dredmond at efn.org wrote:
>
> Quoting Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>:
>
> > A general point. In the Marxist tradition criticism (a) assumes a given
> > level of unity and (b) moves towards a higher level of unity. It is the
> > chief technique by which political unity is achieved.
>
> Quite the reverse. "The whole is the false", said Adorno in Minima Moralia. Any
> form of solidarity which reproduces the compulsory unity of the total system
> will also reproduce its horrors.
>
The Whole is the capitalist mode of production; I'm not familiar enough with Adorno's work to know what he means when he says that is "false," since I would rather (at least for the most part) retain the words "false" and "true" for application to propositions only, not for the reality those propositions refer to.
Leaving Adorno aside, I'm a little unclear where Dennis gets "compulsory unity" out of an argument in which the two sides discover a common ground. Is it not both a cliche of marxist history and a profound truth that we suffer because our enemy is united, we are disunited? Isn't 'the left' a bit better off because Justin & I drew back a couple years ago from an abyss, after I had in effect called him a cop and he me a piece of shit. He and I continue to differ sharply on some things, but we've also learned from each other in discovering common ground on many issues. Does Dennis think it was a better world before J & I apologized to each other?
A friend in an off-list discussion I've already referred to writes:
****** actually, did Marx himself write anything about this idea of criticism as movement towards higher unity? i see every tom, dick, and harry quotes the "ruthless criticism of everything existing" line, but hardly ever see any reference to "movement towards unity", and many seem to misunderstand "ruthless".
my own take is that argument of the boiling variety ought to be saved for when, for example, police are bearing down on a group of comrades and there is disagreement about how to handle the situation. internet debate in the U.S. should be 99.9% unity-fostering. in addition, during periods like last feb/march with the large demos, i can stand heated debates about specific tactics if the viewpoints sharpen the thinking about what is to be done. *****
I've already posted to the list much of this. But I would like to see response to the proposition that "internet debate in the U.S. should be 99.9% unity-fostering." My own response is a qualified agreement. One of the reasons, perhaps, for difficulty in understanding (or accepting) the concept of "principled criticism" is that the tradition within which it developed was one of attempting to raise unity of practice to a unity of theory, not merely building more unity of theory in abstraction from practice. And since maillists are radically split from the practice of the subscribers, duplicating the process of unity-debate-higher unity (linked to ongoing shared practice) might be difficult. But it would be worth trying.
Kelley, responding to this same post from Dennis, writes:
> Oh, and speaking of circle jerks: Dennis R: I can think of no better way to
> build a conformist solidarity than these sorts of gang ups, as well as the
> use of fallacious logic such as "if you're not with us (in beating up on
> X), then you're against us." or "If you criticize one of us, you're not one
> of us." THAT has a chilling effect that is far icier than any attempt to
> draw on some basic principles of discussion that we can all try to adhere
> to, however humanly and imperfectly.
Justin, on Pen-L, has attempted a principled critique of BDL, and in doing so produced one of the more interesting of all the many posts on Sweezy in its quite impressive summary of Sweezy's achievements. For reasons I gave in my only post directly dealing with Brad, productive discussion _with_ him is probably impossible, but Justin has shown that principled discussion _of_ Brad can be useful, more useful certainly than the mere piling up on him on which Kelley comments. The Socialist-Register list has been virtually destroyed by posters who want to do nothing else but argue with those who can't be argued with. It gets really tiresome to look at the 50th post in a row replying to some idiotic argument by Leo Casey. Continued howls at Brad will be as useless.
Also from Kelley's post:
> Michael Dawson -PSU wrote: "Meanwhile, why the hell are you defending DeLong?"
