>My thing would be get a synopsis of Kant from some Marxists philosophers.<
and that presupposes that marxist philosophers felt the urge to read kant, right? why read only secondary texts, or rather texts mediated by the conjunctural concerns of others?
this whole 'debate' is a non-starter. surely we should all be encouraged to read as widely as possible?
and, paradoxically, even those arguing that kant should be taken off the syllabus have already shown that they at least leafed through kant themselves. and that's the whole problem: some folks are treating this as if we're arranging a list of prescribed readings for 'others' who are as incapable of reading critically as 'we' are capable of resisting being affected by what we read. a bit like the fictional self-portrait of our resident censorship board, making decisions about what others can and can't watch, whilst they're allowed -- indeed this is their apparently dutiful role -- to watch everything in order to be able to make decisions which presume the infantilisation of everyone else. only *others* are subject to the danger of enjoyment overtaking reason, and the censor can deny their enjoyment (in watching and reading forbidden texts *and* in playing the role of forbidder) by calling it a moral and/or political duty. that may well not be the direct implication of the debate over kant here, but it is nonetheless an implication that goes to why anyone would want to position themselves as the one simultaneously prescribing certain books and reading them.
as for what forbidding and prescribing actually does, i think marx's comments that censoring actually makes something desirable has to be taken seriously esp by those who expect such laws to have a negative effect on things like racism and sexism. the premise of leftist censorship (that it will actually halt the spread of whatever loathsome or troubling speech and images) turns out to occassion the very opposite.
the recent changes to the censorship board in australia, which were really a sharpening of changes made under the previous govt, were able to pass precisely because the right was able to garner support from various apparently liberal feminist organisations in what was publicly touted as a way to shut down hateful representations of women. since my closest friend was charged under the censorship board and by the police with publishing material encouraging illegal acts, i can honestly say i've little time for the claim that such laws will not be used against the left.
if it is admitted that only a strong working class movement mitigates against such 'misuses', then surely the aim would be to strengthen the autonomous character of the working class movement. we can be sure the capitalist state will respond with whatever reforms it deems will deliver only sufficient to deter further radicalisations -- which is not to sniff at reforms generally, only to suggest that the game of reformism does not seem to move forward by positing reformist demands.
that, however, is over and above the question of whether or not *particular* proposals might constitute reforms at any given moment. if it's a question of going for the fiction of the universality of the law, then i'd much rather spend time and energy on getting laws like 'offensive language' and 'drunken in a public place' repealed: these are the two laws used most consistently in australia against Aborigines, working class and lumpenised youth, and those who live public housing projects generally (increasingly, workers who recently migrated from eastern europe, asia and the mid east) -- ie,. i would rather go for those things that are used to criminalise, not add to the list of things we can be criminalised for.
Angela _________