In a message dated 97-09-17 12:12:02 EDT, you write: >So the task for non-rigid Marxians and other socialists is to >take the insights of postmodernism (about language, about the construction >of subjects) and move beyond them - to devise a non-vulgar foundationalism, >and to rethink class as the fully complex thing it is. Post-Sokal >exuberance is no excuse to think the old verities have now been >self-evidently restored. > >Doug I've often thought that pomo has significant insights--the problem being finding the insights amongst the dreck. One thing pomo has done, well in a few cases, and poorly in many, is to begin describing the contradictions within classes and groupings, rather than seeing classes as the proverbial black boxes--once tagged, acting exactly the same all the time. Mao's leadership genius in China (NOT to suggest that Mao was a pomo) was his interweaving of Marxism with Chinese culture and the existing class structure with all its contradictions--not the layering of theoretically pre-defined classes on existing cultural structures. In looking at the United States (as the place I have the most knowledge of), I think the value of some pomo research has been to gather raw data on inner-class divisions which can be used to strengthen class analysis so that it actually reflects the culture of the United States. To grow functioning resistance movements, and combat the deep divisions within communities, it is really necessary to understand how class, race, ethnicity, and gender interact. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
