Splitting the list?

Rebecca Hill hillx018 at maroon.tc.umn.edu
Wed Nov 16 17:00:06 MST 1994


 I'm against splitting the list; I think it's good to have discussions of
Marxism that can range from economic, to practical activist, to more
"cultural studies" concerns. I'm an inter-disciplinary scholar myself
(American Studies) and an activist (Love and Rage Anarchist federation) and
I'm used to it. I look forward to getting involved in a more precise (and
perhaps more wide ranging) analysis of Marx's work on the "slow-readings"
list in the future. This list, however, has been interesting because of its
political and disciplinary diversity. I'm glad to see that the list has
addressed a variety of levels of interest and knowledges of marxism.
    I recall that early in the life of this list, someone of the
objectivist persuausion was entirely disruptive for ages, and no one
suggested such a drastic measure as splitting. Why should a heated
discussion of feminism merit such action? The debate between Marxism and
feminism doesn't simply divert our attention from the important issues of
Marxism. In my opinion, the debate between "new social movements"
(feminism, 60s nationalisms, environmentalisms etc) and Marxism is one of
the most significant developments in the history of the left. I think it's
not only relevant, but essential to the health of Marxism as a philosophy
and as a political movement to deal with these other social movements. This
question is crucial to the work of Laclau and Mouffe for instance, who were
mentioned only just recently.

Solidarity,
Rebecca Hill



     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list