> carrol, my complaint to yoshie was that she was finding problems with
> ehrenreich that just weren't there. yoshie does so in order to charge
> ehrenreich with a "moralizing" position which both you and yoshie have
> argued is not marxist or radical enough.
Nonsense. "not marxist enough" turns marxism into flour in a bread recipe. I can only interpret this as you being too lazy intellectually or obscurantist politically to argue the point without throwing silly labels around.
Others can carry on the argument about Ehrenreich. I'm not concerned right now. I say *moralizing* is wrong. It's false. It reflects a failure to understand the world correctly. All moralist judgments reduce to Platonism and Platonism reduces to religion.
Now that's true independently of whether one holds a marxist or a radical position. A friend of mine that died a year ago in fact a) was *not* a marxist or even interested in politics and b) held exactly the position that I have stated in these posts.
The question (or rather pseudo-question) of consumerism also can (and should) be handled independentlly from whether one is marxist or an ehrenreichian. My position on that is that there is no possible use of the term that does not lead to absurdity. As follows:
1) (Not counting boycotts) Does how a person spends her money have anything to do with her politics? Answer: No.
2) Is there any objection to workers spending their income as they please for what commodities they choose? Answer: No.
3) Is there any such ideology as Consumerism? Answer: No.
4) What should we call those who compose critical analyses of the consumer habits of their fellow workers? Answer: Moralistic and Anti-Political Prigs.
Now I'm several hundred posts behind in my reading -- and I still have not more than glanced at the original text by Ehrenrich or at either your or Yoshie's analyses of that text. Is she still co-chair of DSA? And does her co-chair still toady for the U.S. in its assault on Yugoslavia? I have the same difficulty reading self-proclaimed leftists who support u.s. imperial crimes that I do in reading self-proclaimed leftists (I'm thinking of Hitchens now) that place a moralistic burden on women re abortion or in being able to sit through an old movie celebrating the genocide of the American Indians.
And I share those feelings with a number of people who are not marxists in any sense. In fact, it was distaste for imperialism that led me to marxism, not marxism which led me to anti- imperialism.
Final re-emphasis. The point of departure for and central concern of this post is your phrase, "position which you have argued is not marxist or radical enough." That is mere poisoning of the wells of discourse. And I'm really curious. Why is it so important to you to cling to the conviction that the only reason someone could disagree with you was because they thought you "weren't marxist enough." Can't you even contemplate the possibility that they disagree with you because they think you are wrong? Actually, I don't really understand what you mean by ascribing such a position to me or to anyone else.
What is this marxism anyhow that can be measured out in cups and teaspoons, enough or not enough or too much?
Carrol