On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 02:52 PM, n/ a wrote:
>> To avoid misconstrual, and to stick to my metaphor: I think Justin is
>> attempting to give adult answers to childish questions. And that is
>> usually a waste of breath. For the most part those who babble of
>> Marx's
>> (or Marxists') "economic determinism" simply don't know what they are
>> saying, and are not about to take any answer except simple
>> confirmation
>> seriously. They will not be able to _see_ or _hear_ any answer which
>> does not conform to their mechanical presuppositions, and those
>> mechanical presuppositions make the phrase "Marx's economic
>> determinism"
>> a mere tautology.
>
> To yet again clarify, my charge of Marx's economic determinism was not
> one designed to cast a broad brush over marxism and its history as a
> whole. My comment [and I stand by its accuracy which I have clearly
> defended] was in relation to Marx's view [and slander/lies] against
> anarchism. When discussing the anarchist/marxist split its important
> to bring up the issue of economic determinism because it plays a
> crucial and underlying role in many themes of debate - such as, should
> the the working class sieze political power or make social and
> economic revolution first? All too often these debates are sacked by
> those marxists who would rather attack anarchism on a more superficial
> level.
sounds to me like the debate's being sacked by an anarchist who would rather attack marxism on a more superficial level. you have already said you think the anarchists understand marxism best (thus the "accuracy" of the anarchist critique), so to the extent that you think this area is the critical one in the marxist-anarchist debate, as you say here, the argument that marxist-anarchist debates get sidetracked by the issue is tautological, afaict.
maybe i missed something and i admit to not following every sentence of the exchange between you and justin, but that's sure the way it's seemed to me. you seem predisposed to see marxism as economic determinism at its core, and then try to dismiss arguments that marx's general outlook is not so simple, and particularly his view of the revolutionary state, on the grounds that you were just talking about the marxist-anarchist debate, which comes back to how marxism is economic determinism at its core.
i'm surprised luke hasn't chastised you, already, for the circularity of this logic. ;-)
j