I suspect that, as Robert tried to say and as carrol always says, the issue is that the criticisms - the calling out - takes place on Twitter amongst a bunch of people who share nothing in common, no common goal upon which they are actively working and struggling, together.
As such, what is going on is what Carrol calls merely unprincipled attacks. Precisely because those so involved generally have no interest in or disposition for political organizing at the concrete level. So be it. Not everyone is any good at it. But the problem isn't the theory, per se, it's the context in which the criticisms takes place.
"There is an old bit of left jargon that (terribly misused as it often was) nevertheless served for clarity in such debates as this, the adverb "objectively." For one things it discriminates 'merely' personal attitudes or language from the powerful social relations which both generate such attitudes _and_ make those attitudes dangerous. It avoids detouring the debate into the personal psychic purity of those involved. I think that some of the positions expressed in this thread have indeed been _objectively_ racist and western-chauvinist. I really think it impossible to say with any confidence how those positions reflected or manifested the 'souls' of those expressing them. Abstractly, nothing is immune to criticism. Concretely anything a u.s. citizen says in "criticism" of Cuba is _objectively_ (willy-nilly) support for a future u.s. invasion of that nation. It matters not the intentions of the would-be critic. He/she has not in fact uttered criticism of Cuba but provide grist for the imperial mills. _If_ the attack (perhaps truly intended as criticism) were (a) valid and (b) remotely capable of changing Cuban policy, then its objective force might be overlooked. But those on the left in this nation (whether in New Politics or the Marxism list) must know that nothing they might say about Cuba can actually enter into the internal debates in Cuba -- that in fact the only way such "criticism" could be effective is if enforced by the u.s. military. And though the political situation in China is radically different, still the kind of "criticism" leveled against it in this thread (a) cannot effect any policy decisions in China (hence is not criticism) and (b) will be heard (willy-nilly) by anyone who hears it (say quoted in other contexts) as part of the rhetoric of the "Yellow Peril." Criticism is only criticism if it potentially can make a difference in the policy of the persons/organizations criticized. Otherwise it is _objectively_ merely an attack, and an unprincipled one at that. Carrol
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Joseph Catron <jncatron at gmail.com> wrote:
> There's lots of interest here for those from the right mileaus. I
> might follow up with some thoughts later, but will start with the link
> for now.
>
>
> http://rabble.ca/news/2014/02/check-your-privilege-rise-post-new-left-political-vocabulary
>
> --
> "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure
> mægen lytlað."
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>