Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 04:46:00 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Marxism: meat and potatoes questions




In a previous post, Hans Despain <HANS.DESPAIN-AT-m.cc.utah.edu> wrote:

>What marxism seems to be interested in my analysis is (1) attempting to 
>understand (social) reality; which Marx understood to be much more 
>difficult then others believed then or even today.  But perhaps even more
>important (2) how to change this reality for the betterment of human 
>beings themselves.  There does not exist simply answers to this type of 
>inquery. 
>
>If you want simple answers perhaps a libertarian list is what you would 
>be more interested in.

This is a straw man argument.  I did not request "simple answers."
If you cannot understand that your enumeration is so vague as to
describe dozens of systems, that it does not even attempt to define
Marxism, and that there is plenty of room between simple answers and 
book-length answers for substantive if necessarily incomplete answers,
that isn't my fault.  

>One reason you might find people defensive is the tone you have taken,

The tone *I* have taken?  Well, maybe now.  But initially, before I
received a slew of personal insults and generally catty comments, I had
taken no such tone.

>Personally i find you suspect with respect to your sincerity to learn 
>about marxism, when you find it offensive that someone might suggest that 
>you read Marx himself.

I did not take offense at the suggestion that I read Marx.  I merely
responded that if I had wanted to read Marx I could have gone to a
bookstore or library.  I am here to discuss Marxism with real live
modern Marxists.  Deal with it.

>as someone else has pointed out (Rahul i believe) you do not seem to 
>be completely honest with your interest or purpose....your expressed 
>interest which of course is going to make anyone suspect to your hidden
>interest in your query....Rather you seem to be here to teach us silly
>marxists a thing or two. 

I am not responsible for the paranoid misconstruals of others.  Despite
the fact that one need not be a Marxist to join the list, and despite
the fact that I have never claimed or even implicitly suggested that
I am a Marxist, the presence of non-Marxists asking fundamental
questions and offering critical analysis seems to engender wild flights
of fancy in which I am suspected of nefarious if vague ulterior motives
and identities.  All of my comments and questions have been sincere.
My responses have been predicated upon some of the answers I received.
If the character my responses seems less "disinterested" than my
initial questions, this is only to be expected: one cannot take 
positions for or against the undefined and unspoken, and I genuinely
did not know what kinds of answers to expect.

>Our social reality seems to be something you are quite content with, why
>are you here???  Why do you hid behind disinterested questions?

Are you asserting that only Marxists can be discontent with our social
reality?  What about non-Marxist socialists?  What about left-liberals?
I've already indicated why I am here.  I have not asked any disinterested
questions.  

>Your comments about what might constitute democratic support seem very
>naive.  Do you really believe that the current political regime has 
>democratic support???  Granted it has support of something that can be 
>called public opinion, but my idea of democracy would be very different
>than the political structure that rules over the U.S. today.

So would mine.  I've already remarked that, as far as I'm concerned,
the U.S. political and socio-economic system is seriously corrupted 
by money and the oligarchic power which flows from current institutional
arrangements, in ways which are both direct and indirect.  What's
so naive about that?  And how is this relevant to my questions about 
democratic support for the positions of a revolutionary Marxist 
government?

>
>>Well, can you help me to understand, then, exactly what "Marxists"
>>all *do* have in common, and what separates them as Marxists from 
>>other socialists?
>
>i would want to say it has something to do with the social reality of 
>capitalism, and some notion of human nature itself, including a faith in
>human potentiality.  

Why not say it has to do with social justice and optimism?  That would 
be about as informative.

--
What a curse these social distinctions are.  They ought to be abolished.
I remember saying that to Karl Marx once, and he thought there might be
an idea for a book in it.



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---