Mr. Puglisi, I assure you that I don’t consider your pockets blood-stained. Indeed, I commend you on your entreprenurial spirit.
My point was that a Marxist WOULD consider your pockets blood-stained (from your exploited workers) and denounce you for keeping more than you “need.”
As I am not a Marxist, I don’t think so. That is, incidentally, why I don’t set a great deal of store by what Marxist historians have to say. Anyone who thinks a job-creator is “oppressing” his workers has a compromised world-view.
Mr. Puglisi,
On October 2, 2002 you wrote, "I follow the Marxist school of thought on history most of the time...I have a BA ...and MA in Labor and Radical history...".
You argue from a Marxist viewpoint, chose a Marxist education and brought up Marxism in your first defense of Carpenter.
Today you deny being a Marxist and object strongly to discussion of Marxism. Milton described your unfortunate situation, "With ruin upon ruin, rout on rout, confusion worse confounded.
Bill Heuisler
Marxism(#3282)
by Derek Catsam on October 5, 2002 at 8:07 PM
It might be worth pointing out, from an historiographical vantage point, that Marxist historiography is not the same as Marxism, and that embracing the tenets of Marxist historiography does not necessarily make one a Marxist either. They are different things. Obviously there is a great deal of overlap between the two, and much of it either way is piffle, but a great number of non Marxist (in either manifestation) historians have benefited a great deal from some of the ideas of dialectical materialism that marxist scholars have introduced.
Mr. Catsam, Please explain how non-Marxist historians "benefited a great deal" from exposure to the dialectic of zero-sum-envy where individual is burnt-offering, government is god and God is deceased. Too simplistic? Okay. But, as you say, it's difficult to separate Marxism from Marxist. Why waste time? Why cull maggots from the rotted flesh of Frankenstein?
Bill Heuisler
by Alec Lloyd on October 4, 2002 at 11:12 AM