i.e., class struggle is the most fundamental form of analysis and "working class" (apologies for the term -- i am not knowledgeable of class analysis terminology) is not an identity?
to the contrary, i have written: one cannot base struggle/action on high-level "axioms". if i may say so, i have been more rigorous in calling for fundamental yardsticks: not identity, but some uniting and axiomatic moral principles.
it is true though, at least as of now, class struggle has no special significance for me over say animal rights. six billion animals, IIRC, are slaughtered each year by humans. i am not aware (and i am not being sarcastic here... some reasoning has been offered, such as by the philosopher bernard williams) of the moral principles that privileges other horrors over this one.
> 2)Petty bourgeois individualism: Respecting picket lines is a rule of
> collective behavior, which appears to infringe upon individual
> autonomy--the supreme value of the petty bourgeoisie and those--most
> people in this country and many on the left--who share its ideology .
isn't this mere name-calling? sure in the midst of the debate various insults have been hurled about, among them about collectivism and authoritarianism. should we not avoid exacerbating such dialogue?
the contrast is not between petty bourgeois individualism and collective behaviour. its between reasoned action and the demand for unquestioned axiomatic rule-following (if i am misstating this latter position, please correct me). for example, to reason out and appreciate the laws of thermodynamics is not just not "individualism", but in fact a necessary act, especially for future advances.
way over quota for today! apologies!
--ravi