Given time constraints, I can only look in designated places for specific
pieces of information, esp. as I am not a comrade.

The introduction to the argument however is revealing of several aspects of
your orientation:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2001.htm

(1) exposure to Trotskyist sectarianism,
(2) background in mathematics,
(3) training in analytical philosophy,
(4) dismissal of other theoretical work as politically inefficacious
'academic Marxism.'

Out of this comes the provincial reasoning:

>The thought then occurred to me that perhaps this paradoxical situation --
>wherein a political movement that avowedly represents the interests of the
>overwhelming majority of human beings is ignored by all but a few -- was
>directly connected with the contradictory theory at its heart: DM. Perhaps
>this was part of the reason why all revolutionary groups remain small,
>fragmentary, and lack significant influence? Had dialectics got anything
>to do with the unprincipled (if not manipulatively instrumental) way that
>DM-acolytes treat, use or abuse one another? Was dialectics connected with
>the tendency almost all revolutionary groups display of trying to
>substitute themselves for the working-class?


Note also these remarks:

>No attempt will be made here to defend HM; it will be taken as read.
>Hence, any non-Marxists reading this work would be well advised to go no
>further. This essay is not addressed to them. Should any professional
>Philosophers stray onto this site, they will find that in many places the
>material here only scratches the surface of the philosophical issues raised.

and:

>As far as (4) is concerned, those who are unfamiliar with Analytic
>Philosophy might find the overall style of these essays somewhat
>disconcerting. Nevertheless, the analytic method produces clear results.
>Anyone who takes exception to this way of doing Philosophy can simply log off.

Here's another telling passage:

>Some readers will be surprised to find little or no discussion or analysis
>of Academic Marxism at this site --, particularly those aspects influenced
>by Lukács, Sartre, Althusser, Derrida, the 'Frankfurt School', and other
>'Continental Philosophers'. This is partly because (mercifully)
>revolutionary politics has so far largely been unaffected by this current
>(whatever deleterious effects it might have had on the minds of otherwise
>alert comrades), and partly because I can make no sense of much of what
>passes for theory in this genre. Indeed, most of the work in this
>tradition strikes me as a systematic exercise in the production of aimless
>jargon and impenetrable prose -- and then more of the same just to
>'explain' that. This theoretical quagmire contains ideas and concepts that
>are about as comprehensible and transparent as theological tracts on the
>nature of, say, the Trinity. It is in effect a sort of
>'woollier-than-thou' approach to philosophy. Hume's bonfire is sorely needed.

This is just provincial and ignorant.  As is the bald statement that all
philosophy is ruling-class, however else one might criticize it.

>These essays have been written from a certain perspective within Analytic
>Philosophy, and since most DM-authors lack a background in this genre
>(which failing is not unconnected with, but is significantly compounded
>by, a general ignorance of Modern Formal Logic [MFL]), many of the points
>made here have had to be pitched at a very basic level. Professional
>Philosophers will find much here, therefore, that will irritate them.
>That, however, is their problem. As has already been noted, this site is
>not aimed at them.

Sad.

>In addition, I have endeavoured to write much of this material with the
>following thought in mind: "If this or that passage is not accessible to
>ordinary working people, re-write it!" Now, I do not think for one moment
>that I have succeeded everywhere in achieving that level of clarity, but
>all of this material has been written and re-written well over fifty
>times, and with that aim in mind. Naturally, it is for members of the
>target audience (i.e., working people, should they ever read these Essays)
>to decide if I have succeeded or failed in achieving that objective.
>Indeed, in this regard, I am happy to be judged by them alone.


Asinine.



At 06:16 PM 3/1/2006 +0000, rosa lichtenstein wrote:
>Well, I was a proto-Marxist long before I became a Trotskyist, and I was
>put off Marxism by the dialectical gobbledygook I encountered in books
>written by communists, and academic Marxists. It was neither good
>Philsophy, nor bad science. And the logic was a joke.
>
>So, I think you are reading what I have said selectively.
>
>1) "Who are most Marxists?"
>
>Well, that depends on how you categorise Marxist themselves. For example,
>if I were to put a sectarian hat on, and think like a communist (i.e., a
>reconstructed Stalinist), I might say no Maoist is a Marxist (and vice
>versa if I were a Maoist). If I were a Spartacist, I would say no one was,
>except a few hundred of my sad comrades.
>
>I do not mind if you take that opening statement with a pinch of salt;
>nothing much hangs on it.
>
>2) "What does this say about the class nature of _all_ their ideas?"
>
>Well, once again you are raising questions I answer in other essays. I
>regard all of traditional philosophy (and hence all of dialectics) as
>examples of ruling-class ideology.
>
>Why?
>
>Read the summary of Essay Twelve. The full account will be posted later.
>
>Once again: but now in capitals:  I HAVE POSTED ALL THIS STUFF TO
>FORESTALL THIS SORT OF OFF-THE-CUFF-QUESTIONING.
>
>Naturally, as I have said to Charles, you don't have to read all my
>material, but cross-questioning me about things I have already covered is
>a bit like stopping at what Marx wrote in 1843 and questioning his
>economic theory.
>
>Not that I am equating myself with Marx, but you get the point?
>
>3) "As a causal explanation, this is silly."
>
>Well it would be if it were, but it isn't.
>
>It is an opening, controversial statement to draw the reader in. When
>Essay Nine is finally published, you will get the causal details
>(although, as you are no doubt fully aware, causal explanations in the
>social sciences are not of the 'billiard ball' type). You can read an
>outline in my summary to Essay Nine (already posted).
>
>What you are doing is pulling isolated passages out of the introductory
>material, and because it is impossible to condense a whole essay into one
>line, you are picking holes in what I assert. This is about as sensible as
>pulling a single sentence out of, say, Feuerbach, and pulling it apart,
>ignoring all the qualifying statements he makes, and his supporting arguments.
>
>Now we can all do this; it's called a hatchet job. If that is how you are
>going to read my essays, I think I would prefer you not to.
>
>4) "This is bad reasoning."
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, but as someone who reckons we can learn
>something from Hegel, the all time bad arguer, this is a bit rich.
>
>Again, a hatchet job.
>
>So, in response. here's mine:
>
>Dumain: "At most, the finger points to the bogus claims of dialecticians."
>
>RL: Says who? And who's finger? And what bogus claims? And which
>dialecticians? And who says they are bogus? And bogus in what respect? And
>why "at most" and not "at least"?
>
>Fair?
>
>No.
>
>So, no more hatchet jobs please.
>
>5) "But there is no real logic in this argument."
>
>And precious little in yours.
>
>Do you not recognise rhetoric when you see it? Did not Marx sometimes use
>this device?
>
>6) "Already an indication of hermetic sectarianism."
>
>Sorry, too obscure.
>
>7) "The constant use of the word 'comrade' throughout this text is
>nauseating."
>
>Well you have got a weak stomach.
>
>I expressly said this material was aimed at active Marxists, and whatever
>else you get up to in your spare time, we *active* Marxists call each
>other "comrade". So, if you do not like it, I don't really care.
>
>8) And if this is the sort of abuse you are  going to aim at me, then I am
>not really interested in anything you have to say:
>
>"Sectarian bullshit."
>
>Don't bother replying, I won't.
>
>Stay in your cul-de-sac, comrade....
>
>RL


_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@list...
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis