I read the Alterman piece a week ago and remember some sour notes, logically speaking, but I'm not going to rehash it here. I think Nathan and Mike E. did a good job of putting the main issues in perspective, though as usual they are too ecumenical-- too solicitous of theoretical divisions which are fatal in practice.
Anyway, re: Henwood--
> If the pomoistas are fighting for the local working class in a
> concrete and
> important way, then why the slashing of the early part of the
> column? Maybe
> there's no conflict between "ending sexism, racism, or homophobia" and
> fighting a living wage campaign? Maybe sex and race have something to do
I think the point is that POMO ideology has nothing to do with their activism, that the latter says more for their good intentions then their intellectual exertions. The slash isn't at POMO activism, but in the vein of saying that POMO thought tends not to lead to activism of any sort, that it is anti-political because it is anti-practice and/or anti-majoritarian.
Majoritarian means a politics that is salient for the working class as a whole, and at least prioritizes matters that are directly in the interests of the working class as a whole (e.g., living standards).
> with the low pay of janitors. I spent 3 years in Charlottesville and I
> remember it as one of the most racially hierarchialized places I've ever
> been; a British friend said it reminded her of Johannesburg. And if you
> don't think sex and sexuallity have anything to do with the
> construction of
> race - in the hometown of Thomas Jefferson, where you can practically get
> arrested for mentioning the name Sally Hemmings - you need psychoanalysis.
Whatever sex has to do with race would seem to have little to do with practical politics, but I'm happy to be enlightened. I would say the need to structure economic status constructed race in the U.S. Probably gender too, but this verges on the primordial (precapitalist) and out of ignorance I would not presume to theorize about it more deeply.
Then Doug posted this snippet from Rorty:
"To bring this about, it would help if American leftists stopped asking whether or not Walter Reuther's attempt to bourgeoisify the auto workers was objectivly reactionary. It would also help if they emphasized the similarities rather than the differences between Malcolm X and Bayard Rustin, between Susan B. Anthony and Emma Goldman, between Catharine MacKinnon and Judith Bulter. The sectarian divisions which plagued Marxism are manifestations of an urge for purity which the Left would be better off without." (Rorty, Achieving Our Country, pp. 51-52).
and said:
"In other words we should stop thinking in the name of unity, which is a purity of sorts too."
Without offering any brief for Rorty, this passage seems pretty clear and different from your characterization. Rorty is talking about the preference for unity above purity, always a good practical consideration in politics, though I'm not sure we need either McKinnon or Butler to progress.
Alterman is wrong in stereotyping the political role of POMO's when they are not spouting their intellectual stuff, both because POMO's are political and some anti- or non-POMOs are not. I think he's right in suggesting POMO is anti-political as a theory, not because it is abstract (cf. Rakesh) but because it is junk.
>From partisans or defenders of identity politics, I'd
be curious to know how such politics is envisioned
to succeed in practice. Give us a scenario. From
what I can see we are offered moral absolutes, some
of which are compelling, some not, but in neither
case is the politics clear, except as a politics
of alienation--really a cultural stance or "life
style."
Louis said once that a particular situation was politically urgent because it was appalling. Without disagreeing about the appalling part, I'd have to disagree on the principle. Things are not urgent merely because they are horrible. They are urgent if they are both horrible and admit of some practical course of action--even a long shot. Political resources--as opposed to rhetoric (especially net rhetoric)--are scarce and costly, and those who possess them realize that one must economize on their use.
Tell me why a lot of the politics of long-run ecological catastrophe, indigenous peoples, race/gender/sexual orientation discrimination doesn't reduce to class-indifferent solutions (if not worse) or screaming into the wind. Being morally righteous and politically ineffectual. (Been there, done that.)
If I thought it worked, I'd go for it, believe me. At the very least, it would be better for my career.
Regards,
MBS