"activism" ///Henry , the Butcher of Chile///POMO CRITICISM

[Charles Brown]

>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 12/03 12:28 PM >>>
Alex LoCascio wrote:

>The fact of the matter is that most "activism" in this
>country IS reformist and NOT ideological.

And a lot of the "activists" I've come across are proudly, deeply
anti-intellectual - a perfect mirror image of those intellectuals who are
proudly, deeply anti-activist (e.g. Jameson's denunciation of Bob Fitch for
being an "activist"). An opposition that leads to the impoverishment of
both.

Doug

_______

Charles:

One great activist  said that
without revolutionary theory , there can
be no revolutionary movement (that is
activism). 

The dichotomy between activism and
intellectualism discussed on this thread
reflects ye olde antagonism between
predominantly physical and predominantly
mental labor (laborers of the
"hand" and "head") This contradiction is actually
originally almost identical with that
between exploited and exploiting
classes. So, some sensitivity to the
ancient snobbery of mental workers
is in order.

I am not saying that to be anti-intellectual.
I am an intellectual. It's just that non-intellectuals
feel looked down upon in this ancient but
persisting social theme. Sensitivity to
that is important in order for intellectuals
to become organic, that is truly
become or remain as a part of the working class.

Further, there seems to be a particular
anti-intellectual national  tradition in
the U.S. going back to the Know Nothing
political party and the like. Americans are proud of
their "keep it simple stupid" approach, and 
 the bourgeoisie exploit the
ancient antagonism above to promote
this and keep the scientific and critical 
consciousness of
the U.S. population low. It may also grow
out of the early Americans associating
higher learning with the snobbery of the European
ruling classes against whom they revolted.

Many American intellectuals, especially university
professors were organic and insurgent
intellectuals in the radical reform movement
of the 1960's and 70's. 






>>> Carl Remick <cremick at rlmnet.com> 12/03 11:49 AM >>>
>From the ever epigrammatic Henry Kissinger, cited in today's UK
Guardian:

"Nobody, it is said, has a grasp of international affairs like Henry
Kissinger. So, respectfully, a table of New York's finest diners,
assembled by Harry Evans, fell hush when Kissie turned to the topic of
the day. 'Of course Pinochet should go home,' he said. 'What's 6,000
people dead in two years - maybe 10 a day - I don't call that genocide.'
"
Carl Remick
__________

Charles: Wasn't that the original neo-liberal
triumphalism ?

_________

POMO CRITICISM
_________
Dennis R:
Critique isn't simply about disagreeing with other
thinkers, it's using their own insights to further the critical impulses

buried in their own works. Bricmont & Sokal just don't do this, their
attitude is, "These folks know nothing about the sciences" and basically

slam the post-structuralists for not being MIT logicians.

Ingrid:
Well, I must admit that I didn't realize that critiques need always be
so positive and helpful.  I still believe for now that B&S were quite
measured in their "slam" on post-structuralists; and I still think it's
perfectly valid to point out where certain posties misapply and misuse
mathematics and the natural sciences in their arguments.


Charles: This is the responsibility of
constructive criticism.  Progressive
criticism seeks to extract the rational
kernel and build on the insights of the
criticized.


Charles Brown

Detroit