>Tom you can be funny occasionally but you can also be
>unnecesarily supercilious. Incidentally your claim that the
>above elements are 'non-capitalist' will not stand up to
>much historical scrutiny at all.
Tahir we each of us start from such different viewpoints that in order to
move the discussion along I am prepared to accept provisionally that
EVERYTHING is linked to capitalism, and nothing is independent of it, if it
will make you happy. Okay?
>From now on if I use some argument that implies no linkage to capitalism,
please accept that I am aware of the caveat you insist upon, and that I am
speaking from under the umbrella where EVERYTHING is linked to capitalism,
and I am just arguing degree and emphasis. Can you accept that some things
are less linked to capitalism than others? Or does it not matter in your
scheme? If EVERYTHING is linked to capitalism ALL the time, without
differentiation, then there is not much point to further discussion, is
there? We could just agree to disagree. Perhaps we should.
>As I said before, you
>shouldn't talk down to people when you are arguing on the
>basis of such uncritically accepted common sense (i.e.
>hackneyed, remember?) notions as this.
Who is talking down to whom?
When I see "BS" and "bullshit" hurled toward my arguments and those of
others, I feel no compunction about letting a little air out of those
bubbles of arrogance, PARTICULARLY when the arrogance is indeed
"uncritically accepted" and "hackneyed" itself. YOU should feel the same way
and support a common ground of tolerance, adding a word now and then when
your colleagues slide into their nastiness. I ask you to do so, ... now.
Second, much of what I wrote is not JUST "uncritically accepted common
sense," but to be sure it is supported by scholarship that you obviously
don't accept. That being the case, I insist upon having the same right to
make assertions that the rest of you allow yourselves without typing an
hour's worth of footnotes. If in all cases you want me to present critical
reviews of MY arguments, YOU must be prepared to do the same. So please quit
belittling my "common sense" just because you disagree with it.
>You don't even have
>to be Marxist to see this - although it certainly helps! -
>even Weber linked the Protestant Ethic to capitalism.
>
>Tahir
And I can link aerodynamics to porcine aspirations of flight. That doesn't
mean pigs fly. (usually) But, yes indeed, in a world where everything is
linked to capitalism, even though the Protestant Ethic predates the theory
of capitalism by some years, they are linked and I was wrong to have
insisted upon decoupling them. US foriegn policy is ALWAYS about capitalism
to some degree or other. How could I have thought otherwise? Mea Culpa.
Tom
(please excuse my use of "always" above, I suspect you marxists are slowly
winning me over.)
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
