G'day Thaxists,
Simon sez:
>> I think that the difference here is that I am not arguing for a
>> Marxist revolution, but a socialist one: i.e. that while Marx provided
>> one of the first expositions of socialist theory, you don't have to have
>> read a word of Marx to be a socialist.
Eliciting from Jerry:
>Note the inference that while he is arguing for socialist revolution, I am
>not.
It's not there to be noted, Jerry. If a premise holds you don't have to be
A to be B, it does not follow that if you are A you can not be B. A bit
touchy, old son!
>Agreed. Your inability to listen to what others have to say and your
>creation of strawmen to argue against shows not only your arrogance but
>your inability to engage in a worthwhile discussion.
Simon's posts have been more substantial (in that he generally tries to
flesh out his claims) than have some of those levelled against his
position, for mine - F'rinstance, Jerry's ill-tempered post and this,
from Dave's last:
"There seems to be a lot of lost souls on this list who claim to be
Marxists yet endorsed NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia, or who claim to
be world socialists without having read a word of Marx.
Do they think that this is the groucho marx thaxist theatre?
They could save a lot of time and energy by reading the Communist
Manifesto and then whipping themselves."
We're hear to talk about stuff to do with Marx and Marxism constructively -
that's all you need to wanna do to get in. I'm a much bigger fan of the
big fella's than Simon is (and I'd like to know what the grounds are for
Simon's reservations), but I've a lot of sympathy for his mob's stance, too
(not sure there's the necessary incompatibility between Marx and the WSM
that Simon and Dave - from their, er, differing points of view - think
there is. But we're gonna have to get a bit clearer on concepts before
useful argument can ensue, eh?)
Cheers,
Rob.
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
