[Marxism] The Jihadism of Fools By Fred Halliday
Jeffrey Thomas Piercy, El Pato Comunista
mqduck at sonic.net
Thu Feb 15 06:11:26 MST 2007
Haines Brown wrote:
>> I don't think it's a matter of what's "allowed" to be discussed on
>> this list. It's just that no one else has any interest in wasting
>> their time discussing the merits of Halliday's nonsense. That it's
>> nonsense is not controversial to anyone here but you.
>> As a side note, how does one jump from being a Moscow apologist to
>> declaring that the US isn't imperialist? For that matter, what the
>> hell is with David Horowitz? What was in the drinking water when you
>> guys were growing up? Maybe I don't need to ask...
> Wow, how are you associating me with "you guys"? You apparently assume
> the existence of some unnamed ideological or political position in
> which certain individuals including me are associated. How can I address
> that charge when these people and their position remains unnamed and
> without characterization?
Actually, I was addressing Marxmail as a whole. Most of the active
contributers came of age around the same time, in the 60s, it seems. I
suppose I wasn't very clear, was I?
> My point about Halliday is not that his move from Marxism to
> capitalism is correct (I happen to disagree with it profoundly), but
> that any such abandonment of Marxism should be of concern. If Halliday
> were a knave or a fool, his leaving the fold might be ignored, but he
> is obviously neither. I was not engaging the specifics of the
> debate, but only suggesting that when someone with Halliday's
> credentials leaves Marxism to embrace US imperialism, it should be of
> concern and we need to understand why. It is not a question at all of
> defending Halliday, but of understanding him.
Halliday may "obviously" not be "a knave or fool" but it's hard to take
anyone seriously who starts out saying that the left sympathizes with
the 9/11 attacks and goes from there.
How did his transition happen? I don't know, but we might ask why he
became a Marxist in the first place, I guess.
> If we can't understand those who happen to disagree with us, we don't
> have a viable position of our own. The only people I know who are
> entirely insular and at the same time sure of themselves are religious
Is it really so necessary that we understand the psychology behind this
guy? Or are you implying that we don't "get" his points?
More information about the Marxism