| |
|
I agree entirely that the accusation was not useful or desirable (although given the, as discussed above, totally inexplicable drubbing Nolte had given him, I can't blame infinitus for casting around for an explanation - until just now, the best I had found was that he was Swedish), and that claiming not to have read something is never a good idea. My point is that reading infinitus' post would have demonstrated that he was not seeking to refute anything, really - he was simply restating his understanding of evolution, which is biologically naive but as a social metaphor perfectly adequate, as demonstrated by its use in pretty much exactly the same way by yourself and Nolte, above. So, yes, I agree entirely that infinitus' response was not helpful, but it was, I think, not wholly inappropriate to the treatment he had received. However, since you appear to be saying that, although infinitus' post was not a refutation, it was actually a refutation, I'm not sure how far down that road we can get.
The funny thing about that thread is that, as far as one can tell, all three of you are basically espousing much the same kind of pinkish centrism - that the only way to create a more just society is to take small steps through capitalism and onwards. Infinitus is actually being more radical, assuming as he does that capitalism's basic inequalities will lead to its collapse, but he hopes that the good things generated by capitalism (wealth? technological progress? he posits "civil society and social movement", although I'm not sure I'd associate either with capitalism) will be sufficient to see us through into a new society of justice. This is almost exactly the same as your hope that once everyone is rich as a result of capitalism, they will become socialists. This is without a doubt the most fractious and ill-tempered agreement I've seen for a while, though. |
|
|
