I'm not sure that's right. It's odd to characterize shag as arguing against orthodox Marxism, when one of the things she has been criticizing Michaels for is his non-Marxist understanding of class. Even if you re-interpret Michaels's point in Marxist terms, the problem is not over-emphasizing the base at the expense of the superstructure; the problem is considering race and gender to be parts of the superstructure while class is part of the base. Michaels's diminishing of politics structured around race and gender isn't an emphasis on the base, in fact it's the opposite, because race and gender are crucial parts of the base.
> the early 21st century, a left coming out of decades of post-political
> identity politics, I think we need more than a few doses of vuglar Marxism
> and a return to class
A dose of vulgar Marxism is OK; but why not a dose of a slightly more sophisticated Marxism that can understand struggles around race and gender as something other than post-political identity politics? That would help to explain why, contra Michaels, a "return to class" doesn't require downplaying the importance of race and gender.
--
"The slightly richer ... eat in semi-darkness, preferring
candles to electricity. These candles make me laugh. All the
electricity belongs to the bourgeoisie, yet they eat by
candle-end. They have an unconscious fear of their own
electricity. They are embarrassed, like the sorcerer who has
called up spirits he is unable to control."
-- Vladimir Mayakovsky http://blog.voyou.org/ voyou1 at gmail.com