In the beginning, Doug said:
I hope this list will be a forum for speaking across intellectual and social boundaries that have divided the left, such as it is, for too long. Among these oppositions I'd like to see worked through are ones like class/identity, cultural politics/"real" politics, Marxism/postmodernism, universal/particularist, activism/theory, economics/culture, nature/labor; nature/culture, and labor/culture.
[...]
<http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/lbo-talk.htm>
So sure, communism, let's talk about it...but other things too.
You're right. But two things: First the essentially nationalist premise that underlies most of this sort of debate is utterly worthless to me, and I don't think that all of us should stay cool and calm in the face of it. Someone's got to protest occasionally, so it might as well be me. As you might have noticed, I have particularly come to hate the ideological fig-leaf of 'anti-imperialism' that is so often used to sanction this descent into nationalist cretinism. That's why I could never understand how a certain former list member could even have been taken seriously, except as a figure of ridicule.
Second, looking now at Doug's programmatic statement above, it strikes me as singularly unrealistic. What exactly can it mean to "speak across" these boundaries that have divided the left? I personally am aware that I speak across such boundaries mainly for the purpose of insulting. And I know that many others do too (not Doug), although they might not admit it. How does one "speak across" in the approved manner? Persuasively? Or in such a manner as to appear to agree with the other person even if you don't? Uncertainly, tentatively, so that you sort of invite the other person to convince you that you are wrong? Etc.?
All of the above and more, no doubt. But in truth I don't think those things really happen much. My own observation is that those who appear to be "speaking across" the divides in these most reasonable ways turn really nasty themselves as soon as you unpick one of those oh so reasonable premises that they imagine all reasonable people must share. As soon as you show yourself as going beyond those then watch out. I'm not saying that "speaking across" is a totally phoney notion -- for one thing I imagine that this describes the way that Doug really sees his own debating style (insofar as he actually debates) -- but it doesn't look to me like an accurate description of this list as I have known it more generally. I mean if I had to attempt to "speak across" by saying to someone "Well maybe you're persuading me that there isn't such a thing as postmodernism after all," or "Actually you may be right that it is very important to support the ruling classes of certain nation states against the others," I would sound like quite a reasonable sort of chap. But you'd know I was being totally phoney and that the discussion was therefore worthless.
Tahir
-------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_services/disclaimer.htm