File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1998/marxism-thaxis.9803, message 667


Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 00:45:20 -0500
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Re: M-TH: The "Identity" Politics That Dares Not Speak Its Name


>In message <199803221842.NAA49256-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>,
>Robert Malecki <malecki-AT-algonet.se> writes
>> By the way Jim would you 
>>oppose a newspaper in Ebonics?
>
>Yes, I would certainly argue against it. Though I wouldn't favour it
>being banned.

Glad that you would not ban a paper in Ebonics.. I guess all those ghetto 
youth will have to learn English..This of course in light of Jim's standards 
and rules of engagement. Would you oppose a women's newspaper also?
>
>
>> It certainly was not victorian 
>>rules of enchangement. But of course living class struggle tends to explode 
>>in your face. Remember what those crude workers did to the Romanovs?
>
>I agree, though you should know that the bolsheviks often acted to
>prevent street justice in the early days of the revolution, because they
>felt, rightly, that lynchings and spontaneous executions would drag
>their new society down to the level of mob-rule.
>
>Lenin and Trotsky both were committed to raising up the standards of the
>working class. They considered the low cultural level of the Russian
>workers to be a real barrier to advance, and embarked on extensive
>educational and cultural programmes. Nor were these of an agit-prop
>character. Lenin in particular insisted that only the very highest
>culture was good enough for the new society, actively promoting such
>bourgeois inheritances as the ballet and the opera.

I agree to, but in its right context. Thus this question was raised after 
the seizure of power and not before..
>
>As you say:
>>
>>Naturally their is a back side of this stuff encompensated in the Stalinist 
>>Prolo culture which took extreme bizaar forms. 
>>
>>Have you got religion Jim? Cause you advocate the real possibility of 
>>seperating the mind from the body 
>
>>Ah yes Leo the sexless symbol of thaxis. How quaint. Are there any women on 
>>this list that believe what Jim is implying about Leo's words of his being a 
>>man is not a point? 
>
>I didn't put it very clearly. What I meant was something like this that
>Leo wrote
>
>In message <e0a8f867.35153f38-AT-aol.com>, LeoCasey <LeoCasey-AT-aol.com>
>writes
>> As an individual
>>who is bisexual, do I have a greater stake in issues of sexuality and sexual
>>orientation? Yes. Does that mean that my thoughts and analysis on those issues
>>necessarily have greater validity or insight than someone who does not share
>>my stake? I think not.
>
>....
>> In any case,
>>my arguments themselves should reflect whatever superior insight I may have,
>>and I am more than happy to let them speak for themselves.
>
>And, by logical extension, apply those same thoughts to the working
>class. Marx after all had no direct experience of the life of a worker
>(he did briefly get a job as a railway clerk, but couldn't hack it), but
>still had more insight into the position of the working class than many
>of its greatest militants - like the Silesian Weaver's leader Weitling
>to whom Marx once said in a rage 'ignorance never helped anyone'.
>-- 
>James Heartfield

Well, making lovely declarations citing letters from Marx will not be a 
bridge to the masses..Probably the reason trotsky thought it vital with 
transitional demands..


Warm regards
Bob



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005