Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm not sure what a "Marxist critic" is. The term "critic" really is ambiguous isn't it. Some alternatives:
"Commentator" - implies someone who regularly commentates on current affairs and would be expected to be relatively neutral "Opponent" (as in, "opponents of the plan") - someone who has chosen to actively take a stance against the thing "Skeptic" - someone, especially with power, who has pointed out perceived flaws with the thing, but does not claim to have been thorough in their analysis
I think I like all of those alternatives better than "critic", and also prefer them to "anti-X people" etc, which implies that, being biased, their opinion is worth little.
It'd be good to even reserve "critic" for professional critics (film, theatre, restaurants...)
I guess I rather prefer "critic" to those, at least in the cases I have in mind. For example, in many scientific fields, someone will propose an approach, and others will sometimes criticize it. Sometimes camps develop, and you have for example, "Bayesians" and "critics of the Bayesian approach". Or in philosophy, you have "critics of cognitivism". In many cases critics are a bit stronger than skeptics, but not in such an all-out ideological disagreement that they ought to be called "opponents". Essentially they're skeptics who have put forth some arguments.
Perhaps this varies by field, but it's the terminology I usually see (and use myself) in academic papers, especially in the stock phrase "critics of this approach".
-Mark