From: "Richard Singer" <ricinger-AT-inch.com> Subject: Re: [postanarchism] re: Race Traitor: "Abolish the White Race" Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 20:03:39 -0400 Spencer writes: > Thank you! Why is there so much microwaved marxism on this list anyway? It seems clear that, by the rejection of Marxist (here I am including non-Leninist class & mode -of-production-centrist theories as well) by every other primary contemporary social movement (i am thinking here of those which address sexuality, gender, environmentalism & ethnicity), that we need to move awwwwway from this view, hence the appeal of post-structuralism in general... > But doesn't autonmist Marxism also reject traditional mode-of-production-centrist approaches as well? For one thing, much of what I've read by autonomist Marxists seeks to take into account these other struggles of difference very much within the sort of dynamic that Jason describes. Also, autonomist Marxism (and newer, more innovative Marxism in general) does not focus on the traditional, physical means of production (e.g., the factory) as the only source of proletarian struggle but seeks to greatly broaden the concept of labor and notions about where and how labor exists (so that we have instead, e.g., the social factory). To me, the new Marxism is important (though much of it is over my head academically -- which leads me to wonder how it is ever supposed to reach the "masses" or the "multitude" outside of the Ivory Tower), precisely because it makes efforts to continue examining and confronting issues about class and labor that are neglected by most contemporary, mainstream social movements (as well as most anarchism, for that matter). On the other hand, by wishing to continue the examination of class composition and conflict, by focusing on class struggle, and by fully appreciating some of the still-very-relevant insights of Marx, this does not at all mean that they/we want to place a ridgidly defined concept of class struggle at the top of some linear hierarchy of causes. Richard P.S. One more point: I wouldn't judge the validity of any movement by the popularity among other social movements or lack thereof. I think most of our "primary" social movements and the people within them are far from transformative or revolutionary. The popularity or prevalence of a movement isn't equal to the potential of that movement to create revolution or real social change. In fact, unfortunately, many people within many of these movements can turn out to be ultimately reactionary. But it is really difficult to ascertain what approaches, exactly, are favored by these other social movements (or not) beause these movements are so broad. For instance, in the environmentalist movement, there is a strong element that seeks to combine environmental struggle with elements of Marxism and there is a strong anti-Marxist element, and there is a supposedly strong anti-Marxist, anti-workerist element that is actually grounded in many Marxist concepts, etc., etc.... > "The problem with Race Traitor is not the desire to abolish whiteness but > rather that ultimately there is no such thing as a > "fundamental" form of oppression that needs to be > abolished - this tired rhetoric of Race Traitor and > now of the Ruckus group in Arizona is really just the > mirror of mainstream workerist, feminist, > environmentalist and other rhetorics which seek to pin > down *the* main issue rather than accepting the > insight that there is no such thing, that all forms of > oppression have histories that are both autonomous and > interwoven; hence the relevance of a radical politics > of difference such as we have in poststructuralism and > contemporary anarchism." > > > "J.M. Adams" <ringfingers-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:Its true that Race Traitor calls for the abolition of > the white race (i.e., not actual human beings of > courese, but the abolition of the category and all of > its privileges and perhaps, lack thereof in the case > of "hillbillies") as the first and most fundamental > step to the unity of the working class in the context > of the United States - this is because they are > fundamentally Marxist (albeit unorthodox obviously) > and thus see the unity of the working class as the > primary goal of any revolutionary social movement. But > aside from this, if read critically and used in a > somewhat different way it does seem that their > argument that the white race is socially constructed > and based in the American racial history would be > amenable to those attracted to the subject matter of > this listerv, as certainly there is no such thing as a > "white" person, there is no "white" culture, other > than corporate consumer culture and thus abolishing > the so-called white race *would* "raise everyone up" > perhaps no one more than the hillbillies! My family is > originally from the part of southern Appalachia being > scoured right now by CBS for subjects to exploit in > that hideous "reality" show actually and it seems to > me that if there wasnt this dominant rhetoric of > whiteness in that region (the lore that everyone is > supposedly of "Scots-Irish" extraction) there may > actually be more recognition of the mixed race and > indigenous background that a very large percentage of > them have, such as the Melungeons or the Lumbees, etc. > (in the 1970s AIM went through this region and kicked > up a mini-resurgence of Native awareness) which would > then not only provide more of a possibility of unity > amongst poor people of all colors in the region but > also more of a long-term sense of history and > rootedness in the land that is being obliterated by > strip-mining on a daily basis. The problem with Race > Traitor is not the desire to abolish whiteness but > rather that ultimately there is no such thing as a > "fundamental" form of oppression that needs to be > abolished - this tired rhetoric of Race Traitor and > now of the Ruckus group in Arizona is really just the > mirror of mainstream workerist, feminist, > environmentalist and other rhetorics which seek to pin > down *the* main issue rather than accepting the > insight that there is no such thing, that all forms of > oppression have histories that are both autonomous and > interwoven; hence the relevance of a radical politics > of difference such as we have in poststructuralism and > contemporary anarchism. > > >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005