For some Marxists who have odd notions about what a worker is .

Craven, Jim jcraven at clark.edu
Sun Sep 30 18:26:04 MDT 2001



Tony Tracy wrote:

 Joan:

 Your argument is so bizarre it is hardly worth commenting on, but finding
 myself with a few minutes of spare time, I will do so nonetheless:

To Which Carrol replied:

I believe that her argument is so bizarre that her continued presence on
the list is unacceptable -- and if possible all posts from her should be
purged from the archives. There are a number of posters on this list
whose posts I choose not to spend time on, but this is the first time I
remember any list member exulting in the deaths of fellow proletarians.
It is just too revolting to contemplate.

Carrol

Reply Jim C: I for one simply refuse to read anything Joan Cameron writes.
Is she against the rich? Probably but I suspect because she hates anything
not like her. The White Supremacists claim to hate the rich also. Her
repeated provocations on the issue of "Oral History" are of the kind that
Native Peoples are quite familiar with (analagous to how many
African-Americans feel when they hear the code words "State's Rights").

Oral History = backward = mystical = metaphysical = unreliable = primitive =
uncivilized = Indigenous

Written History (which begins as Oral and can be/more often than not is
bourgeois rationalizations) = reliable = recorded = written = civilized =
non-Indigenous.

That is what is behind the false dichotomy between "written" (generic
without any reference to who is writing the history, why and for whom)
versus "Oral" histories. Indigenous Sovereignty and attempts to stop the
wholsesale extermination of First Nation's peoples are summarily dismissed
by this creature as "narrow" and "reactionary" "identity politics" with more
sophistry about how we propose to defend our Nations. I know her kind and
what is really behind her rhetoric and "Oral vs Written" history very well.

I find absolutely nothing or progressive about this woman. Again I believe
that she has repeatedly demonstrated herself to be a vile, nasty, bigoted,
ultra-narcissistic, know-it-all, pompous, not-even-crypto-racist, probably
lonely, probably frustrated, somewhat pathetic and just generally fucked-up
shrew who more resembles Ayn Rand in outlook and temperament than anything
approaching Marxism or leftism. Just one example: When discussing the issue
of being outside of a situation and not being close enough to fully
appreciate the true dimensions of a situation, I gave an analogy--analogy
only--about a male presuming to talk about the real levels of pain
associated with childbirth. Her repsonse, not to see a generalized analogy,
but to immediately personalize it, talk about how she wouldn't know as she
has not had children, doesn't want children, and prefers dogs as they can be
summarily shot if they do not please her; almost a carbon copy of the
narcissism, arrogance and general vileness of Ayn Rand another narcissistic
shrew.

As for banning her from the list, well I have never once called for banning
anyone from the list, and I won't now as I do not read her shit, but, one
thing to consider, we have had another person recently, make some
mischaracterizations of what the majority were writing about vis-a-vis
WTC/Pentagon terrorism from the limited sample of a few writing on this
list.

I just hope that someone interested in Marxism finding this list does not
find the rantings of this shrew and take them as reperesentative of Marxism
or Marxists.

Jim Craven
=======
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message



More information about the Marxism mailing list