> What are you talking about? Greenspan's positions of responsibility is to > his class, the bourgeoisie. I would not be in that position.
Then who would you prefer to be in his position ? Chairman of > the FRB is not a "class neutral" position. He is the bankers' banker. Agreed. > Civility? What exactly is uncivil about calling a bourgeois scam artist and > ideologue exactly that? Because in civil society in the Marxian sense, if somebody is an ideologue or bourgeois scam artist, we say that s/he is on the basis of demonstrable evidence, and the burden of proof is on the accuser. Indeed Ernest Mandel wrote once, real Marxists do not "accuse", they "prove" their case. All human moral conduct presumes some kind of "no harm" policy which, positively, could be stated "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or negatively, "do not do unto others what you would not like them to do unto you". An implication of this type of reasoning is, "take care in your judgements and partisanship, it may be better not to judge, lest you be judged alike", and we have to live with the consequences of our actions and utterances. On the basis of this idea, consistent and predictable behaviour is possible, as well as a wellformed human personality. If you start demonising, disparaging and writing off government people not simply because of what they do but who they are, then you also have to live with the consequences of that. > > Do you actual believe that there is some "supra-class" component of being > chairman of the FRB? Yes, absolutely. Karl Marx has no special epistemic privilege or advantage over Al Greenspan, purely for being Karl Marx. Jurriaan
