It seems objectively fair to say that Ben, Matei and Tom are speaking in good faith, approaching the subject from a theoretical perspective - or their particular understanding of it - which informs their praxis. However with Daniel I have little doubt this is not the situation at all, it is masked by his intellectual grasp of the historical of course which is used in a contorted manner to defend his dogmatic praxis. In other words his praxis comes first. At all costs he retreats into a defence of the Democrats - critically of course with " no illusions" - and " democracy " which he then would have us believe transforms into revolutionary proletarianism socialism. This is political charlatinism. It's, more importantly, an evasion of the real task of building a wc movement independant of all the cap party's one that can take place in a battle of democracy,not FOR it.
In addition it would be extremely useful to hear on a panel the defence or otherwise of the written constitution, and why it has important relevance today for Socialists. Dan Lazare and James Vaughn to be the only speakers. Let's have clarity not obfuscation.
It seems like the orthodox Marxist pressed hard on method and the apparent lack there of in the panelists and audience. this seems to be a trend with all sectarian Marxists - if I don’t obey my method I’m not a Marxist. Yet, we have people like Max Horkheimer who show us that it is possible to have a critique of this kind of thinking in his aphorism Two Aspects of Materialism: “Tolerance - since everything has to be the way it is. Protest - against everything being the way it has to be.” Protest being the height of idealism. I wonder what the point of being so staunchly “Marxist” is in a century where no one even knows who JJ Rousseau is?
It seems objectively fair to say that Ben, Matei and Tom are speaking in good faith, approaching the subject from a theoretical perspective - or their particular understanding of it - which informs their praxis. However with Daniel I have little doubt this is not the situation at all, it is masked by his intellectual grasp of the historical of course which is used in a contorted manner to defend his dogmatic praxis. In other words his praxis comes first. At all costs he retreats into a defence of the Democrats - critically of course with " no illusions" - and " democracy " which he then would have us believe transforms into revolutionary proletarianism socialism. This is political charlatinism. It's, more importantly, an evasion of the real task of building a wc movement independant of all the cap party's one that can take place in a battle of democracy,not FOR it.
In addition it would be extremely useful to hear on a panel the defence or otherwise of the written constitution, and why it has important relevance today for Socialists. Dan Lazare and James Vaughn to be the only speakers. Let's have clarity not obfuscation.
It seems like the orthodox Marxist pressed hard on method and the apparent lack there of in the panelists and audience. this seems to be a trend with all sectarian Marxists - if I don’t obey my method I’m not a Marxist. Yet, we have people like Max Horkheimer who show us that it is possible to have a critique of this kind of thinking in his aphorism Two Aspects of Materialism: “Tolerance - since everything has to be the way it is. Protest - against everything being the way it has to be.” Protest being the height of idealism.
I wonder what the point of being so staunchly “Marxist” is in a century where no one even knows who JJ Rousseau is?