[Marxism] (no subject)

[Mark Lause]

Jay Moore <pieinsky at igc.org> wrote:
> I think that about sums it up from my observation, too.
> jay
>
> Ernest Leif wrote:
>> It seems to me, and this may be liked by many on this list, that most
>> Marxist in this country are rhetorically Marxist but act like social
>> democrats. I personally still have trouble wrapping my head around the
>> reform/revolution debate.
>>

Even before Jay posted his assent to this wad of words, I pointed out
that not a single component of these assertions has any rational
materialist content.  If it wasn't clear, it's worth repeating...

1. The "most Marxist[s] in this country" quip is absurd because the
writer offers absolutely no evidence to persuade us that what he calls
"most" actually is a majority.

2. The phrase is doubly absurd because "Marxist" here incorporates
what used to be called the "true Scotsman" fallacy.  ("No true
Scotsman eats sugar with his porridge," meaning that if you find one
who does, he's not a "true" Scotsman.)  "Marxist" is not defined and
subject to an after-the-fact redefinition.  This was also why Jay's
demand that I declare whether I am or am not a "revolutionary" is
absurd.

3. While being "social democrats" partakes of the same open-ended
absurdity, the only essential thing about acting like an adherent of
an electoral party is to vote for it.  So the only reasonable
interpretation of this, in the context of the discussion, is that
people who are not interested in a ritualized litany denouncing a
non-social democratic officeholder (Obama) are somehow acting like
social democrats.  It's nuts.

A "Marxism" that shreds classical logic, ignores materialism, and
can't tell the difference between a Democrat and a social democrat is
some kind of mystical formula that requires using the "right" words in
the "right" order in the "right" places.  I'm not a professional
philosopher (and don't even play one on TV), so if any of the faithful
can actually show me that this approach works, I'm willing to give it
a try.  The fact is that, on this subject generally, this kind of
religious dogmatism has been absolutely a dismal failure in the US for
more than a century.

So let's try formulating what is rational, materialist and thoughtful
in our approach to the real questions we face.  If we do this, at
least where there is disagreement, it will be accurately understood.

ML