FW: (Fwd) Re: Kangaroo court/Milosevic trial/Serbia
jcraven at clark.edu
Sat Feb 2 18:46:34 MST 2002
I saw your sources, although I didn't go the sites. A bunch of the most
sectarian Trot and Maoist party paper sites. Wonderful.
Anything wrong with this picture? Saw the sources, didn't bother to visit
the sites/cites and read/address/counter what was there with specific
counter-evidence/reasoning, "knows" they are "sectarian" Trotskyist and
Maoists (who by the way are rarely if ever on the same page on anything),
"knows" there is nothing there worth reading or considering or problematic
for his own views, and slings the term "sectarian" (one who summarily
dismisses any and all views and evidence of others, based on the source of
those views without even having heard or read those views or purported
evidence before summarily dismissing them).
If one looks at the reading lists of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao and others, as
revealed in their cites, they were reading probably 90%:10% opposing
views/sources relative to views/sources any way friendly to their own views.
As Marx noted in his letter to his son-in-law Arnold Ruge in 1843:
"If the construction of the future, and its completion for all time is not
our task, all the more certain is what me must accomplish in the present; I
mean, the ruthless criticism of everything that exists; the criticism being
ruthless in the sense that it neither fears its own results, nor fears
conflict with the powers that be."
Marxism and substantive activism will go nowhere when the supposed activists
sit around cherry-picking/summarily dismissing sources, data,
views, reasoning on the basis simply that they are not in accord with their
own views/agenda; then we get exactly what the bourgeois polemicists give
us: pre-programmed syllogisms (full of contrived assumptions and shaped
"facts" designed to lead to "deductively valid" and pre-programmed/desired
"conclusions"), slogan-mongering and ultimately impeachment of the
messengers causing some impeachment of the message.
I particularly enjoy reading the "workbooks" of Marx, Lenin and Engels; they
set about to study and fully comprehend that which they opposed because they
understood concretely that one cannot effectively eliminate,
transform or challenge that which is not concretely understood or that which
is made a caricature of. That's why Marxism--the real thing--is properly
called "scientific" Marxism.
I for one plead guilty to reading and using "bourgeois sources" or other
sources with which I disagree not only for purposes of challenging the
purported "facts" and assertions embodied in those sources, but also for
purposes of making arguments and establishing other facts that those
bourgeois and other sources would never dare to mention or go to.
Of course one cannot read and challenge everything; we all have priorities,
but I do not find the mere mention of a source, especially one I have not
visited or read, as sufficient refutation or counter "evidence" for my own
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism