Dear Jerry, I agree that the examples you chose are showing how Marxists should NOT debate. That said, I must state as clearly as possible to things: (i) most Marxists, and also and primarily the those who objects of Andrea Vitale, are using exactly the same style, simply turned upon some kind of academic ultra-orthodox marxism, which takes almost all the history of Marxism except Marx and themselves as 'errors' and (implicitly) betrayal of truth (ii) Vitale is making interventions not in 'scientific arena' but in 'political' debate: I still don't like that style, but that's a different thing [e.g., I suggest people going to read, say, how Lenin, or even Luxemburg, or even Marx, wrote, I think you may easily find same kind of phrases] (iii) the actual content of what Vitale positively says is VERY interesting, very often more interesting than academic Marxism, still more than those academici Marxists who wants to show the scientific truth of each word of Marx. Unfortunately, you are right in this: that most of us don't accept to discuss these Marxian issues with detached passion, i.e. avoiding posing himself/herself as the judge of what is correct or wrong, and simply assuming that the position put forward is simply ONE interpretation among others, with the debate being finalized not to destroy an enemy but to better one own reading of capitalism. rb At 9:07 -0400 9-05-2002, gerald_a_levy wrote: >For a good extreme example of how Marxists should >*NOT* debate issues in political economy see: > ><http://www.asloperaicontro.org/inglese/debate.htm>http://www.asloperaicontro.org/inglese/debate.htm > >where you can download articles from l997-l998 by >A. Vitale -- debating former listmember Paolo Giussani -- >from the journal "Quaderni di Operai Contro". > >Note the following expressions, from Vitale's articles: > >* "systematic demolition of his (Paolo's, JL) position"; > >* "personal hysteria" ; "foolishness" ; "his haughtiness, >arrogance and presumption"; "his hysterical spite" ; > >* "reactionary anti-workers rage"; "belonging to Milan >reactionary petty bourgeoisie"; > >* "collection of absurdities"; "anti-workers pieces of foolery"; > >* "based in the vulgar economics"; "the spokesman of the >social capital"; > >* "understood quite nothing of the concept of value discovered >by Marx, as a consequence he knows little or nothing about the >way in which exchange takes place"; > >* Paolo G is described as "The thinker" ; "The technologist"; >"a petty researcher" ; "a petty professor", "doctor Giussani"; >"a very appreciated item on anti-worker thinkers' market"; > >* "a doctor of Algebraic Marxism" > >and: > >* "A boot-licker, no offense meant". > >(Paolo G, btw, left the list last Fall.) > >Are Vitale's remarks representative of how some groups on the >Italian Left debate issues associated with political economy? > >Can anyone think of any "better" examples of how to *not* >debate political economy in recent history? > >What accounts for this level of maliciousness? Couldn't Vitale >have made all of his basic points _without_ resorting to personal >abuse and extreme dismissive comments? > >In solidarity, Jerry > > -- Riccardo Bellofiore Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche Via dei Caniana 2 I-24127 Bergamo, Italy e-mail: bellofio@unibg.it, bellofio@cisi.unito.it direct +39-035-277545 secretary +39-035 277501 fax: +39 035 277549 homepage: http://www.unibg.it/dse/homebellofiore.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EDT