Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>
>
> I believe no such thing, and I have no idea why you think I do.
O.K. But you also know that Yoshie puts a great deal of emphasis on race & gender but you still asked her why she didn't or something like that. You also know that the presence of non-whites in the cabinet was entirely irrelevant to the linkage between racism and imperialism, but a question you threw out presupposed otherwise. Later on I will want to review this whole bundle of inter-related threads on lbo & pen-l, but my impression has been that many posts (regardless of what the poster 'really' believed) answered attempts at theorization of the appropriate categories _either_ with reaffirmation of empirical material _or_ even aggressively sneered at "theory."
At a minimum, maillist discussion has to assume that in a given post the writer singles out for discussion a particular topic, and that when sbe makes a statement about P that implies nothing whatever about her views on Q. But in this thread it has been very difficult to achieve any distribution of the commentary. Every thing gets mushed together. The refusal to allow even an analytical separation of exploitation and oppression is a prime example of such mushing together.
Carrol