Subject: Re: M-I: Reply to Carrol Cox From: acaruso-AT-juno.com (Anthony J Caruso) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:19:08 EST On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 07:43:01 -0500 (EST) Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu> writes: All right, I am going to step forward and take full responsibility for the lack of women on this list. It has been my sexist speech that has driven women off. No, Lou. It is a person's *choice* whether or not He/she/it wants to be on this list or not, and nobody else's choice. Look at the crap that's been thrown at me, and yet I stay on. This is because I am genuinely and faithfully a *Marxist* and that is something that words can never change. If someone doesn't want to be here because of things that people *say* (Sticks and stones...remember?) Then do we really *need* these people here, be they men/women/its? And if anybody wants to know what Jerry Levy's sexism charge is about, I'll tell you right now. On another list, I made the crack that I'd like to see Ellen Meiksins Wood and Hillary Wainwright locked in a steel cage and fight to the death over postmodernism. This was viewed as sexism by all concerned. See, that's the difference between me and others, I guess. As a Marxist, I am against censorship on the basis that censorship is a form of oppression. Not only this, but if *I* had heard this statement, I probably would've given you the benefit of the doubt and thought you were carcking a joke. I see *nothing* even *remotely* sexist about it, and *I challenge* someone for an explanation on how this is sexist. C'mon people. This may be wasting my posts, but if this is what I have to do to get free speech around here, then I'll do it. I will hunt *every one* of you down and challenge you to explain yourselves sparing no verbosity. Of course, I would have made the same sort of comment about Harry Magdoff and Stanley Aronowitz, but other people know what's in my head better than me. See, now, Lou, that's because it *was not* a sexist comment. I see the double standards...Look at them...if you talk of locking a man and a *woman* in a cage, with or without hyperbole, it's sexism...but if you talk about locking two men in a cage, it's humor. Does anyone *else* see double standards in action here? Marxism is supposed to make us all equals, isn't it? If we begin singling out a certain group and giving the preferences, then we're doing the exact opposite. Let's strive for equality, people, not reparations for what has been done in the past. Now let's get serious and talk about real oppression. Lou, I hope the bastards get what they deserve for letting you go...I'm sure that someday, some wet-behind-the-ears greenhorn will screw something up. But prejudice is not our problem. Capitalism is. Capitalism is causing the economic insecurity of women, minorities and older people. Unlike a college professor, I have never been able to earn tenure somewhere as a computer programmer. If Columbia decided to outsource its data- processing tomorrow, I'd be shit out of luck. I am basically expendable. This should be no surprise since the Board of Trustees at Columbia University is made up of the same people who run Wall Street. This is correct-o-mundo, Lou. Wisely spoken. Has anyone else read the pamphlet by Gus Hall entitled "Capitali$m Kills"? This says a lot of things about America today. Let's cut the bullshit once and for all. Our problem is not hate-speech. One of the most horrible legacies of the postmodernists has been to legitimize the idea that prejudicial speech is causing racial or sexual oppression. They shift the blame away from the capitalist class and toward "offenders" who refuse to treat people fairly. Columbia has stringent speech codes. It is one of the most "progressive" colleges in the country on this score. This, however, does not prevent it from evicting minority tenants from buildings that are in spaces targeted for conversion into university buildings. This was in fact what sparked the student protest of 1968. I couldn't agree more, Comrade. This proves that hate-speech is not the problem, our real problem is losing the sight of our goal, and losing the purpose of our fight. Finally, on the whole question of Professor Yudice and Professor Cox "grading" the list. Listen here, fellows, we don't need people lurking in the background ready to jump in and slap an 18 year old like Anthony Caruso on the wrist when he makes a "sexist" remarks. If you were regular participants on the list and made your own sensibilities more apparent, then perhaps these difficulties wouldn't have arisen. No....let's jump into a conversation halfway through it and *then* try to nitpick on the details of it, when the parts we *needed* to hear happened when we were both blindfolded with our noses in a corner somewhere totally out of the touch of reality. Yeah, let's do *that* Mmm hmm...we're adults. I certainly am dedicated but don't consider myself wise at all. I am as Jon Flanders and Chris Burford have put it on occasions highly "erratic". To balance this, I can claim to be an honest person, which sometimes gets me in trouble nonetheless. Perhaps I will just have to live with this for the rest of my life. It is good that you don't consider yourself wise, Lou. Socrates once said that he was wise enough to not consider himself wise. He said something to the effect of "the wise man knows he is not wise and can thereby attain greater wisdom by not clouding reality." It was something like that, anyway. It was in Plato's "Apology of Socrates." Lou, wise or not, I'm not to judge. I do think, though, that you're a really good guy who came and helped me when I needed it to. I just want you to not take the blame for people not being here. If they can't tolerate the likes of *us* then we don't need them here because they're not *Marxists.* Take Care, Anthony J. Caruso acaruso-AT-juno.com --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005