Actually I would say that treating classism as just another factor to be considered along with racism, sexism, disability rights etc. is not a bad idea. A more formal way to put it is that oppression occurs along certain axis. Class is one. Kinship is another (including gender, homophobia, cross-gender, transgender ect. ). Culture is another (i.e. race, nation, etc.) . Why automatically assume that class oppression is the base, and all other axis of oppression are superstructure? Why not consider them all of equal abstract importance, and decide actual relative strategic importance based the best analysis you can make of the facts at a given moment? rc-am wrote: > > >I can't claim to be an expert on postmodernism, but some of its > proponents > >want to treat Marx's theory not as an abstraction to be made more > concrete > >but as just another factor to be thrown in with all the other factors > >(classism in with racism and sexism and homophobia and ...) as a sort > of > >pluralistic soup. > > i'll help you along: laclau and mouffe do indeed do this - radical > democratic pluralism. which is pretty anemic stuff, if not just silly. > > but, when you respond to doug's query: > > >Why > >does Monthly Review have to publish symposia "In Defense of > History"?< > > with: > > >Why not? even if one doesn't think that PoMo is the Devil's Brew, > isn't it > >worth criticizing an alternative theory that advertises itself as > replacing > >Marxism? > > the assumption that certain writers are in fact attempting to develop > an alternative to marxism is not entirely correct, and this is an > assumption deployed more by marxists than the ostensible 'other side'. > moreover, the MR volume is disingeneous: there is no assault on > history from 'postmodernism'. > > there is a sometimes vociferous debate over the disciplinary practices > of History in the academy, which is precisely the terrain of this > volume. that practitioners of a certain kind of historiography will > seek to defend their assumptions and methods against others by > conflating their stuff with History as such is understandable, but not > accurate. > > an example which is worth noting i think in this context: here in > australia, our esteemed prime minister and his various co-thinkers > have been for some time engaged in 'defending history' (his words) > against both the marxian historians such as clark and some > vaguely-defined 'postmodernism' in the name of 'restoring balance'. > needless to say, this is simply an attemtp to make History once again > servicable for the victors: the squattocracy, mining companies and > pastoralists. whatever some people think might be the effect or > meaning of this internecine conflict of the faculties on marxism (and > i for one have little adherence to the boundaries of the academy), in > the australian political landscape, the pre-occupation of some > marxists with 'defending history against the pomo assault' has the > consequence of a distraction and a playing into the arms of those who > are in a real position to announce what history is or is not and in > whose service this is mustered. thankfully, here those marxists (who > are most marxist historians) who know what the stakes involved are > beyond the academy have gotten on with the job of opposing Howard's > amnesia and happy white nostalgia, and not spending time in skirmishes > with an enemy who is only a mild irritant in the context of the > faculty syllabi committee. > > angela -- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502 http://www.freetrain.org/
