Re: Lenin & Gramsci contra Weber (was Re: Weber against Marx)

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> >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 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". Great. Next thing you'll see perfume ads. Only
a day after he mentioned her name, did a bell ring. Debbie Nathan was the
author of an infamous Nation Magazine article on maquiladora's that
constitutes a key element of Henwoodism. She wrote that women had become
liberated by working in the maquilas because the job not only gave them
financial independence but sexual emancipation as well. This turns out to
be their right to see male strippers after work in places like Guadalajara.
What Nathan did not mention is that the maquiladoras had become a major
scandal since psychopathic murderer-rapists had preyed on young women
returning to their shacks on dark roads after a day at work. Nathan did not
mention how supervisors were sexually exploiting these young women as
welll. All that mattered to Henwood is that they were getting away from
"rural idiocy". Some people should be prohibited by law from citing the
Communist Manifesto.

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/