<thump> <thump> <smash> <slap> <drool> <slap> <slap> <drool> <slap> <thump> <smash> <smash>
my computer clock says it is 2001. i am starting to think it's wrong and i need to set it back to 1971. hello hello?!
never mind, i'm going to try going outside and banging my head against the concrete wall. it's harder than the wooden desk.
<bam> <bam> <drool> <bam> <bam> <drool> <bam> <bam> <drool> <bam> <bam> <drool> <bam> <bam>
<pulls head away from wall> <gently removes hair caught in cement>
I really hate wall head
<straightens self up> <brushes self off> <deep breath>
i could use an example of how a "non class" issue is unrelated to production.
then i'd like to know what production actually is. after all, in gordon's utopia, we won't work so much. that'll mean a lot of our lives is spent in so called "non productive" activities. what would (is) that realm of our lives be called? is it really a residual category, this "non-production"? and what about "reproduction" (in the marxist sense and in common sense)?
the point at issue, intially, was that someone claimed that socialist meant that economic class issues were far more important than gender issues. firstly, i don't see how one could possibly disentangle class analysis from and analysis racialization, nationalism, and sexuation. how could you even start with a "class analysis"? racialization, nationalism, and sexuation are processes (not things, processes) of that work together to form a system of oppression that is constitutive of and constituted by a capitalism mode of production AND reproduction. racialization, nationalism, and sexuation --all of these are intimately bound up with the rise of capitalism and have evolved along with the changes in capitalism in significant ways.
that is why one can't given pride of place to "class" analysis because it doesn't exist separately in some archimedean point, untainted by icky sex stuff and uncomfortable race stuff or the embarrassing imperialism stuff.
welcome Grant! :)
i'm quite serious about looking for an issue that would be gender or race or ethnicity or sexuality only.
kelley
At 12:38 PM 11/8/01 +0800, Grant Lee wrote:
> >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.