[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Mon Mar 21 00:52:42 UTC 2005

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> This is not the first time that SIlverback has misrepresented a conflict in 
> order to trivialize the importance of content and contents policies.

It probably isn't, but are you sure in this case?

> The specific issue with RJII is this: he has added -- several times over the 
> past several weeks, this definition of capitalism -- "private ownership of 
> capital" and he has claimed, on the talk page and in the edit summary, that 
> this definition comes from Marx. I am certain that this definition does 
> not come from Marx, and is not Marxist, as RJII claims. So how do we 
> resolve this dispute? I asked RJII to tell me where Marx said this or 
> anything like this, to provide a citation. I have asked him 
> repeatedly. He refuses to provide a citation. 

> This has nothing to do with word order or grammar, and for Silverback to 
> insinuate that it does serves no constructive purpose. 

Are you being difficult and taking the point of view, that if it doesn't come from
Marx then it isn't "marxist"?   What if such a reasonable inference is involved,
say for instance that marxism is defined as public ownership of the means
of production and marxist rhetoric is constantantly raving about the capitalists
and the private ownership of capital, and private property being a property
of capitalism.   Do marxists actually have to have written
a dictionary themselves or formatlly defined the terms in one of their signature works?

It seems a fairly reasonable inference from marxist uses of the word what their
meaning is.  What is your objection?  It is not as if his definition misrepresents
or is perjorative of the marxist position.  

              -- Silverback