>At 6:47 PM -0800 4/4/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>>I think it is Yoshie's and Carrol's position, as amply documented by
>>recent exchanges.
>
>I don't think so. If we believed that "History...through the operation of
>Economics, notably class interests (but not, apparently class
>_consciousness_, which is psychological) directly operates on historical
>agencies -- classes, states (heaven forbid, not on individuals; they're
>epiphenomenal too), and any accompanying believes and desires are just the
>siren on the steam engine," we would have simply said so and left it at
>that. Instead, for examples that you and a couple of others said would
>require "psycho-sexual" explanations, I provided alternative
>interpretations that make more sense to me.
typing such a thing would not be an argument. it would merely be an assertion, a claim. what you attempted to do was make an argument, frequently using some variants of the very tactics discussed in the article from which this thread evolved, but also interspersing those with illustration, evidence, statistics, logic, etc. --the stuff from which arguments are crafted.
Kelley