Incidentally, I haven't read Yoshie's posts on this topic yet either.
kelley wrote:
> what she suggested recently is that we 1] stop glorifying consumerism {in
> the name of our good taste and/or pretense that we can can emblazon our
> dissent in the commodities we buy
Who in the hell is "we" here. And the proposition as you give it here is ambiguous. I and every marxist almost that I know has been arguing for as long as I can remember against the claim that what one buys or doesn't buy (except in the case of organized boycotts) is *not* a political. So if that is what Ehrenreich is saying, she's merely wasting paper or bandwidth as the case might be. It's too banal to be interesting.
Or she might be (going from your ambiguous paraphrase) attacking "consumerism." Now the very term "consumerism" is a stupid coinage by which superior people [like you and Ehrenrich???] sneer at the great unwashed. I have never used the term, and I don't remember any use of the term (positively or negatively) which I did not consider an attack on people. It's a bit of at best useless and usually harmful jargon which is not in my vocabulary -- and analyses using it are not on my reading list.
Carrol
> AND 2] engage in political practices
> that might actually make some people's lives better since no one in govt
> gives a flying fuck given the dismantling of the very meager welfare state
> we once had. that's the real politik we're up against.
>
> as for the b.s. comments about moralism, that's not what ehrenreich is up
> to. sure, she stings you if you at all partake in the activities she
> mentions --admiring your purchases from pottery barn or sniffing about the
> uncouth apparel worn by those who have the indignity to shop at walmart
> rather than spend their time scouring the racks of the thrift shop. but if
> that's all you see in ehrenreich and that's all you can manage to wrap
> you're head around then get over it. she's not moralizing. no one is.
> so, the trick of arguing that she's moralizing is a game played by those
> who would rather pick lint out of their navels and engage in some pathetic
> and dishonest guilt by association argument that is simply untenable.
>
> kelley
> >kelley wrote:
> >
> >> no, it's not radical or marxist as you would have
> >> it.
> >
> >I don't think that *anyone* on this list (and certainly no one
> >on marxism or leninist-international) has ever advanced "not
> >marxist" or "not radical" as an argument. The question is
> >never whether a proposed political activity achieves anything
> >(short, medium, or long run). It's been some years since I've
> >read Ehrenreich, but the last time I did read her (and I only
> >remember my reaction, not the substance) was that what
> >she was proposing would (a) not involve anyone in political
> >activity and (b) not make life better for anyone even in the
> >short run. I haven't had time to read the article by her you
> >posted, so I won't comment on it.
> >
> >Carrol
> >
> >P.S. For about 200 years the moldiest cliche of political
> >discourse has been to undercut a position not by arguing
> >against it concretely but by suggesting its motive (e.g.,
> >"being radical") is somehow suspect. Joe Green over on
> >marxism is an asshole not because he is a doctrinaire
> >marxist-leninist or a sectarian but because his concrete
> >ideas are simply wrong. I don't care to engage in mind
> >reading (which is what you are engaging in above) by
> >speculating on Green's private mental processes.
> >
> >And for those who are obsessed with jargon. I don't know
> >any politcal phrase, marxist or anti-marxist or even just
> >plain bizarre, that is more overused than "not marxist enough"
> >used to characterize someone else's presumed objections to
> >one's pet political progject. It is always shorthand for saying,
> >"I disagree with you, but I am too lazy right now to actually
> >argue the point, so I'll just claim that your only objection
> >to me is that I'm not marxist enough." Thirty-two words.
> >It only takes seven words to say "You just think it's not
> >radical enough." See -- Jargon does save a lot of words,
> >for anti-communists as well as for economists, physicists,
> >race-track touts, and maoists.
> >
> >The prototype for the kind of argument Kelley advances here
> >is all those studies of Marx that claimed he deduced socialism
> >from Hegel without paying any attention to reality.
> >
> >