On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Carolyn Ballard wrote:
> Kohler made no mention of supporting either one side or
> the other
This is a false claim, Carolyn. Kohler wrote: "RK Moore's point of view in
recent postings to wsn is very interesting and welcome. It touches on the
problem of tradition versus innovation on the left, taking the side of
innovation. Here is some further support for that position, broadly
conceived, from an unlikely side -- namely, from a Marxist-Leninist
authors' collective in India, which I find quite agreeable from a
left-Keynesian point of view."
So, as you can see, you are clearly in error. Kohler contrasts my side of
the argument as "tradition," whereas Moore's is "innovative." Kohler
praises Moore for "taking the side of innovation." He then commits the
good intentions fallacy by (falsely) bringing in Marxist-Leninists who
"support" Moore's analysis. The quotes Kohler provided do not support
Moore analysis, therefore my statement is correct. You cannot accuse
people of hubris for simply noting the correctness of their view. And
Kohler does take sides, therefore your statement is incorrect. And there
is no hubris in this, either (just error).
You admit that you are fully aware that my position is being cast as
"traditionalists," when you write that the "innovative thinking (Moore's)
re/Marxist theory was a refreshing injection into the traditionalist
(yours, others) debate." So why deny what you admit a second later?
> How does intransigent adherence to historic materialism constitute
> "advocating an open system"?
This is like accusing somebody who accepts Einstein's theory of relativity
of being a dogmatist. Or better yet, characterizing somebody who goes to
see a medical doctor as being opposed to open systems. My argument:
historical materialism is an open system; ergo, adhering to historical
materialism is advocating an open system. By your standards any belief at
all is dogma, a self-sealing fallacy. If these are not your standards,
then you don't even have a fallacious point of view to stand by.
> 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.
Neither Marx nor Engels ever advanced this strawman. In a letter to Joseph
Bloch, on September 21, 1890, Friedrich Engels wrote:
According to the materialist conception of history the determining
element in history is ultimately the production and reproduction
of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever
asserted. If therefore somebody twists this into the statement
that the economic element is the only determining one, he
transforms it into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase. The
economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the
superstructure--political forms of the class struggle and its
consequences, constitutions established by the victorious class
after a successful battle, etc.--forms of law--and then even the
reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the
combatants: political, legal, philosophical theories, religious
ideas and their further development into systems of dogma--also
exercise their influence upon the course of historical struggles
and in many cases preponderate in determining their form."
Here is Engels saying that even philosophical theories and religious ideas
can "in many cases *preponderate* in determining" the form of historical
struggles. This is one of the most famous distortions of Marxian thought,
and evidence that Ballard does not understand that which she criticizes.
There are the reiterations of anti-Marxist propaganda, Carolyn. Hardly
scholarship.
> Moreover, your arguments thusfar dispute your assertion that you
> advocate "concrete analysis."
This is another false argument. My posts here are discussing matters of
metatheory and theory. My discussing matters of science, theory, and
methods at a general level does not negate the capacity of historical
materialism to generate concrete historical analysis.
> An analysis is concrete only insofar as it conforms to traditional
> Marxist theory, according to what I have read of your arguments.
Not at all. I never said that, nor have I even implied that.
> I was not under the impression that the intent of discussion on this
> list was to "swing" debate in anyone's direction.
Then it isn't debate, is it? This is worthless liberal rhetoric, Carolyn.
Posts to this list are persuasive documents. Articles in journals, books,
speechs, lectures, presentations--persuasive speech acts, all of them. You
(and particularly Moore) assert your position with arrogance, but deflect
this by appealing to the liberal ideology of neutrality. This is a base
propaganda technique.
> 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.
And this doesn't involve trying to "'swing' debate in anyone's direction"?
Here is Richard advocating corporatist ideology, saying that bosses and
workers should share the wealth. And you are on his side. What sorts of
exigencies are *you* facing amid globalization? Go back and read Moore's
post on how capitalists are innovators and visionaries, how they take
risks and should be rewarded, etc.. Moore embraces the capitalist ethos,
the very thing that drives globalization in this epoch, and you defend him
*against* the masses, and personally attack me.
> 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.
No, you are completely wrong. The facts of this conversation are quite the
opposite: You were flushed out from behind your private support of Moore
by my attack on the threadbare forward by Proyect. And you came out
swinging. Your post was ad hominem, and it was in support of Moore. Moore
is so inept at advancing any critique of Marx that you come to his rescue
(quite badly, too), privately forwarding him posts that might help him.
And I legitimately dismissed the forward. Obviously you have some stake in
this debate, however behind the scenes your maneuvering is. And you wanted
to find some way of throwing a monkeywrench in the middle of ignorance.
And you are wrong--wrong on every single point. So who is really being
counterproductive?
The real reason why Moore does not post any critique of Marx and
historical materialism is because he know he will get nailed. He knows
full well, and even admitted it a couple of days ago, his ignorance of
Marx's work. Everything he posts to this list shows he is ignorant not
only of Marx, but of the literature on globalization generally. That is
all there is to this. Hence, he dissembles and obfuscates the "debate"--a
debate he wanted to have. And you are playing good cover here with your
irrational sniping from the sidelines.
There is nothing scholarly about criticizing a point of view you know
nothing about, Carolyn. And it is irrational to then attack persons
advancing that point of view with accusations of "hubris," of being
"dogmatic" and "supercilious," and other such inappropriate nouns and
adjectives.
> I am proud to say that I am Richard's collaborator on the globalization/
> fate of democracy book-in-progress.
Makes all kinds of sense, now. I hope you don't practice the same sort of
cerebral hygiene as Richard Moore, or else your "globalization/fate of
democracy book-in-progress" thing is in a whole world of hurt. So far, his
posts on the subject, like those this morning, are extremely weak.
All the time you waste with this rhetorical posturing is time you don't
have to spend actually saying something. But, then again, considering that
virtually every one of your arguments in this post were untrue or
fallacious, this might be your best angle.
And don't sign personal attacks with "warm regard," Carolyn, okay?
Andy