Michael Perelman wrote: > > I do not think that it is a good idea to personalize differences on the list.
I have only read Tom's posts, and his quotations from Nitzan; Also I'm not sure whether your post is directed to Tom or to Nitzan, but if directed to Tom, you may be mislocating the source of "personalization," since there is a time-dishonored method of personalizing debate which still ostensiby avoids "personalities," and Tom seems to me only to be identifying that time-dishonored source, usually referred to as "poisoning the wells of discourse," "unprincipled debate," "unsupported generalization," "changing the subject," et cetera, or as William Appleman Williams puts it: "The tactics of escape employed in this headlong dash from reality would fill a manual of equivocation, a handbook of hairsplitting, and a guidebook to changing the subject" (quoted by Fredy Perlman in Introduction, I.I. Rubin, _Essays on Marx's Theory of Value_, p. ix). tom walker wrote: > > Jonathan Nitzan wrote: [CLIP] > > I suppose the difference boils down to this: They > > are post-Marxist. They > > already know everything... > > [CLIP] But I referred to two texts, by > Postone and Virno, respectively not to some vast, > vague, ephemeral abstraction called "post-Marxism." > There's no shame in not having read those texts, if > that's the reason you couldn't answer my question. But > to imply with a sweeping dismissive that my question > was not legitimate because it came from some, > presumably, presumptuous territory of the know-it-alls > is, well, boorish. [CLIP] In referring to what Tom accurately labels as to "some vast, vague, ephemeral abstraction called "post-Marxism," J. Nitzan has accomplished two 'goals': (a) he has changed the subject and (b) and, by changing the subject, he has been able to call Tom a "know-it-all" while seemingly dealing with some (unspecified) third party. _This_, not Tom's subject line, or Tom's post, is where differences became personalized. And there is no way to respond to Nitzan's general arguments without noting, as Tom does, that Nitzan has made those arguments _and_ his characterization of Tom as a "know-it-all" inseparable. There is no real way for Tom to reply to the "non-personal" parts of Nitzan's argument _without_ commenting on Nitzan personally. Tom's seeming "personalizing" of the argument should be compared with the Tigar's formal objections to part of the prosecuting attorney's summing up in the trial of Lynne Stewart. (See John Mage's post on lbo-talk.) Jonathan N's reference to "know-it-alls" should be seen through the lens provided by the old joke advice to lawyers: If the law is against you, talk facts; if the facts are against you, talk law; if both facts and law are against you, talk about the opposing attorney. Such changing of the subject from the content of a post to the alleged character of some vaguely specified group (to which the author of the post is implied to belong) forms a staple of debate on too many mail lists. "Arguments" which consist mostly of references to unspecified "sectarians" or "dogmatists" are a banal staple of such poisoners of the wells of discourse. Tom's personalizing of differences in this instance is only apparently so; in actuality he is writing a defense of principled discourse, so rudely violated by Nitzan's reference to "know-it-alls." Tom sums up the case for principled argument, and the weakness of unprincipled argument, very nicely in his last post. To bring the discourse back to its real content he had to respond to J. Nitzan's unprincipled discourse. tom walker wrote: > > As Charles Brown pointed out, Nitzan appears to be > criticizing the "classical" (or traditional) Marxist > position without stooping to debate people who hold > that position. At the same time, Nitzan wants to > distance himself from other critics of the traditional > position, whom he dismisses wholesale as > "post-Marxists". Carrol
