Are you with believe it or not ?
I think one thing we might focus on these days is doing some detective work on tracking down anti-abortion terrorists.
Charles
>>> Ripley <d-m-c at worldnet.att.net> 02/07 11:56 PM >>>
There was a thread about IQs, but I'm thinking this one ought to be too,
cause I'm starting to feel really Ripley here.
Picture this: Someone fairly familiar with standard Marxist theory on class exploitation and oppression subs to LBO. She asks about the Marxist position regarding affirmative action thinking that perhaps AA is a rather bourgeois liberal approach to racism. She, of course, assumes that any good Marxist would be an anti-racist, but wonders if there have been any Marxist screeds written lately that defend AA (or not) and relate it to class struggle, class analysis, etc as opposed to the multi-culti argument, the equality of opportunity argument, the 'historical oppression' argument, etc.
Do y'all think that an adequate reponse would be either 1] of course, the Marxist Position on Affirmative Action is an obvious no-boner, we's all anit-racists here silly one or 2] go ask the Black Marxists who write about Black issues?
Mein Gott! This would never be tolerated. So, why is it that this is going on here, huh?
Now Charles, before you get into a snit.k I'm not complaining about you. You did get a grip on the Rights Talk thing, which others, in their own dang moralizing, like to sweep right under the rug. Very nice. Well I'm glad the 200 or so lurkers won't have to read a debate and maybe learn something or consider positions they'd never considered before on abortion, Marxist Feminism or any thing else considered a "women's issue" for "women's issues writers"
Ken writes about Marxist support for abortion pre-Roe, but I've snipped it
Ken, I'm sure these things happened. But it was NOT the case that women and men in Marxist movements or working as Marxist academics agreed on the *REASONS* for abortion on demand, legalization, etc. It was largely because marxist men often felt that abortion, pay inequity, a gendered division of labor, rape, domestic violence, women's inordinate responsibility for domestic work, pornography, and a host of other so-called women's issues were all of *secondary* importance to the *REAL* struggle that folks like Firetone and the Combahee Collective were incensed at the whole sexless, raceless worker crap that went on.
I was a student of some of these women, Zillah Eisenstein for one, and she regaled us with stories of the sexist BS that went on. What exactly did a Marxist man have to give up by supporting abortion on demand? Many of them had nothing to lose...and they sure had a whole helluva a lot to gain, especially if he was a het man ey? Yes, I realized you nodded to the sexism that did and continues to exist. But I'm saying that right now I'm finding the subtext here entirely too sexist for me. Why? I'll say it again: 1] Ignoring the fact that there was a contentious history makes it magically appear as if there was no struggle on the way to this so-called unity on the abortion issue in the present. This is silliness, especially if younger Marxists are looking for a little inspiration here. They need to know that things didn't happen overnight then either. 2] The rhetorical strategy here is of relegating the whole matter to those in charge of 'women's issues' This is inuslting to think that male Marxists can't be bothered to offer a few citations or type up a Cliff Notes Guide to Marxism On Abortion for poor Alex. Why in hell is it that Charles and I, a black man and white woman, are doing this work?
> If there is a
>separate "Marxist" justification for human freedom, I want no part of it,
>because that would be a step along the road to mystification, and to the
>creation of a new priesthood.
But saying that it's all said and done, instead of answering Alex's main question is, indeed, conducive to the creation of a priesthood, Ken. And that no one but Charles and I would bother to sell him a klew is indicative of that in the extreme. "Here," say Ken and Carrol, "it's all settled. No need to discuss it, cause we said so" Sounds like a priesthood intepreting the Latin to me. Ken, you also wrote:
>Sigh. No, Alex, I am not in favor of suppressing discussion, on this or any
>other subject. It is a closed issue AMONG MARXISTS.
Well now, here's the problem. This isn't an exclusively Marxist list last time I checked. So even if there is agreement out there among Marxists, then it would seem to me to worthwhile to bring the issue up, discuss, argue, get pissed, have a few laughs if possible, and maybe learn something from one another. For Pete's sake, there are people subbed to this list because they wanted to learn more about Marxism! And everytime one of these poor souls braces themselves and descends from the shadows they get trounced as if they were fools. And all the I'm a Marxist and You're Not Crap sure doesn't help them feel warm and fuzzy about Marxism either. And then we have these stupe Marxist tirades about how it's already said and done or how it's too divisive to discuss on email as if it's not any more divisive anywhere else. Hah! Now that was a good one!
Ripley