Andrew-
You wrote:
How are Moore's vacuous posts hubris on my part? What logic does this
argument rest on?
If this were the argument, it would indeed be illogical. Forgive me, but I fail to see how you deduced that my statement re/hubris relates to "Moore's vacuous posts." Allow me then to clarify. Hubris refers to your counter to Kohler's remarks re/"tradition vs. innovation," i.e. that his post in some way "supports your point" rather than Moore's. Kohler made no mention of supporting either one side or the other, rather remarking that innovative thinking (Moore's) re/Marxist theory was a refreshing injection into the traditionalist (yours, others) debate.
And how is advocating an open system and concrete
analysis dogma? The only dogma here is Moore's blatant corporatist
rhetoric and anti-communism.
How does intransigent adherence to historic materialism constitute "advocating an open system"? If Marxist theory holds that ideas and social/political institutions develop only as the superstructure of a material economic base, then that theory does not lend itself to advocacy of an open system. Moreover, your arguments thusfar dispute your assertion that you advocate "concrete analysis." An analysis is concrete only insofar as it conforms to traditional Marxist theory, according to what I have read of your arguments.
The ad hominem launched in your post doesn't swing this "debate" in your and Richard's "innovative" direction, Carolyn. Quite the opposite, in fact; it exposes the paucity of the views, albeit nebulous, advanced on your side.
I was not under the impression that the intent of discussion on this list was to "swing" debate in anyone's direction. The purpose of the dialectic is to expose fallacy and elicit truth, thereby advancing "knowledge." That is the noble enterprise which we should be about in these list discussions, particularly in light of the exigencies we face re/ globalizing capitalism. The supercilious derision of ideas contrary to your own, as you continue to engage in Andrew, is counter productive to that process and its time-honored tradition of reasonable, intelligent debate.
Evidently some loyalty to Richard Moore has dispossed you of the ability
to be even remotely objective in your assessment of the "Moore-Austin
Debate."
I am proud to say that I am Richard's collaborator on the globalization/ fate of democracy book-in-progress. So, quite naturally, we share many of the same ideas. We also disagree on some, but in a civilized manner. I do not concur with your opinion that my association with Richard has circumscribed my objectivity re/this or any debate.
Warm regards,
Carolyn