I'll abdicate from this discussion until I read Thompson's and Anderson's exchange on the topic.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> You say yourself here that the reasons he may have made the propositions
> don't affect whether they are true or not.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: James Heartfield <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk>
>
>
> I don't agree. I would accept his own behaviour could not stand in for an
> argument against his various propositions. But there is indeed a
> relationship between his supine toadying to the officials of the PCF, and
> his social theory, whose essential component is the evacuation of
> subjectivity from history, and on top of that, a tedious attempt to
> construct a theory of society as a 'process without a subject'.
>
> His social theory was against human agency; his political practice was to
> reimpose the authority of first the PCF upon those revolutionary movements
> that challenged it. The two are intimately connected.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>