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

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?)


     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Reply via email to