On 2010-11-18, at 9:24 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> All e-mail lists include subscribers whose fundamental assumptions are
> opposed. But discussion cannot take place between two parties who do not
> share a common premise. There are a number of ways for any given subscriber
> to resolve this dilemma, among which probably the worst is to go on
> endlessly replying to someone with incompatible premises.
>
> On this thread one group of subscribers operates from the premise that the
> only option for "progressives" is to support one of the two parties. You and
> I have sharp disagreements which very possibly will never be resolved, but
> we can profitably debate each other because we both assume "leftists" have a
> responsibility that does not _necessarily_ involve participation in
> electoral politics. The "necessarily" makes this a very thin and wobbling
> shared premise, but enough so I can deveop my thought in debating you, as I
> think you can develop your thought in debating me.
>
> But I have nothing to say to, nothing to learn from, those who make DP
> victory a major premise. Sometimes I can develop my thought by responding to
> them, but I cannot have any discussion or productive debate with them.
Thanks, Carrol. I have also honed my thoughts debating with you.
But I've found the same to be true in engaging those to my right as well as to my left, including those who are committed Democrats.
Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, and others we admire wouldn't agree that "discussion cannot take place between two parties who do not share a common premise". They formulated their own thought, as you know, in confrontation with social democrats, utopian socialists, liberal economists, idealist philosophers, and others whose premises were far from their own.