Re: population: real problem, or capitalist plot?

Richard,
 
Looking back over Andrew Austin's postings on the subject of
(over)population, I fail to see any reference to "Lenin" or an "orthodox
Marxist-Leninist ideology", terms which you have raised.  That there is a
coherent epistemological framework which guides Andy's understanding and
analysis, I have little doubt.  And whether he or I or you choose to call
this underlying framework Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, orthodox
Marxist-Leninism, or whatever, is NOT the point.  

The objection I raised with you is your ad hominen attack on Andy when a 
simple 
reply to the points he addressed regarding capitalist policies to restrict 
population
growth in less-industrialized countries would have been sufficient.  
Instead of 
addressing Andy's argument, you attack his person by asserting that he has 
somehow arranged his facts to fit his "orthodox Marxist-Leninist ideology", 
even 
though he nowhere utilizes these words.  Utilizing such red-baiting words 
in the 
US context would likely--you were obviously hoping--deflect the argument 
away 
from the issues at hand.  And you were able to generate one or two 
subsequent 
replies from others which again attempt to disparage Marxism-Leninism.  

You state:  "We're all some sort of marxists around here, or hadn't you 
noticed?"  If this were true, then I fail to understand the necessity to 
disparage Marxism-Leninism, for that is surely your intent.  Moreover, if 
we did 
all share a similar epistemological framework, then the utilization of ad 
hominen 
attacks would logically be unnecessary.

Indeed, you further engage in this fallacious tactic of ad hominen 
argumentation by 
suggesting that perhaps I "share Andy's dogmatism".  Again, instead of 
stating 
Andy's position or the points you disagree with, you choose to refer to 
"Andy's 
dogmatism".  And further, in your letter to Mine Doyran [Date: Thu, 01 Jun 
2000 
14:03:51-0700 (MST)], you again utilize an ad hominen attack by referring 
to 
Andrew as "our dogmatic comrade".  Is he "dogmatic" because he is a 
Marxist?  
Again you reach into the historical tool box of red-baiters to make your 
implication.

While I leave it to Andy to decide whether he considers you a comrade or 
not, I am 
certain that he, like I, object to you characterizing his analyses as 
"dogmatic".  Assertion of a finding without analysis or explanation is the 
basis 
of dogmatism, and I have yet to see Andy assert a proposition without 
analyis, 
explanation, argumentation, and examples.  

So again, you are exposed as engaging in ad hominen attacks with the 
intention of 
red-baiting Andrew Austin.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin S. Cavell                        "The first principal of non-violent
Department of Political Science        action is that of non-cooperation 
with
Thompson Tower, Box 37520              everything humiliating."
University of Massachusetts            
Amherst, MA  01003-7520                --Cesar Chavez, founder, along with
INTERNET:  cscpo@polsci.umass.edu      Dolores Huerta, of the United Farm
VOICE:  (413) 546-3408                 Workers of America, AFL-CIO
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~cscpo          (http://www.ufw.org)
=============================================================================

________________________________________________
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

> On Wed, 31 May 2000, colin s. cavell wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Richard,
> > 
> > Your ad hominem attack against Andrew Austin not only suggests the
> > bankruptcy of your own position but as well implicates you in 
>red-baiting,
> > for those still susceptible to such cowardly tactics.  
> 
> Colin-
> 
> Noone is engaged in redbaiting.  We're all some sort of marxists around 
> here, or hadn't you noticed?  If Andy would stop labeling everyone he
> disagrees with a capitalist reactionary he would find a much reduced level
> of hostility in return.
> 
> What matters is not
> > that Andy may reframe "everything in terms of orthodox marxist-leninist
> > ideology" (though you know that Andy has NOT argued for the validity of
> > an "orthodox marxist-leninist" position on the question of population) 
>[by
> > the way, what do YOU mean by "orthodox marxist-leninist ideology"?], but
> > rather whether what he argues has any validity in that it corresponds to
> > and/or reflects the actual interplay of social policies and their
> > outcomes.  If what Andy states has validity--and to date there has
> > been on this list no compelling countervailing argumentation to the
> > contrary--then perhaps it is you who needs to "stop and reflect" and
> > adjust your frame of reference.
> 
> 
> If *you* think there has been no compelling countervailing argumentation,
> that just indicates to me that perhaps you share Andy's dogmatism,
> whatever he and you would like to call it.
> 
> RH
> 
>