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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005