Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:31:39 -0500 From: clifford_staples at und.nodak.edu Subject: Re: The nature of anarchism (Lefty Despair etc.)
> It doesn't play out there at all. Expecting it to stems from getting
> levels of abstraction mixed. Theory (e.g. the Marxist theory of
> exploitation and of capitalist contradiction) provides a framework for
> thougt but it won't do your thinking for you.
>
> This is important. There is a huge literature, for example, arguing
> over whether one should "privilege" class or race or gender, or
> how one
> should "combine" class analysis and gender analysis, etc., but class
> operates at a wholly different level of abstraction from race and
> gender, and the debate is utterly futile.
>
> Carrol
Well, I certainly am relieved. I was beginning to despair at the thought of going through the rest of my life without hearing the One True Way of thinking about such matters. Now I can rest easy. Clearly you've done all the thinking anyone need do, so I'll just sit back and bask in the glow of your wisdom.
Asshole.
Don't take it personally Clifford, these sorts of pronunciations are unfortunately characteristic. What I do object to is when someone like him portrays this sort of shit as marxist. He doesn't know about the vast literature linking gender, race, etc. to class within the marxist tradition starting from Marx and Engels themselves right up to now, because he finds it more convenient to let other people deal with difficult problems of this nature. It is just so much easier to spout meaningless formulas about levels of abstraction and whatnot. Ask him, for example, how is class more abstract than gender. You won't get an answer and then a week later you will get the same pronouncement again with no supporting evidence or argument. I mean can one imagine a more stupid comment than "it doesn't play out at all". For me, when I hear this now, it just means "I'm too thick to try to understand how things in the world connect." Tahir