secondly, it's probably not a good idea to bring debates from other lists without providing the proper context. it's not clear to me what interest that debate would be here at m-fem in the first place. it's not as if anyone here likely has doubts about the need for abortion on demand. i already told martha gimenez a few months ago that i found it deeply problematic for folks to forward comments from other lists to m-fem simply for the purpose of holding them up for ridicule. if steve perry's post on lbo is supposedly an example of sexism, then i hardly think that m-fem is the place to worry about it since i don't think anyone subscribed has a problem identifying sexism. if the forward is for the purposes of raising further discussion that's probably a fine idea.
that said, some clarification.since i was doing two things in that post:
1. replying to a problem max sawicky posed about the practical exigencies of getting from here to there given the character of interest group politics in the US. his question was abstract in the sense that, at lbo, we've often gotten frustrated with "ruthless critique" commentary that seems to predominate, while little discussion is given to pragmatic thought about what to do in order to accomplish our goals. as marx, said the question of wherefore is easy, the question of where to is the stumper. that is the problem, i think, underlying disputes over who is really a marxist/feminist or not. in any event, not content to leave it purely abstract, max provided a specific example, the Labor Party's concession to objections about abortion. The compromise wasn't that awful, but it surely wasn't as far as many would like to have taken it. [i.e., we would have liked to have been more explicit with a direct statement in support of abortion on demand, no doubt]. he wondered how leftist who invariably support socialized HC would be able to work together on formulating a position and political strategies if, as we know, some leftist groups and activists don't support abortion on demand. they may support abortion as it is now, but they want some restrictions. this is evident, is it not? the question was a particularly good one because, sure, it's easy to work w/ people who don't support abortion when it comes to unionizing or plant closing legislation or fighting racist police policing or ending capital punishment. but it isn't so easy when it comes to the question of state funding of abortion.
2. and what prompted my reply primarily, the real raison d'etre for that post were concerns raised by eric and steve--people who've said they support liberal abortion rights. both were responding to what they felt were yoshie's and carrol's callous characterization of abortion as akin to an appendectomy. while i understand why carrol and yoshie want to use this language and i don't, personally, have a problem with it, i do understand all too well why using that approach isn't particularly persuasive. nor is it especially persuasive, in a context like lbo, to swiftly characterize any questions or concerns, particularly from people who are *ON OUR SIDE*, as automatically [always already?] patriarchal, sexist, anti-feminist, misogynistic
i'm a bit arrogant, but i do think i did far more to convince eric and steve by avoiding that sort of posturing. maybe i'm just a big wimp? that would explain the arrogance, of course. who knows?
in general, and this relates to the questions doug raised with andy, i have a couple of comments. firstly, in a context like lbo where there is a diverse group of ppl who think of themselves typically as liberal or left and presumably much like places most of us work in and interact with others on a daily basis, what good does it do us to be so incredibly hostile and dismissive of legitimate questions about various positions we take out here? what is the point of posturing in a way that suggests that the person who takes issue with you is somehow irredeemably unenlightened and likely incorrigibly ignorant? what is the point of, likewise, characterizing that person as clearly an enemy to whatever you happen to be for, be it marxism, feminism, anarchism, anti-racism, the sociological perspective, socialism, etc? further, what good does it do you if, in rendering the claims above, you then characterize the other person with epithets that you can't help but know are insulting and, often, just plain wrong: liberal, bourgeois, democratic socialist, patriarchal, anti-feminist, sexist, racist, nationalist?
finally, as i suggested above, i think where it matters most with regard to what kind of feminist, marxist, anti-racist one is is wrt how you think we ought to get from here to there. i have argued at lbo before that theory and practice are related and not accidentally so. that is, while theory doesn't dictate practice, theory is *conceptually related* to practice in the same way that ontology is related to epistemology: how we conceptualize what we know is conceptually related or systematically and predicatbly related to how we conceive of and how we know and that knowledge shapes the constraints and opportunities we think we have for engaging in and pursuing particular kinds of political practice. so doug's question, andy, matters a great deal. it's not simply and shouldn't simply be about hurling epithets but about making clear why being a failed marxist, feminist, anti-racist matters in terms of political practice. furthermore, what also counts here is not simple practice but what is *practicalbe*. as carrol likes to point out, more often than we'd like there are tremendous constraints upon what we can do and say in order to convince others of the need for marxist analyses and the eradication of capitalism.
andy, you point to wall st. as somehow an example of a book that is not exemplary of marxist analysis. i'd like to know why. furthermore, what exactly would you have written or what would you change in order to make it marxist enough?
kelley
Carrol wrote:
>
>>Socialized (or single payer) health care exists only in those advanced
>>capitalist countries where it was achieved *before* the insurance
>>industry achieved its present political strength. I have encountered
>>few left prophecies so wildly optimistic as this one. I hope Kelley is
>>right, but I suspect revolution would be easier than getting
>>socialized medicine through Congress.
>