Charles you seem altogether too fond of declaring that everyone around you MUST be not Marxist if they don't agree with you, if they question you, ask you to clarify. How on earth do you know this about your interlocutors? Do you know anything about me? Frances? Have you ever read any of my posts or Frances' other than those in this thread? Or did you just write me/Frances off long ago as not behaving as you'd like and so of no import to you.
Once again, I'll repeat this for you. First off, I suggested (I wasn't arguing anything) that your position sounded a bit like the identity politics lark. My concern was motivated by a Marxist critique of identity politics, especially the superficial kind as I think that some theoretical work associated w/ identity politics might actually be useful to a marxist project. I indicated that early on.
I merely asked that you clarify. I wasn't attacking you in any way whatsoever. Yes, I realize that this is email; hence, the request for some clarification. When you clarified I readily accepted that yours was not identity politics. But again, how could I know? Your defense is that this is email. Well, given that, I'd think you'd be a little more understanding of misunderstandings and you might have simply responded with some clarification. Surely, you are aware that Black Liberation politics (along with other ethnic politics) are often too oriented toward a kind of identity politics that results in a kind of infinite regress toward claims of "i'm more oppressed than thou" And surely you must be aware that those who speak of Black Liberation often pose the issue as if there is only Black and white. Not everyone manages to speak of coalitions against white supremacy. Given that, you might want to consider how your claims might be interpreted on a list by someone who doesn't know much about you or what you stand for. Rather than seeing it as an attack, you need only respond with clarification. It's really quite simple.
And while you did this, you also got rather defensive and your defensive strategy included the oh-so-familiar tactics of 1] declaring your interlocutors to be not Marxist (and now you've ratcheted that up to the suggestion that I'm pro-Capitalist or somesuch nonsense 2] attempting to defend your position by recourse to your intimate familiarity with 'the struggle' both as an organizer and as someone with Black and Indian blood (implying, of course, that somehow your interlocuter is neither involved in 'the struggle' nor Black, nor Indian and therefore not quite authentic enough for you.
The problem with #1 of course is that Marxism takes on a religious like dogmatism in which the world is seen as a great binary between Marxists/non-marxists. Anyone who criticizes a marxist position is labeled as not-marxist. You're either with us or against us; you either tow/toe (?) the Marxist line (defined by whom I don't know) or you're a capitalist.
The problem with #2 is that you've made recourse to a politics of authenticity that works quite nicely with and shares an affinity with identity politics.
What a bunch of malarkey.
Oh and PS: yes I've read a ton of black feminist thought. It was about the only kind of feminism I could stomach for a long time. So get off your authenticity politics high horse and try, try really hard, to imagine that someone besides you reads and critically appropriates black feminist thought. And Charles, if a Black Man can be a black feminist, then why can't I. Why do you automatically assume that I'm not? Why must you assume that my intervention with Rosser wasn't motivated by precisely that? What is anyone who talks about women, feminisms, grrRls somehow automatically not speaking about or informed by Black Feminist Thought?