reply to Jim Craven in Digest VI #4874: Multitude of oppressions

Hari Kumar hari.kumar at
Thu Aug 1 06:07:33 MDT 2002

ORIGINAL: "Craven, Jim"; Subject: RE: marxism-digest V1 #4874
1) Hari Kumar wrote: But let me repeat - what is primary - class
antagonism/contradiction or
gender contradictions?....Hari Kumar
2) Response Jim C: I believe that we can and do differentiate forms of
oppression and can, to a certain degree, differentiate (qualify) degrees
of oppression. For example being subject to gang rape and torture, or
being subject to early death through one's reservation being used as a
ground for highly toxic waste is more oppressive than being denied a
promotion from Associate to Full Professor or being denied a promotion
from Major to Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army.
On the average, noting all the usual problems with "averages", obviously
within a given social class, "ethnic group" or whatever, women are far
more oppressed than males. .............Yes oppression is complicated
and multi-dimensional but we have to get real.
1) Of course I had never said that women are not MORE oppressed than
women. And I agree with the thrust of your note, that complexity of
differing oppressions is firstly difficult to measure the magnitude of
in relation to each other; & moreover should not drown out the fact of
the ppressions of others.
2) "To get real" - which sentiment I applaud - a simple notion of the
solidarity of all oppressed peoples and sections - should be reiterated
in my view. This connects with Mohammed J. Alam's comments - that I note
you agree with - that a false sense of the need to encloistered and
commune with people of your own race/chromosomal sex/classroom - to
"build up your identify" - before engaging with the world-capitalists
order is naive and useless. I would use such terms as consciously a
false path of splittism. I think that the best example - and one close
to home for those in the North American continent is that of the
spurious Black nation in the USA. Many texts attest to how that served
to divide the oppressed masses into separate streams. I will not here,
defend Stalin other than to note that the common misconception that this
splittist tendency was a Stalinist seed is - false. [See an extensive &
documented analysis of the history of this revisionist path at: Black
Nationalism: Black Nation-Revisionist Theory in the USA
3) I have heard many feminists castigating Engels & Marx, & when asked
for a specific refutation, have not been able to provide a decent text.
I have heard the Origins of PP State & Family" castigated as
"unscientific & refuted by modern anthropological data". I have not been
able to verify this in textual form. Regrettably Bon Moun did not
provide a textual reference to back the anti-Engels claim she/he made in
a recent posting. I realise that Nancy is consciously not reading
anything put out by that execrable misogynist Hari Kumar, so I ask those
who are aware of the best up-to-date 'refutation' of Engels on this
matter, to consider posting the references. I am aware of one text
("Engels Revissited: New Feminist Essays: ed J.Sayers, M.evans,
N.Redclift, London 1987), but I found those to be more opinion-based
than intent on a re-evaluation of old & new evidence on the matter. I am
mindful that despite the ridiculing of Engels' views on the evolution of
the hand & speech, that recent work has been done that tends to verify
Engels in the field of the origins of the labour Theory fo value. [e.g.:
a relatively recent review: "Making Stones Speak - Human Evolution & the
Dawn of Technology"; K.d.Schick & N.Toth New York 1993ISBN:
& for an explicit but older defence of Engels: "The Labour Theory of
Cutlure - A Re-examination of Engels's theory of Human Origins"; by
Charles Woolfson; London 1982; ISBN: 0-7100-0997-6].
Hari Kumar

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list