Re Gil's 4701 > > >This non sequitur misconceives what I am saying so utterly, so >comprehensively, and in so monstrously a prejudicial fashion, that I don't >know where to begin an answer. But the sense of the argument above is >plain: dare to suggest that even a portion of Marx's argument is logically >suspect, and you are engaged in the sort of thinking that leads to the >Holocaust. Comments like this are hardly conducive to the open discussion >that I thought this list was about. Please disavow these remarks, Rakesh, >or there is no point in continuing this exchange. > >In consternation, > >Gil Skillman Gil, you do seem to acknowledge that I did not say or imply that you are an anti semite. You have your reasons and ways to combat it, I am sure. I think that you are missing the logical ordering in terms of which Marx treats the circuits of capital--industrial and then merchant and interest bearing. I think that understanding that the last two are now derivative of industrial capital does provide the most solid theoretical foundation ever constructed to do war on the socialism of fools (see Franz Neumann's comments in his Behemoth on the neo Prodhounism of Nazi ideology). And I do think ordinary misconceptions about the nature of exploitation and the nature of the various forms of capital did contribute horrifingly to the Holocaust; in fact these misconceptions were probably more important than the so called racist German mind which Goldhagen invokes as his explanatorily fundamental variable. So yes the theoretical stakes are high. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST