There is a sense of "dogmatism" that is useful and not merely a slander, since it can be grounded in what someone actually says, not in a mystic bit of mind reading in order to identify the hidden motive of the writer. Dogmatism is the assumption that Theory gives direct guidance to action. It does NOT. There is NO direct link between Marx's Critique of Political Economy and political action. This is what is wrong with "Leninism" as created by Trotsky/Stalin for their own political purposes. I think it is also what is wrong with Julio's politics. He thinks somethinmg called Economic Theory (his economic theory) can provide a direct basis for political action.
Carrol Cox wrote: ""human thought offers no toolbox of methods (reformist or revolutionary; keynesian or Leninist) by which we can 'fix' our condition. "
The dogmatist, for example, argues that he/she needs a descdription of socialism before joining the "socialist revolution." Thought, pure thought, is supposed to give us a concrete account of life under socialism. But thought cannot do that. The demand for it is a vicious dogmatism. In her 1998 speeches Luxemburg was _paratly_ caught up in such dogmatism. She correctly rejected "some vague notion of socialism" as the "Final Goal." But she seems to have reflected the unspoken assumption of her period that Capitalism would collapse from its internal contradictions, that the political power she correctly posited as the final goal would emerege from this collapse of capitalism. WW2 taught her differently, and in her final works there is no longer any 19th-c assumption of Progress built into historyl Barbarism is a _real_ possibility (demonstrated by simple description of empirical reality: we live in barbarism.) There are no theoretical tools which will be of anyaid in 'correcting' what cannot be corrected but only destroyed to make room for freedom. Nor is there anyway of predicting or prescribing in advance what use humanity will make of that freedom.
Carrolk