M-TH: Re: Whither the discussion
Simon wrote: 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. Note the inference that while he is arguing for socialist revolution, I am not. You have a clever talent for the creation of strawmen to argue against. The socialist revolution does not carry a Marx (TM) trademark on its banner. Thanks for the englightenment. So only the great men of history, who have the time to study rather than work, can make the revolution? Wrong. Another strawman innovation. I've been accused of arrogance before, Imagine the audacity of anyone who says that someone who sends posts from an address which reads (in part) "THE WORLD SOCIALIST MOVEMENT" displays arrogance! and sometimes probably rightly, but this is breathtaking. 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. Click. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Whither the discussion
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. Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 05:14:54 -0500 (EST) From: Gerald Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: M-TH: Re: Whither the discussion Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Simon wrote: 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. Note the inference that while he is arguing for socialist revolution, I am not. You have a clever talent for the creation of strawmen to argue against. The socialist revolution does not carry a Marx (TM) trademark on its banner. Thanks for the englightenment. So only the great men of history, who have the time to study rather than work, can make the revolution? Wrong. Another strawman innovation. I've been accused of arrogance before, Imagine the audacity of anyone who says that someone who sends posts from an address which reads (in part) "THE WORLD SOCIALIST MOVEMENT" displays arrogance! and sometimes probably rightly, but this is breathtaking. 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. Click. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Whither the discussion
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] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Whither the discussion
"THE WORLD SOCIALIST MOVEMENT(via THE SOCIALIST PARTY Simon, When I asked you on the other list about the role of the World Socialist Movement as differentiated from the role of a party , you said WSM is an/the agent of the working class. But what is your factual support for such a claim ? Charles Brown --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Whither the discussion
At 23:35 08/11/99 +, you wrote: 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. How diligently have you read Marx? The Manifesto itself describes lots of self declared socialists who are not scientific socialists. It is entirely normal that a marxist position would have to clarify itself in relation to them. Utopian socialism is not always reactionary. BTW has the Liaison Committee issues a call yet for unconditional military solidarity with the Chechens? And if so how is it going to be implemented, if it does not also call on the IMF to impose sanctions on Russia as it did on Indonesia to make it disgorge East Timor? Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Re: Whither the discussion
Super reply Chris. Keep it up. You might note that the point of surveying the various brands of socialism in CM was to characterise their class standpoint. What's your's Chris? As for Chechyna, the LCMRCI has along with several other groups put out a statement in Spanish. When its translated I'll forward it to this list. Dave Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 00:13:41 + To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: Whither the discussion Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 23:35 08/11/99 +, you wrote: 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. How diligently have you read Marx? The Manifesto itself describes lots of self declared socialists who are not scientific socialists. It is entirely normal that a marxist position would have to clarify itself in relation to them. Utopian socialism is not always reactionary. BTW has the Liaison Committee issues a call yet for unconditional military solidarity with the Chechens? And if so how is it going to be implemented, if it does not also call on the IMF to impose sanctions on Russia as it did on Indonesia to make it disgorge East Timor? Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
