Adolph Reed on the MMMarch

jones/bhandari djones at
Fri Oct 27 12:52:12 MDT 1995

I appreciate Carl's response, but must beg out of debate for now.  I agree
that simply calling something petit-bourgeois is not helpful. I had Adolph
Reed's actual analysis of Jesse Jackson in mind.  What I really had in mind
then were the actual policies advocated or pursued by mayors and
candidates--see for example Earl Picard's article which I mentioned in an
earlier post.

  It would be important for example for us to analyze the regimes of Harold
Washington, David Dinkins or here in Oakland Elihu Harris, etc.   Perhaps
you could assess the impact of Harold Washington's regime for us.  I
remember reading an interesting criticism by Abdul Alkalimat (Gerald
McWhorter) and Doug Gills which appeared in The Black Scholar almost a
decade ago.  They emphasized the austerity which Washington ended up
imposing. Sometime back Jerry Levy posted a short, critical evaluation of
the Dinkins regime.  I could dig up the Black Scholar article, along with
Michael Porter's on the competititve advantage of the inner city.

But right now I am frantic as I am being charged $70 for a library book
which I have lost.  If anyone has a  copy of David McKee's Schumpeter and
the Political Economy of Change, I''ll make a good offer--considerably less
than $70, though!


>I think think most of the use of these labels are only used a
>perjoratives to cover for a type of semi-anarchism feeding
>a "left" liquidation of buildingorganizations rooted in real movements.
> I think the real battle of ideas is not between "proletarian ideology"
>and "bourgeois ideology,"which is a metaphyical squabble,
> but between real science on the one hand  and ideologies of all sorts
>on the other.  Let's do more concrete anaylsis of concrete conditions
> as the starting point and give the class labels a rest.
>Carl Davidson, Chicago
>     --- from list marxism at ---

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list