Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 06:31:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Jaszewski <ab975-AT-main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
Subject: Re: D Henwood and Question of "Open Mind"



On Mon, 26 Jun 1995, Carrol Cox wrote:

>     Concerning the question of "open" vs "closed" minds. All thought has to be
> based on a closed mind. Does any member of this group seriously want to explore
> the case to be made for palmistry or astrology? I would not, myself, be
> interested in exploring anything with anyone who believed in palmistry. (Not
> quite true: I pretend to take all student opinion more or less seriously.) In
> any case, one cannot start from a blank mind. I prefer to start (not arrive but
> start from) (a) atheism (b) a class view of human existence.

	Pretty essential, I would think, in a marxism list..!


 There is an
> endless list within those principles for doubt and differences, but I do not
> wish to waste my time arguing with those who do not accept those princples.

	Which is exactly the point I was trying to make. However, my
'direct' approach is CLEARLY not welcome by some here -- most of whom
would seem to prefer endless debates about the various forms of utopian
socialism (or 'dialectics') they adhere to... 


> Which is not to say that I won't work with Christians. A majority of those I
> worked with on Central America issues were either Catholic or Presbyterian.

	I too have worked with central americans, of both marxist AND
catholic persuasions. I don't have any problem with that (though some of
my marxist colleagues went so far in their attempts to meld with their
people's way of life, that they even sent their children to First
Communion!! I think _I_ would draw the line there!!) :)

	As a matter of fact, just about ALL of the social justice work in
Canada is being done by religious groups of one kind or another -- though
I've often thought about how this REALLY is the effect of the filling of a
vacuum created by the Left's abdication of their responsibilities and
potential. That's one of the reasons I'm HERE... 


 And
> I am currently working with Roman Catholics on the Mumia case. We do not,
> however, debate fundamental principles. We discuss on the basis of a specific
> set of principles: belief in "fair trials"; opposition to the death penalty;
> and a few others (some explicit, other implicit). But in any case, "Radical
> Democracy" seems to me to fall in with palmistry and Christians who won't work
> with non-Christians even on concrete issues.

	Indeed. How do we 'gracefully' get out of debating all this patent
non-sense without leaving ourselves open to claims of 'censorship'?? 


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   Jim Jaszewski   <jazz-AT-freenet.hamilton.on.ca>

   WWW homepage:   <http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------