"max"
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 6:25 PM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Cc: rakeshb at Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Hitch & the New School
Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:
>Um Doug you're the one who forwarded Hitchens' comments which Joanna
>Sheldon then astoundingly interpreted as a reasonable defense of the
>manner in which the war criminal Kerrey conducted himself in a free
>fire zone (though it seems all the firing was in one direction). So
>was I wrong to read the comments which you forwarded that way? You
>seemed irked by them yourself, but now you get angry at me for also
>finding Hitchens irksome!
I found them obscure, and their ironic intent, assuming that's what it was, hard to read.
> It's this kind of "argumentation" which I have come to expect from you.
Glad not to disappoint.
>>And we're still waiting for those UNITE checks too.
>
>So I guess I'll forward the entire off list email exchange we had
>over this. But what's the point--your constant refusal to answer the
>serious questions which I put to you just makes the whole thing
>tiresome. Maybe we should have an exchange over whether Marx was an
>underconsumptionist, but can I count on you seriously engaging
>counter-evidence and -reasoning? Of course not. You'd fall back on
>a one liner like the above and conduct the debate at that level. I
>shall say again that it was my hope that your one sided treatment
>of the UNITE-backed protectionist campaigns-- which have already had
>terrible effects on Africa, Cambodia, and India-- was indeed
>propaganda work which you had to do for money. It's too bad that
>UNITE did not pay you for the hack work. I was hoping they had, for
>I had no other way of understanding why you and Liza left out what
>you did about the larger policy goals behind the campaigns which
>UNITE is backing.
This is pretty ugly stuff - it reminds me of what Marx called the philathropy of industrialists. So you're pitting one set of poor workers against a poorer set, in the style of The Economist? U.S. textile and garment workers are among the lowest paid in the entire workforce. They tend to be dark-skinned, female, and with few bright prospects in life. If UNITE is trying to "protect" them, then is that such a bad thing? I only wish they did a better job of it.
Is this the council communist's contempt for unions talking, or just some impending bourgeoisification?
>ps maybe it would be best if you unsubbed me...again.
Done. Bye.
Doug