Why do you fucking assume that I was not trying to figure out what she was saying? I actually was but was a little put off by the 'beating chest, smash structures' line. My attempt to disarm was in response to her and others attempts to disarm rather than discuss.
>could it possibly be that Shag doesn't think you can smash structures qua
>structures, that structures don't exist - except as abstractions - beyond
>their everyday, and never straightforward, reproduction... yeah, yeah,
yeah,
>we can point to clear instances of all sorts of moments where structures
can
>be seen in their reality... now what? ... if you start down the structures
>are real road you either have to engage in some kind of scholastic project
>of cataloging structures of oppression until you've come up with all of
them
>or, and possibly at the same time, you have to engage in a ranking of them
-
>with those that are most really real at the top (or serving as "the base"
to
>other "superstructural" phenomena) so that a really manly man's politics
can
>take on the most essential structures, leaving the more epiphenomenal ones
>to tumble in the more real one's wake...
Again, I said nothing about smashing structures, that is a purposeful distortion by shag and you are now repeating it for the same reason (manly man politics).
No, I don't have to proceed as you demand down some empirical tallying up and ranking of structures. Of course " structures don't exist - except as abstractions - beyond their everyday, and never straightforward, reproduction" but that doesn't mean that they don't have real impacts. What about real estate red lining, do you think going after that structural practice was wroth while? Or, would it have been better to hold anti-racism seminars for all of those involved and repeat how racist they are over and over... I am sorry but practices crystallize into institutions and structures and we can actually address them there rather than inside every ones heads.
>each and every one of the examples she has provided of her own activism,
and
>that which she appreciates from what she reads, points to folks taking on
>immediate social problems, people - even social movements - don't take on
>and smash structural classism, racism, sexism, militarism, homophobia,
>isolationism, ideology, etc., they take on real, complex, overlapping (Shag
>likes "intersectional") and indeterminate social problems with whatever
>ideas they have, tactics they can generate and collectivities they can hold
>together...
What is classism? Do you mean how rich people look down on poor folk? Why couldn't I tell stories of how I met people where they are, in their complex instersectional imediate location and talk to them about structures of class explotation? Do you mean that women and people of color experiance hunger in different ways? Is there no universal way to feel hunger?
>When you were working on CSAs and the like were you directly taking on any,
>or many, of the structures above in your daily work? There are
>agroecological structures, no? There are a range of niches in the
political
>economic structure of agrifood systems, no? There are fairly divergent
>patterns of class, race and sex/gender relations on different kinds of
farms
>and food systems, no? Beyond the absolutely central importance of social
>structures as materialist abstractions from the always contingent realities
>of any particular locale, problem or struggle, do you focus on the
>structures, or a structure, in a particular effort or do you focus on local
>conditions in wider contexts, selecting people, places and opportunities to
>apply pressure?
Obviously since I left the farm, I focus on the structures of capitalist
society that prevent real alternatives to strive in agrifood systems. I
don't focus on how it is far too complex because everyone experiences it
different and we are all individuals and we all have different food needs,
choices, production practices, cultural consumption traditions....not that
these aren't there, just that to focus on them is to miss the forest for the
trees.
>Is the idea to smash primary structures or to build complex movements?
Why is this an either or? The idea is to build movements to displace structural barriers to the development of people and a society that is absent exploitation and oppression. Nobody said anything about smashing stuff!!!
>she just thinks its a sure
>loser politically to assume that all people who appear to be engaged in it
>are unsophisticated, immovable, and intransigent distractors from more
>"real" politics - at best - and neocons in disguise - at worst.
I never said they weren't engaged in real politics or neocons in disguise. Why do you continue to assign to me a position which is not mine? I don't tell people involved in identity politics that they are unsophisticated, immovable, and intransigent distractors, even if they can be. I usually ignore them and focus on movements that seem to have clear concrete goals and objectives instead.
Brad