<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080>it's interesting, Todd, that carrol needs you to point
all this out to him. you aren't the only one who's counseled carrol
regarding his knee jerk response to words he doesn't like and doesn't understand
from a source he knows nothing about and can't deal with. i don't
believe carrol has discourage anyone from having their say,
however; members of this message board (such as yourself) are not that
easily lead.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080>BTW, rolling your eyes is good exercise for the
eye muscles which too commonly are fixed in one position reading a CRT or a
book.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080>R wants you to know he's male, and is not a right wing
equivalent of mike p, who's material R enjoys very much. (keep it
coming, mike!) at the risk of being too open R wants you to
know he enjoys firing in 360 degrees to see if he can hit any of the smug,
pedantic, rigid intellectual snobs that that belch redundant,
well masticated dogma from time to time on this message
board. also, R wants to point out that a considerate member of
this message board asked him to expand on his original "laconic" statement about
determinism, which willingly (or willfully, to use your term) R
did.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080>keep rolling along,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080>R</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=todda39@hotmail.com href="mailto:todda39@hotmail.com">Todd Archer</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 9:55 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: Determinism</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Carrol said:<BR><BR>>Todd Archer
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>>Carrol said:<BR>>><BR>>> >I don't
think it is worthwhile replying to R -- if he can use as >silly <BR>>>
>a<BR>>> >non-marxist expression as "historical determinism," then
he is >>beyond <BR>>>the<BR>>> >reach of reasoned argument.
Whatever you say he will simply >and >quite<BR>>> >automatically
and unconsciously translate it into his >preconceived <BR>>>
>fantasy<BR>>> >of what marxism is.<BR>>><BR>>>Oh, come
on, Carrol, don't be silly. If we all followed this >advice,
<BR>>>we'd<BR>>>be sitting in our own little corners, glaring at one
another and >refusing <BR>>>to<BR>>>communicate. "Chaqu'un
son gout", eh? Especially in cyberspace. >Maybe
<BR>>>R<BR>>>might see something that'll modify his thinking for the
future, who <BR>>> >knows.<BR>>><BR>><BR>>It's more fun and
more profitable arguing with an Ian Murray or a Doug<BR>>Henwood or a Justin
Schwarz. There is also a matter of context. There >is <BR>>no shared
practice to ground discussion in on a maillist. Hence for<BR>>discussion to
be at all fruitful there must be _some_ shared principles<BR>>to depart from.
(To put it another way, on a maillist we are all<BR>>disembodied intellects
or voices.)<BR><BR>Yes, agreed. An argument that leaves room for debate is
far superior to one <BR>in which either or both of the participants effectively
ignore one another <BR>totally, speaking or not. However, unless we have a
right-wing equivalent <BR>to Michael Pugliese lurking here, I think we all do
have, by and large, <BR>enough shared priniciples to depart
from.<BR><BR>><BR>>Disagreement is one thing; simple ignorance or passive
following of<BR>>silly cliches is another thing. And a one line
characterization of<BR>>marxism as "historical determinism" is not a critique
of even a<BR>>disagreement -- it's willful ignorance. There are some people
in the<BR>>local anti-war group that have equally bizarre assumptions
about<BR>>Marxism, but it doesn't matter -- we can talk about the things that
we<BR>>do agree on in relation to the work. So I get along fine with
them.<BR><BR>That's R's willful ignorance. If you or anyone else wants to
comment on <BR>his/her words, fine, but I'm commenting on your comment (forgive
me, all!) <BR>about replying to R. What looks like an attempt by you to
shut down <BR>conversation with R (which, granted, you have no way of actively
enforcing <BR>except, possibly, by harrasment, which I've never really seen you
do) is <BR>almost the same thing as R's willful ignorance; it prevents
communication. <BR>The upshot of all this is that I saw no need for the
manner in which you <BR>phrased your comment.<BR><BR>><BR>>My initial post
was a prediction: it will be nearly impossible (on a<BR>>maillist) to speak
to R about marxism.<BR><BR>I'd be delighted to see you proved wrong, but that
won't happen anyway if we <BR>follow your advice and don't think it worthwhile
to reply to R at all.<BR><BR>>I'd be delighted if someone<BR>>proved me
wrong about R -- but I personally have better things to do<BR>>with my time
(like read third-rate crime fiction) than battle over<BR>>historical
determinism.<BR><BR>Ok, then relax, sit back, and roll your eyes at R's
statement. Don't <BR>discourage others from having their
say.<BR><BR>Todd<BR><BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________<BR>Chat
with friends online, try MSN Messenger: <A
href="http://messenger.msn.com">http://messenger.msn.com</A><BR><BR></BODY></HTML>