jones/bhandari djones at
Thu Mar 9 12:45:15 MST 1995

While we are all horrified by Ralph's tone, perhaps someone will want to
respond to the post that accompanied the provocative header.  I reproduce
it here. Honestly I smell a rat.

>Likewise, one can't argue for "socialism" today (any more than 150
>years ago) on the grounds of "should be"; one can only analyze the
>workings of the capitalist system and propose: if you want to
>survive you must take these things into account and act
>accordingly.  In other words, Marxism is based first and foremost
>on objectivity, not moral exhortations.  Marxism bases itself on
>what exists materially.  Whatever else exists in society, all is
>fundamentally structured acording to the class system.  Even
>non-class-based social problems and movements are tinctured in
>their composition, leadership, and direction by the class system.
>All this anti-essentialist drivel negates the material world,
>reducing it to subjectivity and discourse, hence it cannot be the
>basis for any revolutionary politics.  It is inherently
>As for new social movements, they are all just minor little farts
>until they get together what it takes to go up against corporate
>America and the capitalist state.  The last time this happened was
>in the 1960s.  Now all we have are academic conferences without
>even real intellectual content, pop-culture hot air (cultural
>"resistance" -- ie. acting obnoxious but doing nothing), and lots
>of inward-turning theory (feminist, queer, Green, and similar
>petty bourgeois useless appurtenances).  Yuppie greens and
>postmodern professors won't make a revolution in a thousand
>millenia.  They don't want to, because they want to believe, like
>Max Stirner in the 1840s, that the real revolution is in THEIR

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list