>New wave? Hey, I'm talking the 1960s!
>
When exactly is 'the 1960s' anyway? In 1973 I could go to the K-Mart and buy black lights, incense, and funky psychedelic posters.
>What's the distinction between being "parasitic" and being a dialectical
>consequnce of?
Geez Paul, you're beginning to sound dogmatic here. I'll repeat: when proponents of VS uphold themselves as morally superior to the crass commercialism and materialism of the rest of US society, they aren't being especially dialectical.
>To me, the former simply closes off possibilities as a snobbish,
>distancing judgement that makes it quite comfortable to continue
>theorizing. The latter is messier, and allows the possibility of
>actually *doing* something.
Ooooh. Now you're getting rough with me, ey? Accusing me of not doing anything, of not being involved 'in the struggle' of mere theorizing, and in my arm chair at that. I'll have you know that I have no arm chairs. Not one. And, praytell, what exactly is wrong with theorizing, ey? Is action always and only where it's at?
>But that's always the case, now isn't it? Class antagonism built on
>hating individual capitalists is hardly any firmer. You start with
>people's inchoate grapplings with contradictions, and try to find firmer
>foundations for them. Same as it ever was.
Yeah, and it's very convenient to ignore what I closed with: "Shutting up because I might delegitimate the positive features of their efforts hardly seems the appropriate response. And, for me, shutting up vitiates the very project of critical theory."
Now, I didn't think I'd have to explain what critical theory is. It's not mere criticism for the sake of being critical, because I get so dang comfy in my arm chair, and can't bring myself to actually *do* anything. No. Rather, as Marx wrote, critical theory must take seriously "the struggles and wishes of the age" in order to engage them in critique, to reveal possibilities, to push them forward, rather than leaving them where they are.
So, all of the rest of your post, is it written to me? Is it engaging what I've said?
>The point is, don't get dragged into their personal histories melodrama
>in a reactive mode. And don't cultivate a mode of analysis that leads
>so automatically to this kind of reactivity. There are underlying
>material realities at work, and your annoyance with these jerks is
>distracting your attention dfrom them.
Thanks Paul. You forgot to pat me on the head and say, "there, there little girl. Daddy can teach you a thing or two" Honestly, Paul, where on earth do you get this from? I've ignored the material realities, ey? Pointing to the crises of late capitalism, to gender inequality, to the lack of attention and funding for our schools and daycare--this is a ignoring the material realities that motivates some to embrace VS? Asking that proponents of VS consider these phenomena is hardly reactive.
>All this is *VERY* well said, and much more on point than your earlier
>put-downs. The illuminating of shared (cross-class, cross-racial,
>etc.), politically-determined material conditions is precisely what we
>should be about, IMHO.
Oh, wait. It appears that I *have* done good.
>If all we do is express our annoyance with them, well, that's one more
>opening for the Christian Right to walk in, and explain how the
>underlying problem is the "spiritual vacuum" in their life that can only
>be filled by Jesus, a registered trademark of The Promise Keepers, Inc.,
>or whatever the latest brand-name label is hot at the moment.
Oh no, all I've done is express annoyance and, worse, I'm carving out a space for the Christian Right to work their evil spells. As if they actually need me in order to do this. Hah! Really, Paul, is it necessary to engage in this sort of rhetoric. And, besides, I thought you just said that I had done good.
>> Voluntary simplicity is generally not that voluntary
>> when you get right down to it.
>
>Oh but it is. On an individual level. That's the perennial challenge
>in the US -- dealing with the addiction to individualist thinking.
>There's nothing new in this underlying problem -- it's just a new
>configuration.
Which is why I honestly didn't think that on this List I had to spell it out for anyone fercryinoutloud. It is so damn obvious.
>Well, for many people (including myself) who've worked as contractors &
>consultants, etc., it actually WAS a fucking choice. I knew all along
>that MY choice, what suited me, was not a good thing in the wider mass
>sense. But THAT'S the level at which I really didn't have a choice.
>Choosing to work on a contract basis, so I could take weeks or months
>off at a time was DEFINITELY something I chose. Having it be part of a
>general de-stabilization of hard-won working class gains was not.
But, as you point out and what needs to be pointed out to all the folks who haven't quite got it yet: it's not a real choice; it turns on the difference between negative and positive freedom. My annoyance and my feminist political economic analysis are motivated by that distinction. This is what needs to be pointed out: yes, indeed, we have choices, but those choices are always circumscribed by social structural conditions.
>I'm not saying you should shut up, Kelly. I'm saying you should think
>more like an activist -- how can we take advantage of this inchoate
>reaction -- rather than an armchair critic.
I wish you'd make up your mind. Either I'm engaging in a material (political economic/feminist analysis) or I'm just spouting off. I think it really quite possible to do both and, indeed, they may well mutually inform one another.
This activist v. armchair critic nonsense is just that: nonsense. Firstly, there is always a need for critique. Secondly, activism for the sake of activism isn't always a good thing; indeed, it can be very dangerous. Thirdly, this is a listserv, this is where I (and I think a lot of other people here) come to engage in bombast, dialogue, whining, complaining, self- and social- reflection, bitching, pondering, spouting off, wondering, thinking out loud, working out ideas, pissing and moaning, asking questions, building up their egos by tearing others down, ironic self observation, wasting time, testing their ideas, keeping their orthodoxies on the straight and narrow. Complaining that I'm just spouting off in an un-reflective fashion--well sometimes you seem to be saying this, other times not--seems to be asking a lot more of this venue than it can offer. Finally, I see no reason to justify anything I type by dragging out my activist street cred. Dismissing anyone's views on the basis of whether
they are academics or not, intellectuals or not, activists or not, authentically working class or not, well versed in Marx's writings or not, it's all the same: Yawn.
>People NEVER have very sophisticated reasons they can articulate (or
>even recognize) on their own. Poets, philosophers, comics and
>troublemakers are always necessary to develop such sophistication.
Exactly.
Though, I'd hardly say that I've been throwing tomatoes. Really, I thought I was on my way to making a delicious pasta sauce.