File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-01-29.113, message 54

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:14:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: M-I: Dialectics [Round 5 part 1]


I have not finished your post. It is condescending and pompous. I will
delete the post without reading the rest of it. You can write another and
perhaps I will read that. You know, just because this medium has often
been characterized as "virtual," doesn't give you the license to twist
the reality of events on this list out of shape. 

Let me make a couple of things very clear: (1) I will continue to use the
vocabulary that best conveys my intended meaning. If you need a word
defined, I will define it. If you need a concept explained, I will explain
it. I am not afraid to expand your vocabulary, nor and I afraid to expand
mine. I had to refer to a dictionary for a few words in Louis Godena's
excellent contribution yesterday. Just because I didn't know some words I
did not take Louis as "bourgeois" or "elitist" or any other terms that
have been used to characterize my writing. (2) I will continue to send
short posts correcting misinterpretations of my posts. I have only sent
one post correcting one word, where I used "scientific" when I should have
used "scientistic." To my knowledge, I have sent no post correcting my
position. And I have only asked one person for patience over a tangential
thread that I haven't time to move to right now (and I still need more
time, I can really only do one of these at a time).

You have cloaked a very insulting post in the language of moderation. I
regard your attempt to control the parameters of the debate, and control
the form of my speech, as an obvious and unfair attempt to work elements
of my argument off the table. What is painfully obvious at this point in
the debate is this: I have been the only one who has provided a
substantial argument, with substantial proof for my position, by referring
directly to text written by the relevant subjects under consideration. So
why not cut out the monkey business about who should post against my
argument next? Defining the debate in "rounds"  (if you don't want to make
this a sporting event), and telling me how to communicate my argument. I
am surprised at these tactics; in many ways they are worse that the
outright ad hominem attacks launched by my previous antagonists.

And, Viraj, even the suggestion that I am not faithful to Marxian thought
or a dedicated Marxist is by now an obvious lie. Those on the other side
of this debate are not only incorrect regarding Marx's text and intent,
but their position is generally Stalinist/Maoist and detrimental to the
advancement of the working class. This is where you should concentrate
your attention: on helping your comrades correct their thought and
practice, rather than pushing them out of the way so you can come up front
to smother me in false kindness.


     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005