>>> "K" <d-m-c at worldnet.att.net> 11/20 7:30 AM >>>
Charles wrote:
>I am not in an academic setting.
>I am in the real world struggle.
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: real world/academe is a rough approximation of reality like all concepts and binary oppositions. I first heard it when I was in academe. It was the academics who made the distinction.
Of course, academe is part of real society. Universities and colleges are capitalist institutions.
Academe is real in the sense that it is in material reality.
But briefly, I would say that academe is more a world of ideas. Consciousness is more determining of things than outside of academe. There is not the full range of types of experience as outside of academe. Student/teacher is a major relationship, whereas outside of academe this is a minor relationship. Reading and writing as activities are a much bigger percentage of the time in academe than outside.
Problems of the outside world are solved theoretically in academe and must be tested empirically outside of academe because practice is the ultimate test of theory. _________
>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: It is not totally dissociated from the real world. But the activities in academe involve much more predominantly mental labor than elsewhere where there is a greater aspect of physical labor and conduct not so heavily measured against thought.
_________
>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 ________
Charles: Yes, I reread my post and yours that proceeded. I think you overstate my criticism. I said I am "down with" you and bel hooks approach. That is Black English for "I support it. It is good". But you specifically mentioned the middle class. Marxism doesn't teach antagonism to the middle classes. In fact, a rev. time the working class must pull the middle class to itself. However, Marxism does not put equal emphasis on working with the middle class and working with the working class. This is a definite characterisitc of Marxism.
Academe and the middle class must be part of the revolution, but the main revolutionary agent are the working class and the population outside of academe. ________
>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. __________
Charles: Yes , I am aware of these, but it is not necessary for me to mention them everytime I speak regarding a pro-Black approach. The first thing that comes to my mind when I discuss a pro-Black position is not that I must be sure and differentiate what I am saying from "off" versions of what I am saying. There are bad versions of every theory. But a good theorist is not obligated to recite the bad versions of their theory everytime they assert their good theory , especially in an e-mail post where the discussion is very brief.
This is especially true of pro-Black theory that is so maligned in our racist society. It is , in fact, important for asserters of pro-Black theory not to write in an uncertain and self-second guessing manner.
_________
>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. ________
Charles: Yes, we are clarified now.
You can critque my views.I usually have a comment in response :>)
____________
>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. _________
Charles: I think taking on different intellectual positions is ok. However, in this case it became confusing, I thought, because of this confusion over who has the biggest hardon for Marx. I wasn't sure whether you were trying to say you were not a Marxist and so my mention of Marxism didn't impress you , or, as it seems later on in your discussion that you are something of a Marxist, but not as much ( "as big a hard on") as me. At one point in the exchange I was responding as if you meant the first. It seems you actually meant more of the second.
Bottomline, I have no problem with your trying on different approaches. (Who am I to say anyway), but our exchange was confused by the uncertainty in my opinon.
I guess I would say, if it is sort of your initial address to someone, you might want to let them know that you are experimenting with different points of view, otherwise it is difficult to figure out where you are coming from. _________________
> 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. _________
Charles: Yes, perhaps this is clear with my replies above ? Let me say though that the extreme debates over what exactly Marxism is, are not subscribed to by all Marxists, including me. There is some debate, but not as much as the more intellectual wing sometimes has. This relates to the heavy intellectualness of academe. Some Marxists outside of academe consider this a petit bougeois influence. No attack on you personally meant by that. But we can't exactly give up this critique because some people protest. Again nothing personal to you at all.
There's a more extensive discussion of this , as I am sure you know. if you want to extend this point of discussion lets do it. ______________
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. _________
Charles: I don't demand this. I have to go now , but will finish this reply when I get back.
more later,
Charles Brown
_________________________
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