Lenin & Gramsci contra Weber (was Re: Weber against Marx)

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at SPAMosu.edu
Sun Dec 10 18:48:32 MST 2000


>  > >For instance, are child prostitutes, women Maquiladora >workers, etc.
>>  >_history-makers_?  If so, should Marxists represent them >only as
>  > >passive victims, as they often do?
>
>yes, "autonomous marxists" argue the same. I don't think that Lenin would
>agree with them though.
>
>Mine

I doubt that were Lenin alive today, he would represent child
prostitutes, women Maquiladora workers, disabled people, seekers of
the "right to die," etc. as "passive victims" instead as
_history-makers_.  Marxists should avoid sounding like the second
coming of the Women's Christian Temperance Union eager to "rescue
Fallen Women."

Autonomist Marxism seems to me to be practically a dead current,
which saw its peak of popularity in Italy during the 70s.  I think of
autonomist Marxism as the mirror image of Keynesianism.  I've had an
occasion to debate this question with a true believer in autonomist
Marxism on LBO-talk (a woman named Angela in Australia).  Those who
are interested in my critique of Antonio Negri & autonomist Marxism
should visit <http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/9911/1095.html>;
<http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/9911/att-1220/00-part>;
<http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/9911/1324.html>;
<http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/9911/1472.html>; &
<http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/9911/1513.html>.

At 5:51 PM -0500 12/10/00, Louis Proyect wrote:
>I should mention that Doug Henwood defended NACLA against my critique sort
>of. He said that under the direction of new editor Debbie Nathan, it had
>become "smart" and "lively".

Just for the sake of an argument, let's say we have no reason to
agree with Debbie Nathan on any part of her representation of women
Maquila workers.  However, it is not at all the case that you have to
write like Debbie Nathan to eschew the representation of women
Maquila workers as "passive victims."

Yoshie





More information about the Marxism mailing list