Re: BHA: Book notice: Creaven, Marxism and Ralism

[Mervyn Hartwig <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carrol:

>If you say I am wrong, I can argue or agree. If you say I'm
>dogmatic, what am I supposed to do? Lie down and weep?

You could try changing your tone, after hearing my arguments. I don't
see any logic to the notion that 'one's own comrades' have a monopoly on
a dogmatic or sectarian tone. In any case, except in the formal sense
that I'm not a member of the SWP, I wouldn't want to say that I'm *not*
a 'comrade' of Sean Creaven's (or of people on this list....)

Mervyn


Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx> writes
>
>
>Andrew Brown wrote:
>
>>  You disagree with the argument:
>> fair enough. But obviously mere disagreement doesn't justify
>> labelling those with whom you disagree 'dogmatists'. (A term I
>> particularly dislike for some reason).
>
>You give the reason for disliking the term. It is almost always
>applied to an argument the writer/speaker disagrees with, but
>its only *legitimate* use is in application to the expression of
>an idea one AGREES WITH. That is, if touches on the *way*
>an idea is expressed, not to the idea itself. Thus if one's own
>organization or one's own comrades are dogmatic, it is
>important to correct that dogmatism. (The same argument
>applies to the term "sectarian.")  I have always argued that
>those two terms are _always_  unprincipled when applied
>to an opponent. In general, criticism of style is unprincipled
>when applied to others than one's own allies/adherents/etc.
>
>If you say I am wrong, I can argue or agree. If you say I'm
>dogmatic, what am I supposed to do? Lie down and weep?
>
>Carrol Carrol
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

--
Mervyn Hartwig
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---