RE: [OPE] "Parasitism"

From: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Sat Jan 31 2009 - 17:53:11 EST

Gerry and Jurrian is getting a bit heated. Are you sure you want to go this way?
 
Paul Cockshott
Dept of Computing Science
University of Glasgow
+44 141 330 1629
www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/

________________________________

From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of GERALD LEVY
Sent: Sat 1/31/2009 7:51 PM
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
Subject: RE: [OPE] "Parasitism"

Oh, I forgot to note a few items:

> You and Paula just run together a whole ramshackle of ill-defined ideas to vent your leftist emotional hatred for the "capitalist parasites",
 
That, also, and yet again is NONSENSE. Neither Paula nor I (who have been advancing
quite different perspectives, in case you didn't notice) have been venting "leftist
emotional hatred". The only hatred I have in this thread is for this kind of mischaracterizations
that you have been making. "Emotional" , "hatred", "swearwords", ad nauseaum. If you
want to understand why you have received the responses you have you need look
no further than your own rhetoric.
 
> (1) flout elementary logic and the prerequisites for acceptable scholarly debate (bottom line there is that you do not misrepresent your opponent),
 
How ironic is is that you preach about what is "acceptable scholarly debate" after you
poisoned the well of discussion with your own debating tactics and mischaracterizations.
 
> (2) fail to focus clearly on what is being argued,
 
Which was never about emotions or hatred - as much as you would _like_ it to be
because it would make it easier to ridicule the positions of those you are debating.
 
> 3) ignore Marx's basic distinction between exploitation and parasitism,
 
Other can talk about Marx if they wish. As a practical matter (as I have said repeatedly
before) I won't descend to the level of quotation trading and what almost always turns out to be
deference to authority.
 
> The least I can say for Marx himself, is that he studied jurisprudence. If you had done the
> same, you would simply not be saying what you are saying, because you would know better.
 
I don't need to study jurisprudence to know that you shouldn't accuse others of using
'swearwords' when they are not. Nor do I need to study law to know that mischaracterizations
(e.g. "emotionalist", "hatred") are improper. Nor do I bandy around the suggestion that others
have lied when they have not. Nor do I wish to discuss the matter further with you.
 
And this time it really is over and out.
 
In solidarity, Jerry

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

Received on Sat Jan 31 17:55:31 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 02 2009 - 00:00:05 EST