From: christi-ann-AT-juno.com
Subject: M-I: Pass the Prozac, I'm Panicky
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:23:50 EDT




On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:00:06, -0500 LKED54B-AT-prodigy.com (MS DEB P KELSH)
writes:

>
>Christi-Ann. . . believes that the rigorous debate in the 
>revolutionary left simply strengthens the capitalists who see 
>divisions etc. as "weakness."  Discussions and rigorous critiques, 
>however, are part of serious engagement with issues:  they are not 
>signs of sectarianism but commitment to social change. 

I never said in any of my posts that debate in and of itself is divisive
and makes the capitalists see us as weak.  In fact, I'm all for debate.

However, what you are doing is not 'debate'.  You claim that your way of
thinking is the only proper thought, and that any other opinion is
counter-revolutionary.  That is sectarianism, and sectarianism divides
the left movement.

>  By relentless critique the vanguard left marks the space of its 
>practices and places them in the public space for democratic 
>interrogation and inquiries.

Interrogation?!  What, is some government official gonna tie me up in a
chair, shine a light in my face, and try to make me spill my guts?  Oh,
please, spare me.

> capitalism must be doubly heartened by the dissents and debates among
the workers (e.g., conflicts on contracts, strikes. . . .)

Of course they are; anyone can see that.  Witness the big brouhaha over
Borders, where management took the legitimate concerns of a few of their
employees who had problems with unions (most likely based on some unions'
ties to organized crime) and then and then used spin doctoring to make it
sound like everyone was happy with the way things were going and the ones
that wanted the union were troublemakers.  In the mainstream press, the
good guys were made out to be monsters, and the bad guys were martyrs.

I could even use my own experience (yes, experience...you'll never truly
know how bad things are in the real world for us working class folks
until you go out and live it yourself) regarding labor unions.  The head
of the local that represented us was more concerned about getting a free
lunch during contract negotiations than actually caring about us; that's
why our contracts were only for a year, whereas the contracts he worked
out for the other companies he represented (all soda bottlers) were at
least 2 years.  He didn't try to do anything to stop the layoff that
occurred 6-7 months before the final plant closure, and he wasn't too
concerned about the plant closure either.

With labor leaders like that, does it surprise you that more than half of
the content of their union magazine consisted of legal transcripts of
members they kicked out for dealing with the Mob?  (By now it should be
obvious to everyone which union I'm talking about).

With all that being said, it still doesn't change the fact that you claim
that your group is the only one that has all the answers, and it doesn't
change the fact that opinions like that drive us, whom you ostensibly are
trying to help, away.

> The language of critique must be complex enough, layered >enough to be
able to analyze the highly sophisticated, nuanced >and elaborate
constructs of ruling class practices and ideas. 

Oh really?  I can sum up the 'highly sophisticated, nuanced and elaborate
constructs of ruling class practices and ideas' in one sentence. 
Watch...

The Ruling Class Golden Rule:  Those that have the gold, make the rules.

That's it in a nutshell. 

>To demand that critique be "translated" into a commonsensical >language
is to systematically reduce its analytical ability:  

Let me ask you something.  When you're sick and go to the doctor, does
your doctor explain what's wrong with you using medical terminology, or
does he use 'commonsensical language'?  
While he or she might tell you the clinical name for your ailment, unless
you happen also to be a doctor, he or she will tell you about your
condition in laymans terms.  That way, you will understand what's going
on, and how you can participate in treatment.  

Does the fact that the doctor uses laymans terms in any way change the
diagnosis, or make it wrong?  No.  Neither would discussing ways to
improve society for the working class be changed or made wrong if you
used words that we understood.  How do you expect the working class to
get together and revolt unless there is a common sense way of exchanging
ideas?

>with such a linear understanding of the world, the left not 
>only is not able to offer a counter-practice, it is the laughing 
>stock of all thoughtful people. 

A linear understanding of the world.  It's called reality.  Try it,
you'll like it.

> No one--outside net-left--will take Uncle Lou's comments as >anything
but vacuous stories, entertaining but irrelevant. . .


And I suppose that locking yourself in the confines of a university,
never doing anything more strenuous than putting pen to paper and writing
twenty-word sentences when a five-word sentence would do just as well is
so much more relevant than the experience of someone who actually has to
face the horrors of capitalism every day of their lives.

Christi-Ann


Love must be tried and tested and proved.  It must be tried as
though by fire.  And fire burns.
--  Dorothy Day


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---