Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: Feminism and Marxism, was Re: Prostitution and the left
- Subject: Re: Feminism and Marxism, was Re: Prostitution and the left
- From: Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:02:11 -0700
Just a few remarks...
Frankly, I don't know what motivates your anger Carrol, but on the question of
feminism and marxism 1) *I* drastically benefited from Lou's posts 2) *I* found
them very relevant to the subject matter of the discussion, if not you 3) *I*
learnt a great of deal of ideas that none of the participants to the discussion
had
raised as of so far, including myself (and Yoshie)! People learn through
training
and experience.
With that said, I also sense a sort of injustice in your remarks. It is OK when
people forward posts about this character from m-fem or lbo without any
reference
or significant background. That is fine. Accordingly, people shut up, or raise
their concerns within the limits of civility and with regard to technical
principles. However, when a post from pen-l is forwarded which is so relevant to
the discussion, in my view, in terms of analytical and historical content,
there ad
hominem attacks start. This is a double standard. My simple suggestion is that
let's not attack each other for a character who is not even worth on this
principled and highly qualified listserv of comrades. Let's save the honor of
the
discussion on behalf of feminism and marxism along the lines posted by Lou!
comradely,
Xxxx
>Carrol Cox wrote:
> Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> > I think this discussion/debate would be a lot clearer if two of the leading
> > principal's were here, which is about as likely as a snowfall in hell. One
> > is Harry Cleaver, a adherent of 'autonomist Marxism' and the other is Doug
> > Henwood, LM fellow-traveler and postmodernist. In a debate on PEN-L around
>
> >This is nonsense. The context of the discussion is in fact the whole
> >>history of
>
> >feminism and of marxist attempts to incorporate the "woman >question" into
> >marxist historical understanding and political theory. To haul >Henwood and
> >Cleaver into a discussion which would be exactly the same had they >never
> >been born seems almost deliberate obstructionism.
>
--
Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222
____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________
- Thread context:
- Re: Bebel: Re: Marx & Engels on Prostitution (was Re: Women & Industr,
Luko Willms Sun 17 Sep 2000, 21:28 GMT
- Martha Gimenez on Marxism and Trends in Feminism.,
Carrol Cox Sun 17 Sep 2000, 20:32 GMT
- Feminism and Marxism, was Re: Prostitution and the left,
Carrol Cox Sun 17 Sep 2000, 18:01 GMT
- Bebel: Re: Marx & Engels on Prostitution (was Re: Women & Industrialization),
Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx Sun 17 Sep 2000, 16:26 GMT
- Re: marxism-digest V1 #2613,
Geoff Collier Sun 17 Sep 2000, 15:47 GMT
- The rich got richer,
Louis Proyect Sun 17 Sep 2000, 15:36 GMT
- Chinese peasant anger,
Louis Proyect Sun 17 Sep 2000, 15:35 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]