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

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mon Dec 11 15:33:34 MST 2000







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



Yoshie,  you are relyig on non-marxists like Nathan to back up your argument
that Mexican women workers not passive victims.  I don't remember anyone who
argued so.

Now you are critical of autonomus marxism, but on pen-l  you were defending
Living Marxism crowd so wholeheartedly. By chance, their  institutional
affliates were found to be connected to Adam Smith and Cato institute. You were
attacking Lou for doing moral panic in the same way you are playing the same
jazz  here. (http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2000IV/msg02375.html)
(http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2000IV/msg02371.html;
http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2000IV/msg02376.html,
http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2000IV/msg02371.html;) how does your defense of
Living Marxism accomodate your views here?   Pick it up this evidence and show
us!


Mine




Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

> >  > >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

--

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222




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





More information about the Marxism mailing list