ravi wrote: But what of the Western Left? Either I do not understand their
>theorizing, or the left orthodoxy IMHO has been a bit clever on this
>front. Class (working class) analysis (struggle) has been cast not as a
>single-issue (identity) but as the mother of all issues. We are told (as
>I understand it): everything is and should be explained as [arising
>from] class issues. Morality, with its odour of religion, is an
>impediment to the "science" of this new Left, and seen by their view,
>rightly, as a patronizing hand-out.
>
Well, buzzwords aside, the reason why "working class" grants a
privileged view is because that class is
responsible for creating lived reality -- the food, clothes, cars,
buildings, etc. They really do know how it
all works, given a moment of reflection, far better than the ruling
class, who thinks it rules because it is
clever or innately superior -- for racial, gender, religious or other
"identity" based reasons
>But without some such identity or issue based definition, what is a
>progressive attitude or cause or way of thought? I am of course implying
>in my words above that it is (a) not based on the identity of an
>individual or a group and (b) it is based on some universal notions of
>morality (that can be deductively ascertained without resort to
>biology). This I think can be defined in a non-circular fashion and can
>be loosely labelled by the term "humanism" (the Old Left).
>
Yeah. By the way, I completely agree with all of the introductory stuff
to your questions. I think a
non-identity based definition of humanity would have to do with how we
are all in this together. An hour
of my time is worth an hour of your time; we all have equal rights and
responsibility to/for the earth's
resources. ....
The civil rights movement was far more advanced morally and politically then all the little identity movements that splintered it and destroyed it.
>
>BklynMagnus writes, while calling on those interested in progressive
>change: "queers can never remain silent when people are persecuted and
>oppressed for their sexual behaviour". Indeed, queers being those very
>same people, would be cowards not to do so (though such cowardice would
>be understandable given the violence that they are met with). As someone
>interested in progressive change himself, I assume he would also write,
>outside this context, "queers can never remain silent when people are
>persecuted and oppressed" ... period. That would make (or keep) them
>progressives.
>
>Thoughts?
>
> --ravi
>
>
>