>>> "K" <d-m-c at worldnet.att.net> 11/18 10:34 AM >>>
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. _________
Charles: It would be a lot simpler to discuss this if you say whether or not you are a Marxist. It's fine not to be a Marxist. Most people aren't.
To me you seem "altogether too fond of " leaping to unwarranted conclusions about what I have declared. Exactly where did I declare that "everyone around me must be not Marxist if they don't agree with me, question me, or ask me to clarify ? Show me the posts where I do this.
What I do is comment on posts. I don't make general declarations about your Marxism.
As I recall this exchange began with you commenting on a post I sent to someone else by saying that what I was saying was uncritical, exoticization of the other and dangerous. My reply did not declare that you are not a Marxist. It discussed the source of "Blackness" in Black history in Marxist terms (you had said something about the lacking of the Blackness I was discussing, feeling good about Blackness as exoticization of the other and lacking critical depth or the like) You leaped to the claim that I declared you not Marxist, was socalled annointing people as a Marxist elite et al.
I am not going to stop using Marxist arguments to avoid you thinking I am declaring you as or as not a Marxist. Otherwise, people could censor Marxist argumentation in that way.
I'll put it this way. I am not declaring on your Marxist status. I am making Marxist critiques of your posts , because I am a Marxist.
___________
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. ________
Charles: Let me repeat that what you said was that what I said was dangerous and you claimed I was exoticizing the other and ignoring or insulting Mexicans, Chinese and other non-Black oppressed national groups. You said nothing about what you say immediately above.
_______
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. _________
Charles: So do you have your 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" _____________
Charles: No, I do not agree with this. This sounds exactly like something I thought I was dealing with. A version of contemporary left liberal theory that is actually in line with Reaganite denial of racism. It actually "critiques" Black Liberation politics as if it has discovered some new more progressive approach than the classical left approach of respect for the Black Liberation movement. Are there very many Black people that you know who agree with the idea that Black Liberation politics has a problem with falling into an infinite regress of "i'm more oppressed than thou" ? This is exactly where I thought your post was sort of coming from, and let me say I disagree with you. I think the infinite regress socalled problem you mention is not a problem or error by oppressed people struggling, but a form of 80's/90's attack on national liberation and anti-racist movements.
_________
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. ________
Charles: If you want a clarification, ask for a c-l-a-r-i-f-i-c-a-t-i-o-n. If you want an argument, say what I am saying is "dangerous". That's simple too. Common sense even.
As far as some problem of posing things in Black and white terms, no I don't recognize that as a major problem.
The whole series of liberation movement generated in the sixties was largely based on the Black liberation movement taking the point position. Progressive womens' , Chicana, Indigenous etc.liberation movement activists who I have talked with for years recognize this. They don't get hungup with Black activists framing things in Black/white terms, because they know that that is a non-existent problem and that in the main all oppressed groups usually gain when Blacks make breakthroughs. Historically, Black liberation has been the battering ram for other liberation movements and students of history in those movements know it.
Anyway, you broke in on a thread where the issue had been framed as Black/white. I don't think I framed the issue. I was responding to a thread that had already been started by someone else. Also, I was quoting Dubois, who discussed the Black/white specific conflict. My mention that this is e-mail was to point out that the discussion is not a comprehensive thesis on race and nationality in general. So, the language might be abbrieviated in terms of the greater complexities. If I was writing a book I would probably mention that other oppressed groups might use Dubois' thinking by analogy.
_____________
And while you did this, you also got rather defensive _______
Charles: By the way, I do not subscribe to the current popular critique that someone's replies are "defensive". I defend myself all of the time and do not think it an indicator of some fantom weakness that declarants of "you are being defensive" seem to think it is. My response to those who say you are being defensive is "it's because you are attacking". ________
and your defensive strategy included the oh-so-familiar tactics of 1] declaring your interlocutors to be not Marxist ______
Charles: Please copy and resend the post where I declared my interlocutors to be not Marxist. I don't recall saying that. Lots of people on this list are not Marxists. It is not a Marxist list. It is a Left list. But I don't even call people on Marxist lists not Marxist. So, send the post where I said someone is not Marxist.
Or if you don't have the posts, I will send you all in our exchange.
