This was an earlier response: [Fwd: Lenin & Gramsci contra Weber (was Re: Weber against Marx)]

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thu Dec 14 09:59:36 MST 2000


This message has been distributed two days after I sent it. It was originally sent on
Monday. Today is Thursday. Is the
server responding late? in any case, I am just telling this to prevent a controversy.

I am so glad that the disorder on the list is finally over after the moderator's
decision to suspend cross posting and the
signing off Doug Henwood.

Now, let's move on and organize around Lou Paulsen's post on protesting the victory of
Bush! That is what we need at the
moment! Protest.

I was actually thinking how this power change would shape the foreign policy of US
towards 1) Yugoslavia 2) Palestine 3)
Russia with respect to 1) nationalism/ethnic questions 2) peace process 3) Chechen
islamic resistance.



in solidarity


Xxxx




Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx wrote:

>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Lenin & Gramsci contra Weber (was Re: Weber against Marx)
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:24:34 -0500
> From: Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx <xxxxxxxx at xxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: marxism at lists.panix.com
> References: <F285HKY4LEjW4yIP8Cs00012a24 at hotmail.com>
>      <0ff0650420409c0MAIL2 at mail2.arnet.com.ar>
>      <p05001906b658e788d757@[140.254.114.137]> <3A33C39C.E2E3A01C at netzero.net>
>      <p05001903b659760452f9@[140.254.113.179]> <3A34048C.E92466B1 at netzero.net>
><p05001900b659db7d2b3a@[140.254.113.179]>
>
> 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

--

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


_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html





More information about the Marxism mailing list