Philip Pilkington wrote:
>
Or is this a
> base-superstructure kind of argument where our collectively genuine,
Who in this thread used a base-superstructure "kindof argument"?
One of the reasons that I never argue with anyone on this list over marxism is because it is _nevert_ my own expression of marxism that is responded to but someone else's stereotyped conception of what anything "marxists" has to be. Now I know PP is responding to someone else, but I take this as an occasion to say that this habit of putting words in the mouths of Marxists is bullshit.
And incidentally, let me repeat, I make no attempt on this list to persuade anyone to be a marxist. Most of my posts don't presuppose either Marx or socialism, and when they do I am merely putting something out for consideration by those who _are_ amrxist or socialist, not to persuade any non-marxist to be marxist or non-socialist to be socialist. Doubtless I sometimes rise to the bait and write as though I were trying to"refute" someone's anti-marxist argument, buty that is an empty effort. It is useful only if it seves to clarify for me or some other marxist some point the attack raised, not to reply to the attack/criticism itself.
I don't know who PP is replying to here, but perhaps as I proceed to peek here and there in the mass of posts I haen't opened yet it will become clear.
Base/superstructure, incidently, is not usually a useful metaphor, and it is jNEVER an argument or a premise for an argument. It certyainly is not a premise for arguing against ahistorical positions.
Carrol