> Regardless of the nature of the journal in question, I think ad
> hominem arguments neither help the discussion nor have a place on this
> mailing list. I, for one, would appreciate it if they were avoided in
> future,
John:
Chris Ford's post was not an example of an ad hominem argument:
challenging the *praxis* of others is a legitimate form of debate.
If we were to take your request to heart then the *practice* of
others, including whether that practice is consistent with their
stated principles and theoretical perspectives, would be out-of-bounds.
It is legitimate for Marxists and other radicals to hold others responsible
for their actions ... unless you believe that Marxism, like Freeman's
stated perspective on pluralism, is "about ideas, not people".
Chris, as a Marxist-Humanist, knows that pluralism and Marxism
are about ideas _and_ people. (and, btw, Freeman's perspective on
pluralism is, imo, one-sided and idealist: how can he be expected
to be "steadfastly committed to pluralism" is he doesn't know what
it means?)
Jerry
> > Of course not to mention Mr Freeman, who could explain his
> > relationship to Ken Livingstone Mayor of London, Mr Freeman is an
> > economist for his mate the Mayor at the Greater London Authority.
> > The same Mayor who calls on workers to cross picket lines during
> > strikes to defend victimised union reps on London Underground
> > railway. The same Mayor who persuing privisatisation of the tube and
> > supporting anti-union bosses along with an array of neo-liberal
> > policies and anti-working class practices. But hey, why let the
> > reality of class struggle get in the way of academic Marxism. I
> > would love to know what economic advice was being given when his
> > mate was being a scab!
|