board of course.   ;-)   )</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>to make the blanket generalization that pointing out the connection between political fanaticism and religious fanaticism, political faith and religious faith was brought forward in the 18th century only establishes that the fact was known centuries ago and is still true.  conservative edmund burke was not the only one making this observation, then or now.  burke wasn't immune himself from being a dogmatist of the political right, since his comments were far from objective, and his social class was deeply threatened by the french revolution.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>if joe isn't thinking for himself, who is he thinking for?    don't accuse him of not thinking simply because you disagree with him, or see the issue from a different perspective.   that's a cheap shot.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>R</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>