Why the Taliban hate women...

[Grant Lee]

>>If socialism means "the ownership or control of the means of
>>production by the workers, or by the people generally", it
>>certainly starts with (economic) class.  If it doesn't mean
>>this, what does it mean?
>>
>>-- Gordon
>
>whathefuckever! if you can't figure out what i was saying, as long 
>as you've been on lists, then i can only conclude that you're aren't 
>as smart as i thought you were or you're trolling. not to mention 
>that you're subscribed to a list that has as its mission an attempt 
>to get over the economism of traditional marxism... !  i'll go with 
>the latter as an explanation for this question. in the meantime, 
>consider the way joanna worte that sentence: she very nearly 
>apologizes for being concerned with gender issues and not just class 
>issues. please. i mean, she seriously thought she might not be 
>considered a socialist if she concerned herself with such matters.

Weird, Gordon. It's as if you're saying gender has no bearing on 
access to the means of production, or one's place in the division of 
labor.

Doug

Greetings from a newbie. Gordon said socialist analysis starts with economic class. He didn't say "begins and ends". I would take economic class to mean _all_ factors, impediments and advantages in access to the means of production. So gender/race/sexuality/etc are "economic" when they have a bearing on access to the means of production. It isn't the case that they _always_ do have a bearing.

I think as well, if we accept the "quantity theory of socialism", such as that offered by Martin Schiller (on a parallel thread) then we have a situation where everyone to the left of (say) Hayek and Nozick is partly "socialist". And as the (global) neo-liberal experience of the '80s showed us, this is a "socialism" which is easily rolled back. It doesn't seem like much to aim for, really.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20011108/7c06444a/attachment.htm>