The problem was putting Jonathan as a subject heading. Both parties could be more collegial.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 01:31:15PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote: > 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 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
