I think so. From my admittedly naive perspective, there seems to be some attempt at eating and having cake. Which goes back to a version of Michael Pollak's point: that when you claim objectivity while "inveigh"ing against other people's morality, you are merely asserting your morality to be superior to theirs. Which is fine, as long as you can back it up.
--ravi
> --- On Sun, 7/26/09, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> From: Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>
>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Blue Dogs cashing in
>> To: "LBO-Talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>> Date: Sunday, July 26, 2009, 7:32 AM
>> Sorry. I inadvertently omitted the
>> meat of the Engels comment in Anti-Duhring (emphasis mine):
>>
>> "It is very easy to inveigh against slavery and similar
>> things in general terms, and to give vent to high moral
>> indignation at such infamies. Unfortunately all that this
>> conveys is only what everyone knows, namely, that these
>> institutions of antiquity are no longer in accord with our
>> present conditions and our sentiments, which these
>> conditions determine. But it does not tell us one word as to
>> how these institutions arose, why they existed, and what
>> role they played in history. AND WHEN WE EXAMINE THESE
>> QUESTIONS, WE ARE COMPELLED TO SAY—HOWEVER CONTRADICTORY
>> AND HERETICAL IT MAY SOUND—THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF
>> SLAVERY UNDER THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING AT THAT TIME WAS A
>> GREAT STEP FORWARD."
-- Anyone who takes an effort to intellectually challenge the status quo and established habits is infinitely more venerable than hacks defending that status quo and established habits, regardless of the truth function of their propositions. -- W.Sokolowski