________
>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.
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. My take on this is more that Marxist thought and speech is highly censored under capitalism. Although the ideal of freedom of speech has abated some of the government criminal censorship of Marxism. the non-legal deligitimization of Marxism through the power and money of the private sector is very thorough , though often covert or unconscious.
I say all of that to say that my impression is the opposite of yours. It seems to me that Marxism is stigmatized even on the Left. And therefore I make a special effort to be a sort of SNITMARXIST sometimes, assertive, you know, an agitator. The less agitational aspect is to make good points on issues and be demonstrative about the fact that the reasoning is Marxist.
These Snit dimensions may be why you interpret me as thinking only Marxism should be "spoken". But it is more like I am making sure that Marxism isn't silenced, which I think is the real and bigger problem in bourgeois countries such as ours..( I am not calling you bourgeois).
_______________ 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. ___________
Charles: I definitely agree with the first. I said so in an earlier post. I don't approach people on LBO as if they are Marxists. I assume most of them are not. Assuming they are not Marxist, I certainly do not cite Marx, Engels and Lenin as unique authorities to them. On the other hand, I feel it is important for me to be DEMONSTRATIVE (sort of making sure it is clear that I am ) that I am a Marxism because the history of redbaiting has made it necessary for Marxists to be underground so much and one result is a silencing of Marxism.
On the second point, I actually don't exactly agree. This is a bit subtle, but my opinion is that the issue of whether Marxism can be , as you say, pinned down is one of the disputes. In other words, some Marxists think Marxism CAN be "pinned down" more than other Marxists. It is more like hard science than bourgeois (not you !!! but I cannot be required to give up my technical vocab of classes ,etc.) social science. There are some more definite answers in Marxism than those of us in U.S. social science are taught to expect of social science.
If this is unclear let me know.
> 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? _____________
Charles: Take another example that came up on this thread. I am sorry I can't remember whether it was you or Frances that raised that I can't know the experience of a woman. This is true. I agree with this. It doesn't mean that I can't be a feminist, but it would be a lot harder for me to become a woman , and claim to understand a woman's oppression. For me to do it in an e-mail discussion of women's issues would be a hoax. It would be dishonest to my interlocutors.
Likewise, with respect to you taking on the role of a Black person in a discussion about Blackness and racism. You are likely to miss something that most Black people would not. Not too many Black people would react the way you did to what I said. I am not saying that they would agree with me, but their response would be different.
Anyway, I can usually tell. So, yea, you can try it, but then , when the Black person you are talking with finds out because you say something that gives you away, then there is going to be a problem about the hoax dimension.
You may be hinting at issues of identity and authenticity, but you will have to spell them out more if you want more response, because I am not exactly sure what they are. I guess I should reread your post discussing Harding. The above IS a common sense level, but it is cogent. It is certainly cogent if you want respect from Black interlocutors at an initial level.
If this is not clear let me know. I will read your post discussing Harding.
CB