What is it about academia that isn't 'real' ? Why is the real world privileged over the supposedly unreal world of academia?
If Charles won't tell me I wish someone else would.
>Charles: Academic teaching and theorizing
>must play a role in what I am describing, but
>there must be a unity of theory and practice,
>practical-critical activity in the real world.
But again, in what sense is academia NOT the real world? In what sense is the work of teachers dissociated from the real world.
>Charles: I'm down with that part of
>you and bel hooks approach.
>I am a little more focussed on
>the working classes, as I am
>a Marxist-Leninist.
Goshes I didn't realize that working with the children of the middle class and upper middle class means that I can't be a Marxist. And goshes I didn't know that working with these young people precludes me from engaging in marxist political practice in the "real" world
>Something is wrong with your theory that
>you would jump to the conclusion that
>a pro-Black position has any conflict
>with a pro-Mexican/Chicana, pro-world
>wide national liberation perspective
>against especially Gringoism.
You do know Charles that there *are* versions of black political thought that operate solely at the level of race and lack a class analysis. Indeed, there are some versions that vehemently reject attempts to speak to class analysis. Just as there are several versions of feminism that operate w/o an analysis of class. Just as there are marxist analyses that subsume race and prioritize class. If you are unaware of this, many apologies.
>To say someone is
>exocticizing the other, providing
>fertile soil for comodification, and completely
>blind to any sort of critical examination of
>where this 'blackness' comes from, and
>dangerous in relation to Mexicano,
>Chicano, Puerto Rican, Filipino,Chinese
>etc is not "nice" and anyone who says it
>should reasonably expect an argument
>in response.
Exactly, Charles. Which is why I typed a response to you to begin with. I enjoyed the argument very much. I was only annoyed that you insisted on privileging the 'real world' against the academic world and insisted on implying that my concerns weren't motivated by Marxist critique of *some* versions of black political thought, which as I've already noted, I was quick to dissociate from *your* views. I was very much trying to move this away from *your* views.
>In general, a problem with responding
>SnitgrrRl's discussion is that her hypothetical
>taking on positions or "identities" for the
>sake of argument.
What exactly is wrong with taking on 'identities' by which I think you mean intellectual positions? Is that different from a white trying to become Black? I suspect it is, but I was interested in hearing what you have to say.
> Specifically, her discussion
>is to the effect of "maybe" I am a Marxist
>maybe not, but I am not as much of a Marxist
>as you but why do you keep saying
>I am not a Marxist.
I was merely pointing out that I disliked the tactic of declaring or implying others not Marxist or labeling their typings "petit bourgeois" It would be one thing if you happened to know, in detail, what I think, what I do, what I teach, how I engage in political practice. But since you do not know these things, then I think such tactics are suspect and not especially productive as there are a variety of Marxist positions. Indeed the history of Marxist thought is rife with debate over what exactly Marxist thought is/not.
I am fairly certain that one purpose of this list is to explore the varieties of Marxist thought and, in fact, I know that the purpose of this list is to bridge the fissures that have characterized *Left* political thought. As such, it seems to me that your demand that only marxism be spoken here is highly problematic. Not only is it problematic on the grounds that LBO is supposed to be broader than Marxism (concerned with Left politics in general), it is problematic on the grounds that Marxism cannot be pinned down in the way you seem to wish that it could.
> Next she goes "
>what if I was a Black woman " Well,
>yea , but lets start with what you are.
Why is that important. I'm entirely serious here and hope you'll do me the favor of a reply. Why does it matter what I am or, more precisely, say I am?
SnitgrrRl