[lbo-talk] Barbara Epstein & MR

[Carrol Cox]

Actually, I wouldn't have much argument with most of what Robert says
below. I do wish to add that I have, in practice, encountered and worked
(or tried to work) with people from both of sloppy genera I outline.
They are notreductionist because they don't pretend to the level of
precision at which either reductionism or anti-reductionism becomes
relevant. I have (thankfully) not had the displeasure of working with
some of the marxists flavors that disport themselves on the marxism
list. And I have ceased either reading or responding to those who think
they have a set of rules that allows them to know better than the
Bolivians (or Venezuelans or
) how to run those revolutions.

Carrol

wrobert at uci.edu wrote:
> 
>      As someone who has been a sort of fellow traveller to the broad
> anarchist social milieu (its really to diffuse to be really called a
> social movement) I have fairly lengthy and developed issues with that
> milieu (as does anyone who is seriously involved in a community who
> isn't a propagandist), but this seems fairly reductionist.  The
> unfortunate thing is that a lot of the folks that you place in that
> second category are probably fairly decent people to work with in
> different situations, and are probably just operating in a common
> sense that is alien to you.  (And I might add as a moment of
> confessional, that probably some of those folks probably drive me
> around the bend as much as they do with you)
>      My second concern with the comment is one I suspect that you would
> probably wouldn't have a problem with, which is of course that I have
> dealt with self-proclaimed marxists and liberals (etc.) that are just
> as dogmatic and problematic as the problematic folks in the anarchist
> community (if not more so).  They just do it in a different language.
>