RE: Historic spirals (fwd)

that is the point, Elson. i was basically talking about the intrusion of
liberal bias into marxism. the people, liberal lefists, who
"prentend" to be marxists call anti-liberal marxists, communists
"dogmatic" while they assume a position of non-dogmatism. if they bleive
in what they want to believe, let them beleive, but if they attach
value-laden stigmatizations, and unsubstantiated claims to communists
without testing their own value asssumptions, they will automatically be
critiqued...why don't they just say i am a liberal and not a marxist? is
it so difficult? at least, they would be honest and intellectually
coherent....don't they see that two do not go hand in hand?
they wanna be both and sacrifice neither; that is the problem...

to be honest, i have ONLY seen this distinction within leftists closer to
liberal and post-modern branch of political and social philosopy-- 


Mine


 >>of course not, "dogmatic marxist" is a
"false" label attached to marxists
>>by "dogmatic" liberals!!!
>
>>best,
>
>>Mine

>Well, I'm not so sure this is always the case.  Not all people calling
>some Marxists
>dogmatic are liberals (unless one asserts that by definition, which would
>be
>empirically untenable).   For example, there are people who call
>themselves Marxists
>who claim that other Marxists are dogmatic for one reason or another.