Stephen E Philion wrote:
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> That, btw Joanna, is what Carrol means by principled discourse. Steve's
> charge wasn't principled; it was unprincipled.
>
> --actually delong was unprincipled in his cheap shot against Sweezy.
> EOS.
Not really. DeLong makes no pretence to sharing principles with Sweezy.
>From his point of view, Sweezy is the enemy, and one does not criticize
the enemy, one attacks. I called Brad a scoundrel. That was neither
principled nor unprincipled in reference to Brad, but it was a criticism
in reference to Michael Yates, who had called Brad a Fool. I said that
on the principle of knowing one's enemy, one should not call Brad a fool
but a scoundrel (or simply an enemy, whether intentionally or merely
objectively, of humanity). A criticism (principled) should always assume
the possibility of the criticized agreeing with it. I would not
anticipate Brad agreeing with anything I had to say (beyond stale
commonplaces that Brad, Stalin, I, & probably Goering could agree on).
There is nothing Brad could do to meet my attack other than cease being
what he is. Just as the (nameless) left writers who are attacked behind
their backs on this list could not cease being "bad writers" except by
crawling into a hole and dying. They are all writing as well as they
can, and to attack them as "bad writers" is merely to express personal
spleen, not to make a useful criticism of anyone.
Carrol
>
> steve
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk