I feel so dirty.

[d-m-c at worldnet.att.net]

>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.