[Marxism] Drivin' that train, high with no brain (was: jibbery jibber)
MLause at cinci.rr.com
Thu Feb 26 09:48:00 MST 2004
The way it works, Jeff, is that if your emails come into my email inbox,
you have to be willing to get answers and, if what you say is unclear,
you should answer questions to clarify what you mean.
Writing in a way that nobody understands doesn't make you smarter than
they are. You might be, but who would know? Wanting you to communicate
more clearly makes me not a fascist, a Stalinist, a union-buster, or a
scab, but a good comrade. An adult should know that the clearer you can
communicate, the more people you reach with your ideas will
be...whatever they are. The more incomprehensible you are, the more
irrelevant you are.
You tell me that you get paid to write and are famous for the clarity of
your writing, but I'm sure almost everyone on the list would find that a
shocking revelation. Sometime, I'll have to share with this list the
story of a "Marxist" philosophy grad student I knew who convinced
himself of his genius and viewed it as precluding any need to
communicate with mere mortals.
...but right now, I have to get back to work for an important vote over
redefining our union affiliation.
From: Jeff Rubard [mailto:jeffrubard at fusemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:32 AM
To: Mark Lause
Subject: RE: [Marxism] Drivin' that train, high with no brain (was:
> Comrade Jeff,
> Writing in run-on sentences doesn't change the facts. I did not
> cross-post this. I only posted it to one list, ie., the Marxism List.
You sent it to the Marxism List *and* to my email, and at this point I'm
to ask you flat-out to stop sending me personal copies of things posted
list (I don't know what it means for you, but it doesn't mean a damn
to me and it clogs up my email box).
> If you want to refer us to the model of "pre-Stalinist
> that seems to be what you were trying to do--is it not reasonable to
> which ones and what you are referring us to them for?
No, it isn't, you really need to already know that. You look like a
phony rather than a reasonable person offering grammar advice: that
category covers almost every left-wing theorist since 1850 with the
exception of Sorel, and the early Third-International parties looked
much to this tradition (something "new leftists" cannot claim).
> My asking for clarification of this and my goadings to get you to
> hardly in a way that conveys what you mean rather than encoding it
> hardly qualifies me as a "fascist." Your warning to me that I'm
> get it through the head" just might.
It's from a Fall song, and the point is that I am putting my ass on the
and really shouldn't be due to out-there conduct on the part of others.
But what you should know is that, if you are an "old country boy"
to think the problems of the contemporary polity in a democratic spirit
(i.e. you know the rules and others don't) the best you can be is a
US "ultra", i.e. not made for these times but willing to act in a spirit
of charity towards all and malice towards none. I'm not really quite
that, but then again I'm twenty-four and might have something worth
buying to sell someone.
> It's hard to say, though, because your meaning is once again unclear.
Are we working together? I'm not getting paid. When I'm getting paid,
as previously mentioned the editors are usually all smiles. I don't
pretend like I'm at work with people when they are and I'm not.
Scab off. That clear enough? Maybe not.
More information about the Marxism