Wrobert:
I'm going to end this following up quotes thing to ask one question. Why is it that the critiques that have been brought up are 'redbaiting'? You actually have never answered that. I believe I made the point that there is nothing essentially more dogmatic about Marxism than other modes of critical thinking. Or is it just that any critique of you is automatically 'redbaiting'? By the way, I'm still a Marxist....
^^^^^ CB: You can't be unaware that a stereotypically liberal/bourgeois intellectual's "criticism" of Marxism, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, "Stalinists", Communists in the twentieth century is to claim that they are dogmatic, that they treat Marxism as a "religion" (i.e. don't think critically), that they treat Marx or Lenin as a Saints. In actuality, it's a sort of sneaky way of disagreeing with Marx or Marxism, and a sort of sneaky hit against the thinking ability of some Marxist they are arguing with. Such a "criticism" is so tired I'm about to fall asleep like Ian, yawn. A critique of my espousing Marxism as "dogmatic" or lacking in critical thinking is stereotypical red-baiting.
Your Marxism must be pretty saturated with liberalism if you've never been "criticized" by some liberal for being a dogmatic thinker. In fact, I would propose as a test of the authenticity of one's Marxism the number of times one has been called dogmatic by liberals. The more times , the "mo better" your Marxism.
Furthermore, on this thread, making the claim that Marx's thought and N's thought are significantly in conflict, especially concerning the issue of class, is not treating Marx "dogmatically". To say so evinces ignorance of the meaning of "dogmatic". I'm just giving an accurate reprise of Marx's thought (and, obviously, favoring it over N.'s thought).
Of course, someone espousing Marxism _can_ do so without thinking critically. But you haven't adduced much or any argument that my thinking or writing on this thread lacks critical thinking, except to claim that I am adhering too rigidly to Marxist principles. But that's sort of back door question begging, because the dispute between us is " what is M's thinking on these issues, does it conflict with N.'s, and ,if so, is M or N correct ?" To demand that I stop treating M. "dogmatically" in that context is to just boldly demand that I agree with you about what we are disputing.