[clip]
> If you believe I'm the scoundrel enemy, then such tactics are fine. But, if
> you have any pretenses that we might share left principles, [clip]
This of course is the same difficulty as I believe John Lacny's letter to CounterPunch raises:
****** "The point is Nader -- and you -- are traitors. You are splitters, wreckers, left in form but right in essence and function, every bit as worthy of the turncoat label as David Horowitz. You know its true." See http://Counterpunch.org/roar02282004.html *****
I'm not even an admirer of Nader, but in response to this sort of thing one _has_ to line up with Nader (and with CounterPunch) regardless of what other quarrels one has with either. I bring in this here because I have always had some admiration for John Lacny, and I'm sure he has done good work in Pittsburg, but this sort of assault on all those who won't line up in lockstep behind Kerry is utterly destructive. How does John expect to work against imperialism with those he calls traitors and equates with David Horowitz?
My responses to John of course are neither principled nor unprincipled; they aren't criticism but attacks, and they are attacks on him personally.
I really don't like people to call me a traitor, ;-> which he did by making his comments in CounterPunch generic. And I see no more reason to read his reasoning than I do the reasoning of the man he compares me to, Horowitz. Just who are the splitters here? I have specifically distanced myself in a post a week or so ago from calling ABBs "opportunists," let alone traitors to the left. I have insisted all along that what is at issue is a matter of conflicting judgments. Martha Gimenez and I are good friends, and I defended her aggressively on PSN against what I thought was an unprincipled criticism -- even though on the subject of elections I agreed with the critic rather than Martha.
It's John who wants to make it an issue of personal integrity. I have approved of Justin calling me a "piece of shit" for a post that was no worse certainly than Lacny's letter, and at the time I did not object to the personal attack but apologized for the post that had provoked it. I expect nothing less from John Lacny. I can't see carrying on a civil discussion with him until he apologizes for the label "traitor" -- in fact, if he has any personal decency, he will write to CounterPunch apologizing.
(I wonder how Doug would respond to such 3d-international jargon if it came from me instead of Lacny. :->)
More from Kelley:
> At 12:12 PM 3/1/2004, Stephen E Philion wrote:
> kelley wrote
> >What does a speaker's/writer's stature in their field or
> >productiveness as an author/researcher have to do with whether they are qualified to
> >whether they are qualified to criticize someone?
> >
> >--none, i didn't say it did, of course. <...>
> what was the point of insisting he answer Dawson's charge, as if it was
> such an important charge (it's not and it's sad that you, Steve, think it
> is): "i believe the point was made, which you hid from, that Monopoly
> Capital was a work that far exceeds your own accomplishments. forget that
> the dobb sweezy debate has generated far more serious theoretical
> discussion among marxists and non-marxists than i expect we can find your
> work generating outside your blog?"
I have to agree with Kelley here. I think it was a mistake on the part of Steve to get drawn into the "BDL flap." Bdl is the enemy, or of the enemy, but if you want to debate him, then you have to adopt Justin's approach (and my definition of principled criticism) -- i.e., you have to search for principles of unity with him, and debate in terms of those principles. I prefer not to debate him at all.
And once more from Kelley:
> Charles:
>
> >Let us not forget that Brad D's original statement commits tu quoque fallacy
> >with respect to Stalin , as Michael Perelman alluded to.
[CLIP]>
> Tsk. Tsk. This is a logical fallacy. If I criticize X's arguments against
> Y, that does not make me a supporter/defender of Y. It makes me a critic of
> X -- in this case, a critic of Steve's use of logical fallacy.
>
> I brought it up, as I noted, to illustrate what Carrol's been trying to say
> about the poverty of the discussions here.
Again, while I _of course_ agree with Charles & everybody else about DeLong, Kelley is correct here. If you are going to debate Brad, accuse him of illogic, etc., you have to proceed in a principled fashion. Justin has, most of the other objectors have not. And again, I have no objection to throwing rotten tomatoes at the enemy, or throwing them back when thrown at friends, don't pretend that is debate or illustrates proper principles of debate. In any case, Sweezy's memory is best served not by searching out jerks such as Brad to argue with but by dealing with Sweezy's own record in its own terms.
Carrol