Originally posted by
[email protected] 30 2003, 02:52 AM
Pretty much everyone is wrong then, just because "everyone" else does something wrong, why must I follow suit?
In principle, I don't disagree with that approach, of course.
I just don't understand why you pick this issue to "take your stand" in defense of historically accurate definitions?
What "harm" is done by following the Marxist tradition in this instance? How is anyone "misled" by using the words interchangeably? Is a "technical" understanding of the details of 18th and 19th century French class structure "required" to effectively analyze modern class structure?
Or do you propose to demonstrate that Marx and Engels are "obsolete" because they describe the rise of a class that "by verbal definition" no longer technically exists?
You've tried this bit of shallow word-play before...without success.
Why not talk about something real?
http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
In principle, I don't disagree with that approach, of course.
Then why make such a bother about it, the answer is clear; you just want to score "points" off me. Well Redstar, I am not inclined to participate in your little game. I will answer your statements however as best I can, but if I feel that this will degenerate into a petty squabble, then I will ignore you and this thread.
I just don't understand why you pick this issue to "take your stand" in defense of historically accurate definitions?
I saw the question requiring a rather precise answer, and gave a concise answer fitting the nature of the question (something you are guilty of as well I add), apart from my answer to your previous point I see no reason to your "interrogation".
What "harm" is done by following the Marxist tradition in this instance? How is anyone "misled" by using the words interchangeably? Is a "technical" understanding of the details of 18th and 19th century French class structure "required" to effectively analyze modern class structure?
I suppose when you get right down to it, there is nothing specifically "harmful" about it. But when you really get right down to it, the reason is, its simple history, which I believe any socialist worth their salt should know. It is hardly technical; learning the history of the capitalist IMO should be of as much importance as learning the history of the Left. How can you effectively argue with a capitalist about the fundamental flaws of capitalism if you do not actually know how these flaws came into being?
Or do you propose to demonstrate that Marx and Engels are "obsolete" because they describe the rise of a class that "by verbal definition" no longer technically exists?
This one particular example would not demonstrate anything except that the language of Marx and the surrounding of Marx has changed so that the "enemy" of Marx is completely different. The basic principals of Marxism are still good, I would imagine that they always will be, but the external points such as how to achieve Marxism and "who is the enemy", are now fundamentally wrong.
You've tried this bit of shallow word-play before...without success.
Really? Well if people want to wallow in their ignorance, then that is their lookout. I realise that you personally follow Marx, to an extent which is greatly to be admired, and consider his words to be gospel; I would not expect you to change an entire lifetimes habits of "damning the bourgeoisie" even though there is no such thing. This is a prime example how Marx is not 100% correct about every thing relating to today, and should not be treated as gospel truth. It must be interpreted or even altered to fit modern society.
Why not talk about something real?
If you can define what is real and what is not.