When criticisms become insults -- (fwd)

>If one believes that another's ideas are lending support to oppression,
>or are promoting tolerance to oppression, we can expect that tempers
>might get got. But how to determine "who started it" is not as easy as
>it looks. In the last exchange, Mine used the term "stupid" to critique
>Elson. For many people, it might SEEM that Mine was the first one to go
>over the line. But it should be understood that Elson's prior language,
>particularly,

Alan, i respect your constructive criticism in this thread. you are
definetly right in pointing out the potential misuses of criticism.
however, i would like to clarify one important point. my aim is not to
create uncivility and tension in this list. i have always good relations
with real marxists here. my purpose is to facilitate rational
communication and meaningful exchange of views. if i gave a different
impression, i feel sorry. however, it was first elson who reproached me
with personal affronts (poor, pedantic, blinders, outmoded). if he treats
people like stupid beings here, i think he deserves the term "stupid". as
i always say, illegitimate reaction creates legitimate counter reaction.
this is the first of principle of revolutionary politics.

honestly, i have a long history of personal affronts with elson in this
list. so, i can not be objective about him.  what i can say is that i have
strong suspicions about his leftism. unlike this particular
individual, i never insulted anybody else in the list by ridiculing and
deriding about their leftism. i had disagreements with certain issues
with certain people, but i never attempted at ridiculing marxism and
respectable marxists as "outmoded" revolutionaries (such as lenin).
moreover, it is always elson who insults people with deregatory comments
like this when he can not deal with issues at hand and pursues
the same line of rhetoric--economic determinism, endless band as it is. 
i can not teach a history marxism at this point. i can only say that
lenin was a staunchest critic of the misuses of economic determinism
since he introduced the concepts of will, party and organization in
addition to deterministic interpretation of history. another figure is
luxemburg (despite her affronst at lenin) who believed in "mass
spontaneity" and working class mobilization as revolutionary forces in
history. the bottom line is that the history of marxism is more complex
than elson simplifies. moreover, it always him who starts the first round
of attacking at marxists who remain outside his text-book definition of
marxism. generally, i try to avoid him, but his speculatory comments about
marxism in russia really passed the line. i have come to the conclusion
that this individual treats people like this from different cultures.i
felt some kind of cultural hostility in his language about former
communist states and their political histories. it is more than hostility
because he used exactly the term "blind". accordingly, i invite people in
this list to be MORE careful and sensitive about other cultures before
making authoritative comments about their political histories. the purpose
of this forum is to respect and benefit from each other, and to promote
scientific knowledge, not ridiculing about somebody else's history in a
racist manner...      
 
i kindly request elson NOT to communicate with me any longer on this 
list.i do not have time in correcting his misperceptions since i am busy
with my comps. if he has anything to say, i ask him to contact me
privately. i, personally, do not want to prolong the discussion on this
topic

thanks for your constructive criticism, Alan...

Mine