> And, praytell, what exactly is wrong with theorizing, ey? Is
> action always and only where it's at?
Not at all. I think theorizing is VERY important. Theorizing in ways that foreclose action is something to be on our toes for -- especially when it's inadvertant by those of us who very much DO want our theorizing to support action, as I believe you clearly do.
> >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."
But I didn't ignore it...
> 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.
I just don't think that snipping at people's snobbishness does a very good job of this. Do you, really? I don't think so. Not from the sophistication & insight I've seen from you elsewhere.
> 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.
I agree wholeheartedly. But in this I think your spouting off was not so well informed. The tedious old stuff I brought up, which you seem to think was taken for granted appeared to me was being ignored.
> 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.
Again, I agree wholeheartedly.
I guess I just know SOME folks who are influenced by the whole voluntary simplicity thing who I don't regard as totally brain dead (I've also known some such who ARE braid dead, but I try not to return their calls.) Therefore, I think the critique ought to be made in a way that doesn't simply shut those people down, but instead offers to engage them.
> 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.
Yes, but I wasn't asking it of this venue. I was asking it of you, sweet Snit. <g> Because I know you can. (No, don't hear that in a fatherly tone, puhleez! Snotty, but proud, brother if you must.)
> Finally, I see no reason to justify anything I type by dragging out
> my activist street cred.
Sorry I expressed myself so poorly. This was never my intent. Rather, because I know your activist orientation, I regarded that consequence as something significant to you -- and something you would seriously weigh.
Others on this list are pretty much convinced that nothing can be done (the call-me-when-the-revolution-starts crowd) but I know full well you're cut from different cloth, and generally DO think much more dialectically.
> 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.
Agreed. It's not the position/instrument/role you play that matters, it's the way you play it.
> >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.
Um, maybe I just pipped up too soon, then. But then, chalk that up to my own spouting off.
Waiting for the dinner bell to ring,
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"