it was Doug's formulation, though he put it under erasure by using scare quotes. I think everyone else -- I know I did -- didn't bother to use scare quotes because, well, we probably didn't really "need" a lecture about the uselessness of the term. Moreover, sometimes people imputed to the discussion an assumption that it's ahistorical and eternal. One of the things I assume most people understand -- precisely because they tend to draw on marxist analyses -- is that a social system can easily "begin" (for lack of a better word) with a certain set of institutional relationships, but those institutions can become "detached" and operate with a life of their own. This is a major argument around the literature on oppression. (For those who throw a little Weber into their analysis (e.g., Frankfurt School) it's one of Weber's major points about the _process_ whereby capitalism emerged.
not formulating all this especially well since I have a shitload to do...
also, and as for Reed: I know perfectly well the relationship between Reed and WBM. So? If Reed has an argument that draws on illustrations from Michaels's text and which responds to my argument, instead of writing me or anyone else off as lifestyle leftists, I'm all ears.
I think, Doug, that the point is: a lot of people you ostensibly respect disagree with Reed's assessment of WBM. so? It's a disagreement. You could have the decency of acknowledging at the very least that maybe the people who take issue with Michaels have at least some legitimate criticisms.
Instead of responding as if it's all quite outrageous, maybe you might want to simply accept that -- instead of imputing to people states of delusion or maintaining that it's all because people are deeply attached to race for some peculiar reason which, knowing you, you probably ascribe to some Freudian explanation. :) One reason you might not want to do the latter is that it's simply engaging in precisely the kind of explanation Michael's rejects: you're locating the problem as a problem of individuals and their psychic identity attachments. Michaels repeatedly reminds us that such thinking inadvertently supports neoliberalism.
If that doesn't make sense. Here's an analogy. Would you appreciate it if people attributed your arguments to the idea that you're friends with both Reed and Michaels and, therefore, you can't and won't listen to what anyone's saying?
Yeah. That would be insulting. And it's for that reason that Eric's criticism of your non-argument one liners is important. To steal a line, you can't argue with a non-argument except to say:
"Your father was a hamster and your mother smells of elderberries. Now go away, before I taunt you again"
It's a form of baiting, and to quote Carrol:
"baiting is sometimes effective when used against a principled non-communist opponent, for she is trapped between two unwelcome choices: for if she (truthfully) denies (the charge), she gives implicit assent to an unethical mode of discourse, while to ignore or accept the charge is also to give implicit assent to a lie. Thus the tactic sometimes works simply by creating that commonplace situation in which the lie is simple, the correcting truth complex and long-winded."
shag