>>> dhenwood at panix.com 02/12/01 05:08PM >>>
Let me expand on my point, just for the hell of it. Murray is a notorious cultural reactionary, so his views about "coarseness" and "vulgarity" might be dismissed as the ravings characteristic of the breed. Many so-called leftists, however - and not just Adorno - hold not dissimilar views, as subsequent posts have revealed. When the widely disparaged Judith B. criticized neoconservative Marxists, she was roundly denounced. But hardly a day passes without her point being confirmed.
(((((((((((
CB: I don't know. My very first post on these lists announced me as a vulgar Marxist, critical of the fancy Marxists and other fancy lefties. Butler strikes me more as a fancy lefty, than a vulgar lefty, because vulgar lefties emphasize the social material/economic base and fancies emphasize anti-essentialism and all.
Anyway, in this article Murray ( hate to even give Murray the legitimacy of responding to what he says) is lamenting the proletarianization or vulgarization of the dominant minority or elite ( the bourgeois). Whereas Marxists of the type Doug caricatures criticize the alienation and fucking up of the proletariat and mass culture BY the decadent bourgeoisie , i.e. Murray's "dominant elite" , the ones Murray likes.
So, Marxists' critiques of bourgeois/elite decadence are the complete opposite of Murray's critique of proletarian/ mass "vulgarity". ( not surprisingly) making them progressive , not conservative as in "famous" Butler's comment. I can't think of one day that has passed ( or one post on this list ) in which a Marxist agreed with what Murray says in that article.