I don't care to respond in detail to the rather rambling message below. There are plenty of cheap beers and wines not made by Gallo or Coors. And yes I am well aware that most products are produced under shitty conditions. This really misses the point. We supported the South Africa boycotts to achieve particular ends. We know coors and Gallo are swine, just as we knew the racists in So. africa were swine. So we acted accordingly. Pretty simple really.
As for the spice girls, listen to them or any group you want. Who cares? But I wouldn't waste much time trying to ferret out any radical implications of them or their music.
BTW, Ive fought for faculty unions and for the end of exploitation of adjuncts and part-timers from the time I was an untenured instructor. And I worked for the Farmworkers Union so I saw Gallo firsthand.
mike yates
K wrote:
>
> Mike Yates complained:
>
> >Friends,
> >
> >Why in the f***k would you buy Gallo wine?
> That's like buying Coors
> >beer. When you know that a supplier is an
> outright union-busting swine,
> >why support it?
>
> Mike,
>
> I respect your point, to some degree. But perhaps
> you might want to think about the situations that
> might prompt someone to buy gallo/coors/etc.
> Perhaps it's because not everyone has the luxury
> of making politically correct purchases? What do
> you say to someone who must survive on
> $9000/yr--$14000 w/ the child support for one
> child? I don't know about Chuck's situation when
> he was living in the midwest, but I gathered from
> reading his post that it was when he was a student
> years ago and probably in a similar situation. I
> personally, make more per hour on an adjunct's
> salary than I've ever made in my life, so that
> ought to tell you something about the fact that
> I'm not just appealing to a temporary form of
> poverty called the grad stud/adjunct life.
>
> I do try to make purchases that don't reinforce
> union- busters and the like, but it is *not*
> always easy, not only because it generally more
> expensive but also *time consuming* and
> time--least my time--is extraordinarily limited as
> I try to teach two courses per semester, spend
> sev'l hours commuting each week, write a
> dissertation, keep up with the lit, write articles
> for publication & conferences [Hey, I have an
> idea: let's talk about the ways in which tenured
> profs are standing by silently and non-commitally
> as adjuncts get the squeeze. Not saying that you
> do this, just that I find it an extremely
> interesting topic.] and attend to my child and
> other family members in something more than a
> cursory way.
>
> [There, I think I've covered every angle in order
> to legitimate my voice a more authentically
> oppressed than yours. That was a bit of
> self-ironic observation Mike (and others). I was
> making fun of myself and my litany of claims to
> authentic working class identity. ]
>
> Frankly, the only people I've ever heard get in a
> snit over what people purchase because the firm is
> a union buster, sexist, racist, etc are people who
> have a comfortable income. I always find the
> criticism an extraordinarily
> bourg-posing-as-progressive response. More to the
> point, as I elaborate below, I don't see how it is
> a particularly 'progressive' form of politics. It
> smacks of the conundrums of the "Buy American"
> logo espoused by the unions.
>
> Some folks on this list appeared not to like B.
> Ehrenreich. Well, I think she had some pretty
> astute observations about how food is used as a
> bludgeon in class warfare, a symbolic marker of
> class distinction. B.E. was complaining about the
> go-go 80s yuppies. Well I say she might have
> turned a critical eye toward the professional
> middle class who make their living, not on Wall
> St, but in the groves of left/radical academe as
> they go on about tofu pups, olive oil, *cheap*
> mustard, and politically correct purchasing power.
>
> But another point to raise is this: It's likely
> *impossible* to avoid buying products that haven't
> been through, at some point, a union-busting firm
> (or a racist/sexist one) in the production and
> distribution process. I recall an amusing story
> about Berkeley's attempt to ban the purchase of
> fuel from offensive gasoline distributors. This
> meant that everyone of the distributors in
> Berkeley was found offensive somehow. They ended
> up going out of town to buy gas--from an offensive
> distributor.
> My points: *are* there any firms that aren't
> union busters, at some point along the line
> insofar as they themselves aren't union busters,
> aren't affiliated with union busters, don't buy
> from union busting suppliers or rely on union
> busting firms to distribute and market their
> products. Honestly. This isn't some lame defense
> of my inability to actually afford politically
> correct foods; it's a real, honest question. I'd
> really like to know if this is possible and if
> it's at all affordable for the average consumer.
> Which is to say, I'm challenging you on the merits
> of your tactics to achieve a more just society,
> getting from here to there so to speak.
>
> Perhaps someone could provide me with a shopping
> list of what are the appropriate foods to
> purchase. I'll go out and round up the prices--a
> market basket survey of sorts. One basket filled
> with the "right" foods/bevs, the other with what I
> can afford on my grocery budget.
