[lbo-talk] Jacobin debate up

Carrol Cox cbcox at ilstu.edu
Wed Oct 19 17:28:19 PDT 2011


Of course my argument, essentially, was that ethical principles did not exist; hence an ethical ARGUMENT had nothing to 'stand' on. I (contra Ted; with Ollman) assume Marx felt the same. Everyone, including Marx & Engels, uses/used ethical language in agitation. There are quite a few statements scattered through the works of M, E, Lenin, etc defending moral/emphatic/emotive terminooogy in agitation.

I like the perspective Angelus suggests towards OWS when he calls it Our Father Gapon. Trotsky argued that there would be no mord Father Gapons; i.e., Trotsky thought principled, complex Marxist analysis and goals and organization would have to do what Gapon had done. For that Lenin called Trotsky a BLOWHARD.

Carrol

On 10/19/2011 6:48 PM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
> question, I have lots but I have overposted for too many days in a row...
>
> one, though. when you guys get into a discussion of discord among the
> panelists, SA defends this discord by saying that it looks rancorous,
> but underneath it all, there is a solidarity, a sense of mutual
> support, something.... I didn't transcribe what you said SA.
>
> What do you think accounts for that?
>
> Why is that happening. It doesn't just magically appear, it's not a
> property of simply being y'all's wonderful selves. Or is it? What is
> it that makes you all feel a sense that you would, to paraphrase, come
> to each other's things...
>
> I'd also love it if doug would answer my question about ethics v
> politics. In the past, Doug, you've objected to carrol's complaints
> about moralizing, and you silent a few years ago when I made a
> sustained year long argument against the ethical practice embraced by
> radical/cultural feminists, so I'm curious what *your* critique of
> ethics is.
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list