Re: DOGMATIC MARXISTS

Not quite Paul.

By this logic, how about the following --


Dogmatic believers that the Earth is basically round have a
"belief, that cannot be shaken by arguments based on logic or common sense.
The fact that all the answers to my posting only referred to the mentioned
term, without trying to discuss my arguments seems to prove my point. They
are unwilling to even consider that astronomers could have made mistakes or
that democratic capitalism might have some positive side; in other words
they are true believers in the Round-Earth dogma."

As to DOGMATIC FLAT EARTHERS there are many of them around. They are
convinced that the Earth is FLAT and are unwilling to consider the
possibility that they are wrong.

UNDOGMATIC Flat-Earthers, like myself, admit that the Round Earth Theory has
many excellent features. On the other hand we cannot fail to see, that most
attempts to create a successful theory based on Round Earth theory have
failed, while there are many applications of the Flat Earth theory that have
been productive.

UNDOGMATIC Round-Earthers are trying to convince us, that they promote a
more open-minded version of the Round-Earth theory, but so far none of them
was willing to give us details on how achieve such an ideal society.
Hopefully some of them will now come forward.

=============================
Dogmatism is not defined by how extreme a position is. It is defined by how
someone confronts the evidence. Paul Riesz makes many, many assumptions that
are not supported by the data. I've addressed the myth that capitalists step
down from power peacefully in previous posts, and I've addressed the reality
that the capitalists have caused deaths in numbers that make deaths during
Pol Pot's regime look tiny by comparison. And this statement: "while there
are many democratic and capitalist countries with a reasonably happy
population."

Where? Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Chile, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Iran,
Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Brazil, El Salvador, Haiti, Costa Rica, Vietnam (a
capitalist country, to be sure), Thailand, Ecuador, Congo, Uganda, Ethiopia?
I could go on and on. And even in the "developed" countries -- the U.S.,
with its nearly 2 million in jail?

I guess what set me off was the phrase "reasonably happy."  Paul, do you
have any idea what the conditions of life are like in the vast, vast, vast
majority of places in the world dominated by capitalists (and controlled by
the capitalists in the wealthier, supposedly more "democratic" places like
the U.S., England, etc.)??

The phrase "reasonably happy" painted a picture in my mind of slaves in 1850
on a plantation in Georgia, (USA) while a Southern politician  makes a
speech about how his slaves are "reasonably happy."



Alan Spector




evers believe that the Earth is flat
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Riesz <priesz@itn.cl>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Cc: aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu <aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
Date: Thursday, January 20, 2000 4:41 PM
Subject: DOGMATIC MARXISTS


>To Anmdrew.
>
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Broome P wrote:
>Mind you, I don't hear much about dogmatic capitalists - does anyone
>suppose there is such a thing?
>
>DOGMATIC MARXISTS.
>A dogma is a belief, that cannot be shaken by arguments based on logic or
>common sense. The fact that all the answers to my posting only referred to
>the mentioned term, without trying to discuss my arguments seems to prove
>my point. They are unwilling to even consider that Marx or Engels could
>have made mistakes or that democratic capitalism might have some positive
>side; in other words they are true believers in the Marxist dogma.
>
>As to DOGMATIC CAPITALISTS there are many of them around. They are
>convinced that the market can solve every problem and must never be
>interfered with and that there is nothing wrong with money deciding
>elections.
>
>UNDOGMATIC CAPITALISTS, like myself, admit hat Socialism has many excellent
>features and that the undue influence of wealth on decision-making must be
>curbed. On the other hand we cannot fail to see, that most attempts to
>create a successful Marxist Society have failed, while there are many
>democratic and capitalist countries with a reasonably happy population. The
>decisive advantage of democratic systems is the possibility to evolve, to
>adapt to changing circumstances and to throw out any government, that fails
>to deliver on their promises.
>It is true that introducing basic changes has become more difficult lately
>and that eternal vigilance is necessary to maintain any progress achieved.
>But let us not forget that once an insane criminal like PolPot seizes power
>in a Marxist country an external military intervention is necessary to
>remove him.
>
>UNDOGMATIC MARXISTS are trying to convince us, that they promote a
>DEMOCRATIC version of Marxism, but so far none of them was willing to give
>us details on how achieve such an ideal society. Hopefully some of them
>will now come forward.
>
>Greetings Paul Riesz
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>This reminds me of Parenti's argument concerning the "moderate extremist."
>>We hear in the mass media the terms "rightwing extremist" and the "radical
>>left," but never about the "radical center" (although the term radical
>>only fits well with the left, in my biased view).
>>
>>I understand that when a person is dedicated to principle she may be
>>characterized either in a positive light by being a person with
>>"conviction" or in a negative light as a "dogmatist."
>>
>>I suppose that if a dogmatist will accept nothing less than the abolition
>>of an exploitative-oppressive economic system then the person who is
>>willing to cling to some part of that system has conviction?
>>
>>The real question is, why should advocating the elimination of capitalism
>>be a dogmatic position? Isn't the purpose of such characterizations to
>>cordon off from debate the possibility of building a different societal
>>system?
>>
>>Of course, skipping the answer and rejecting the question does make life
>>difficult for those advocating a reformist version of the status quo (not
>>that there isn't merit in reform).
>>
>>Andy Austin
>>
>>
>