Adolph Reed on the MMMarch

Ivan Handler ihandler at
Fri Oct 27 15:11:41 MDT 1995

I think this is another example of very foolish emotionalism.  Carl 
presented a very clear set of reasons to question the meaningfulness 
of class as it is being used in many recent discussions.  While it is 
clear Jeff disagrees, he presents invective and then an example that 
is obviously bogus.  Namely the labor movement being led by the 
working class.  The working class leadership of the labor movement 
has not been in any real leadership role since at least the end of 
WWII.  The "leaders" of the US labor movement have been 
petit-bourgeois at their best.  Many became millionaires by selling 
out their union brothers and sisters.  If anything, the US labor 
movement is the best example of the worthlessness of the relevance of 
the classical concept of class to today's circumstances.  I agree 
with Carl, lets drop this baggage so we can develop ways of 
looking and analysing the world that are not so subjective and can 
help in formulating a political movement that can effectively oppose 
oppression wherever it is.

	-- Ivan

> Date:          Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:26:17 -0400 (EDT)
> From:          Jeffrey Booth <booth2 at>
> Subject:       Re: Adolph Reed on the MMMarch
> To:            marxism at
> Cc:            marxism at, IHANDLER at

> 	In my experience, it's alway the petit bourgeois that get 
> pissed-off about using a class analysis.  This is because they: a) want 
> to dominate because they think the're so EDUCATED.  Or, b) their class 
> position is so unstable that they're confused at why they're sliding down 
> the ladder of success so fast that their asses are burning.  Either way 
> (or both); they're wrong.  Class analysis is more important than ever.  
> And not all mass movements are lead by the petit bourgeois.  For the most 
> part the labor movement, for example, is NOT led by the petit bourgeois.
> 					-- Jeff Booth 

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list