Re: bourgeois tasks/stages

["Martin Schreader" <mschreader@xxxxxxxx>]

Ed George wrote:
>
> For Chist's sake, grow up Martin.

Whatever, Ed.

Seriously, though, I have noticed an interesting "thread" in the way certain
people are handled on this list. The working class people who have joined
and are unwilling to play second fiddle to the list owner and his immediate
coterie are almost always unceremoniously dumped. The fine gentlemen of the
academic left take exception to the "dark people" speaking their minds and
standing on their feet.

They call them (us) "crude" and "offensive"; their (our) writings are called
at the very least "inappropriate". Sometimes they (we) are threatened: "One
more like that and I will unsub you." Sometimes they (we) are just thrown
off without a word.

Did these fine gentlemen ever stop to think of the implications of their
actions? Certainly not. In fact, these "Marxists" relish their class bias
against workers. The difference between them and other non-proletarians who
engage in the same acts is that the former try to use "Marxist" phraseology
as a fig leaf (e.g., José Perez's sterling defense of publicly-funded
private [read: medieval, religious] education under the cover of
regurgitated phraselets from Marx).

But this is certainly not new, and should be no surprise. Many of  these
comrades were trained in an environment where a class-based division of
labor was not only acceptable, but desirable. For example, one comrade on
this list (we'll call him Leon) left his party of choice many years ago
after asking him to do menial chores in the party offices -- chores that
every other party member had to do. Apparently, it was beneath Leon to lower
himself to the level of ... a janitor! He was a trained intellectual; Leon's
fingernails shouldn't have dirt under them!

In some organizations, such elitist arrogance would be grounds for
disciplinary action. The fact that it wasn't is very telling. No wonder
Leon's former party degenerated into a pathetic doctrinaire cult. But,
apparently, some of that "some are more equal to others" class arrogance
rubbed off.

To me, this is not a question of harping on some personalistic point. If it
was, I wouldn't be putting it here. I see class issues as decisive. How can
you expect to build a party if it simply duplicates the same class
divisions -- including the same old crap of class arrogance and class
privilege -- that we see in capitalist society? For that matter, how can
that party ever be the political leadership of the proletarian revolution --
you know, step one on the road to the classLESS society -- when those
conditions exist?

So, fine, Ed. You can tell me to "grow up" all you want. But my perceived
"immaturity" is not your problem -- or the problem of the working class.
Petty-bourgeois arrogance and class-based divisions of labor in the workers'
and socialist movement are the problem. And the fact that you cannot see
that tells me more about you than anything else.

Comradely;
Martin
http://www.wpus.org/
... again, letting the chips fall where they may


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.