>
> Mike also wrote:
>
> >Friends,
>
> >Here you are taking a groupe that was concocted,
> no doubt by men, to
> >sell records, etc. plain and simple. About as
> radical as you can get.
> >right. If the level of discussion cannot rise
> higher than this,we are
> >in trouble. If you want to see how radical the
> girls and boys who
> >listened to this crap get when they are older,
> come visit my classes.
>
> Well, hmmm, me thinks we are in the same boat here
> as the politically correct list of foods and
> beverages. Which is to say, are there any points
> of escape, any havens free of
> capitalist/gender/racial oppression?
>
> As I understand it, while they were indeed
> originally the result of a talent search sponsored
> by music industry honchos, they ditched their
> original management team and took more control
> over the ways in which their music and images were
> produced and represented. Which, of course,
> brings me to the question you raise, though not
> quite in the way I'll spin it here: So what, if
> *men* produced them? It appears that with a fair
> amount of control over their own production they
> produced what appears to be highly exaggerated
> sexist images of conventional, less than radical
> femininity. In other words, even if women are in
> control of the record companies/entertainment
> industry, it isn't necessarily the case that more
> progressive images of women will suddenly erupt
> from the entertainment industry. So that leaves
> us with the culprit: capitalism. But now we are
> back where we started: how do we escape? Just
> not listen to or buy any of it? Is the only
> option to simply withdraw from the entire system
> and is that even possible?
>
> Shall we construct a hierarchy of politically
> correct music that folks are allowed to listen to?
> Who decides? Who polices? More importantly, what
> groups are available--mass consumption-wise--to
> listen to that *aren't* produced mostly by men in
> order to sell records. Of course, I could only
> ever listen to local live artists of various
> genres--the do-it-yourself (DIY) kind--and I do,
> but then I have to pay too--generally--cause
> *someone* has to make money in this process and
> lord knows these folks are probably bound up w/
> some sort of disgusting firm that is a union
> buster/sexist/racist/etc or advertises repellent
> products that are affiliated w/ union
> busters/sexism/racism/etc.
>
> I extend my sincerest SnitgrrRl apologies for
> having raised an issue that folks on this list
> think is unworthy of discussion. I just wasn't
> thinking, I guess, and I'm truly sorry that I've
> lowered us to the gutter--to the point of talking
> about something *other* than the state of the
> economy, financial markets, and legitimate radical
> concerns which I guess are *only* worker's
> struggles. Funny, though, I kinda took to heart
> the introductory LBO message, to wit:
>
> "I hope this list will be a forum for speaking
> across intellectual and social boundaries that
> have divided the left, such as it is, for too
> long. Among these oppositions I'd like to see
> worked through are ones like class/identity,
> cultural politics/"real" politics,
> Marxism/postmodernism, universal/particularist,
> activism/theory, economics/culture, nature/labor;
> nature/culture, and labor/culture."
>
> Lest anyone think I like the SGs music or agree
> that they are somehow radically intervening in the
> system of gender oppression, let me say that I
> heartily despise the SGs and the argument that
> they are. I don't even like the Madonna is
> radical argument, Doug. Indeed, most of my
> intellectual and political activities focus on the
> economy and political interventions at the point
> of production: I do socioilogy of work and the
> economy/social inequality. My dissertation was a
> case study of managers who've survived downsizing
> in a firm are reinforcing anit union organizing
> sentiments and have heightened subtle class
> warfare tactics in the office/shop floor, despite
> the fact that the very downsizing process had
> originally radicalized them to the point that they
> said that they were beginning to understand the
> need for unions. I'm currently working on a
> project on how first time home buyers and their
> real estate agents "buy and sell the American
> dream"
>
> So, no, I'm not some poMo/nster who thinks that
> there's no use in political economic analyses.
> It's what I often live and breath which is why I
> do like to talk about something other than the
> state of the economy, etc and I do think that it
> worth thinking about political interventions at
> some point other than the point of economic
> production. I generally don't find these social
> movements, especially radical and I much prefer to
> work with unions and the like. However, the point
> that prompted this whole exchange was Marx's claim
> that critical theory must attend to the "struggles
> and wishes" of the age in order to highlight to
> radical potential of those movements through
> critical engagement with them--rather than mere
> dismissal of them as unimportant and irrelevant.
>
> Again, perhaps this post is a little rude, but I
> felt that your posts were dismissive as well. I
> send this to the list with the hope of generating
> more discussion and am sincere about the questions
> I raise.
>
> SnitgrrRl