tgs at tgs at
Sat Nov 12 07:56:07 MST 1994


<You wrote,>

Apropos of Tom Smith's comments on my post, I would say 1)yes,
"university-bound" implies a middle-class perspective, 2) I'm not sure I
would call myself an enemy of the Enlightenment, although I certainly
oppose the fetishism of Reason and Science (which I think post-Marx
marxism has done). I threw out that question about Enlightenment thinking
and male bias not as an absolute statement of belief but as an idea for
discussion. The examples I used--Fourier and the 'primitive communism'
of tribal peoples--are certainly outside of the main line of western
civilization's notions of reason and progress.

<I would certainly like to persuade you to the contrary on this point.
When we argue in this fashion, we basically accept the MARGINALIZATION that
is meted out to us from the powers that be.  We fail to recognize the central
role which people like Fourier, Winstanley, Babeuf,  et al., as well as
workers, oppressed minorities such as and especially blacks in this country,
have played in the formation of culture and systems of rationality. Just one
point--if you look at Margaret Jacobs' stuff, you see how CRUCIAL was the
contribution of wild-eyed radical materialists and open sex-celebrants like
John Toland were to formation of the freemasonry Enlightenment movement,
 which at its head
admittedly stood fatheads like Sir Isaac Newton.

And if you look at Marx, Reich, Rousseau even, et al., you see how crucial the
concept of primitive communism was to their thought (via Morgan and Malinowski).
which was in turn crucial to the formation of Western thought.>

 but I am not a marxist either, and not, like him, a

<Well, Ok, say on.  What other means do you propose to get to whatever good
life you want to see develop in this sorry llittle world?>



More information about the Marxism mailing list