Re: AUT: Patriarchy

[billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Bartlett)]

Luther Blissett wrote:

>Ok I'm suffering from indigestion having read too much French political
>theory. But I haven't yet worked out a good English term for encadrement.

How about 'join'?

>>In the final analysis I decided the point you make is actually irrelevant.
>>The fact that bourgoise social reform, in this case equality of women, is
>>fought out without addressing the fundamental class conflict within
>>capitalist society, does not really detract from the fact that bourgoise
>>society is a step up from feudal society. And not just for women.
>
>This is what I'm not keen about. I feel its too much of a linear view of
>history. I don't think capitalism was the necessary outcome of feudal
>society, and it arose  in relation to non-feudal societies as much as in
>relation to feudal societies.

Oh sorry, (heavy sarcasm) is a "linear" view of history old fashioned now?
Putting aside the possibilities implied by a NON linear view of history
though, I'm not sure what you mean by "it" (capitalism) arising "in
relation" (?) to non-feudal societies as much as in relation to feudal
ones.

This is quite a vague and an ambiguous assertion. Please give examples so I
can see what you are saying. I strongly suspect I will disagree with you,
it even occurs to me that you are purposefully obscuring your meaning to
frustrate counter argument.

>
>>And these social reforms are not entirely stripped of "revolutionary
>>dynamic", as you put it. In creating equality for women the capitalist
>>society is creating working class women and, in creating the working class,
>>capitalism fashions the instrument of its own destruction. Or so the story
>>goes.
>
>But I don't reckon the social reforms are ever realised, and to the extent
>they are, they can as readily be revoked.

I'm not referring to concessions when I speak of reform here, I am
referring to social reforms that are in the interests of capitalism. This
is a different matter from concessions which the master class concede
grudgingly. Either can be revoked if society will permit it, but you will
agree that this is less likely if the material interests of neither bosses
or workers are served by revoking such reform.

>
>>Oh, and why is the "break up of class as a sociological category"  "to be
>>welcomed"?
>
>Because the sociological category was developed precisely to combat
>communist theory.

You've lost me again I'm sorry. The sociological category of 'class' was
developed to combat communist theory you say? You may be being a little TOO
brief now.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---