For a good extreme example of how Marxists should *NOT* debate issues in political economy see: 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EDT