Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Charles Brown wrote:
> >Maybe use of "people" ,
> >or "oppressed national or
> >racial group" instead of
> >"community" will clarify this for
> >you. But these are "technical"
> >terms, like "exploitation" , so
> >it is good to have popular
> >terms in that we want to
> >speak to millions. "Community"
> >is a popular term for these.
> >
> >What are the specifics of your
> >Marxist analysis of this contra
> >above ? What are the specifics
> >of your claim that these phrases
> >obscure more than reveal , etc. ?
> >I am not familiar with the
> >critique of the concept of
> >"community".
>
> I suspect that this whole linguistic fashion of naming a ____ community
> came from the American habit of euphemism - people who found monosyllables
> like "blacks" and "Jews" too harsh thought that "the black community" and
> "the Jewish community" was more euphonious and less potentially offensive.
>
> The reason I object to the formulation is that, as I said the first time
> around, "community" is a word that creates an artificial unity, something
> more organicist than conflictual. I'd have thought that it's a word that
> Amatai Etzioni would throw around, not a Marxist like yourself, who'd be
> inclined to see stratification and conflict where others might see a whole.
> And, as the man said, the whole is the false.
>
> Doug