By the way, my making an argument in response based on Marxist concepts doesn't count. Otherwise , it would be too easy to censor my arguments based on Marx. __________
and now you've ratcheted that up to the suggestion that I'm pro-Capitalist or somesuch nonsense ________
Charles: Please send a copy of the post where I do this too. ________
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. __________
Charles: It went more like, I was discussing Black is beautiful and feeling good about being Black and suggested that white people become Black. Then you said that was exoticizing the other, dangerous and slighting non-Black people of color. I mentioned (briefly since this is e-mail) that I am an Indian in a way to suggest to you that my pro-Black approach doesn't conflict with being pro-other oppressed groups struggles. Then you asked what does my grandfather telling me I am part Indian have to do with it and Frances chimes in that it doesn't demonstrate anything on the point for which I said it. And then I replied that it did, and in any case , it is an example of white supremacy , if she is white, for her to question the significance of that grandfatherly background of mine in the issues under discussion; and it would take an Indian to have the standing to raise such a question with me. Really, when I explain this kind of thing to Indians or Black people, they understand right away. White arrogance is such a common experience for both Blacks and Indians. Want to try that ? I could raise this whole thing with Blacks and Indians and get their comments.
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. _______
Charles: I know the type of thing you are saying. but if you mean I treat Marxism like a religion, no I don't . If you want a clarification, I will elaborate in a later post. Basically, I have studied the nature of religion and dogma , and that of science and critical thinking. I am about the most critical thinker I know. THE main warners against religious , non-critical thinking are Marx, Engels and Lenin. Marxism is not a dogma , but a guide to action. This is such a common comment from left liberals about Marxism. It is a main form of left anti-communism. I can argue it in Spades. I wouldn't want you to think this is a dogmatic declaration ,so if you want a long CRITICAL discussion of it let me know.
________
Anyone who criticizes a marxist position is labeled as not-marxist. ________
Charles: Let me ask you this. Are you or are you not a Marxist ? What is so bad about being a not-marxist ? Most of the people on this list consider themselves not-Marxist from what I can tell. Most people, including working class people are not-Marxist. Any Marxist who is not ready to deal with not-Marxists is an extreme sectarian and out of touch with reality.
It is a falsehood that I go around declaring people not-Marxist. What do they care if they are not Marxist. What I do is try to demonstrate the rationality of Marxism by using it in my argumentation.
I don't at all think that people who are not Marxists give two shits about the fact that their arguments are not-Marxists. By definition, not- Marxists have no special respect for Marxism as authority. ____
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. _______-
Charles: Well on the last, most not-Marxists are not capitalists ,since capitalists constitute a very small percentage of the total population and most people period are not- Marxists.
On the with us or against us stuff, this is not at all Leninism ( that is not a declaration of YOUR status; it is a response to your implication that I make the simple with us or against us move). Lenin, in _Leftwing Communism, an Infantile Disorder_ argued against such a narrow and sectarian approach. I agree with him. The vast majority of people I work WITH in political struggle are not-Marxist and they are 'with us not against us'.
__________
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.
________
Charles: clarification please. I don't use this paradigm.
__________
What a bunch of malarkey. _________
Charles: no comment
___________
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? ________
Charles: I said white people should become Black and you thought it was dangerous. So, are you saying you took the dangerous step. I didn't say you couldn't become a Black feminist. Especially if you think about what I am telling you in this exchange.
A Black feminist would not think of what I was proposing as exoticization of the other or dangerous or slighting other oppressed national groups. So I had strong evidence from your post that you were not a Black feminist.
Alright, are you a Black feminist ? Do you consier
Why must you assume that my intervention with Rosser wasn't motivated by precisely that? _______
Charles: I don't recall this exact intervention.
What is anyone who talks about women, feminisms, grrRls somehow automatically not speaking about or informed by Black Feminist Thought? ________
Charles: They aren't "automatically". It wasn't automatic. It is just that the vast majority of Black people would not have needed the type of clarification that you did,so I took a wild guess that you are not Black. Being informed by Black Feminist Thought is not the same thing as being Black. Are you saying you are a Black feminist or informed by the thought ?
Charles Brown
All Power to the People