> On a less serious note, and in response to
Charles
>Brown and some others, I suppose we could have an
>"oppressed peoples contest" on this list,
Oh I think not. How weak, as my son might say. But, you know Mr. Rosser, I was thinking just today that it is all quite interesting that no one seems to give one wit about the grrRls. We get to recite all our oppressed identities in order to what? -- I guess authenticate our claims to be involved in, to advocate, to theorize the struggles of historically oppressed people. All this talk of workers and workers' struggles, of African Americans, Mexicans, Indigenous peoples, why even disabled folks. And nothing NOTHING about the fact that women's *experience* of oppression is likely quite different from that of men. Oh what should I expect from a list filled with Marxists and those who are heavy users of Marx. [ (c) Sawicky] And the question as to whether I'm among the Marxist elect appears to have been settled by one Mr. Charles Brown, as he seems to be in the business of annointing the chosen few. (And he said he wasn't interested in playing "My hard on for Marx is bigger than yours" You are very coy Mr. Brown. But I'll admit that sometimes I do admire that in a buoy.)
Of course, this will be immediately attacked as a bit of identity politics of my own. But honestly, do you really think so. If one Lou Proyect can speculate about the potential for fascism among workers by engaging in an analysis of the effects of occupation/class location, then it seems to me that we might want to consider who predominantly fills those occupations. A lot of talk of service and clerical workers, no talk about the gendered structure of class inequality and what that might mean for the future of class struggle.
Well, back to regular programing comRods [(c) Paula]
SnitgrrRl