[lbo-talk] "Oigin as Essence" - profoundly ahistorical

[shag carpet bomb]

I've just been reading Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind. One complaint: 
he doesn't give me any reason to care that his view is preferred to anyone 
else's. He just says, the problem with others views is that they aren't 
mine or they haven't really taken in consideration my view. (So far, 
anyway. I'm only 1/4 through it).

I have no idea what the difference is for political practice. If everything 
proceeds apace regardless as to which view I take, what's the difference. 
Robin hasn't, so far, sold me as to why his view of conservatives is not 
only superior but will matter to what I do as a leftist who must, 
presumably, fight them.

So, that's my question here. What difference does it make to political 
practice?

At 08:17 AM 1/16/2012, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Marx of course reject this premise unqualigiedly, and that rejection is
>fundfamental to all his thought. If Graeber does believe this, then it marks
>a near total gap between his sense of history and Marx's.
>
>On this showing, Keynes & Graeber are seriously ahistorical from  Marxist
>perspective.
>
>Carrrol
>
>This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
>http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

--
http://cleandraws.com
Wear Clean Draws
('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)