RE: Gender and Class

["Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxx>]

N Brumback writes:

I write again:

"Fetish" in the sense that marx used it, as in the
fetishism of commodities, where commodities are seen
to have an inner life of their own, not having been
produced by human hands? I don't see how analysis of
society can turn society into a fetish. If analysis
of society does turn society into a fetish, then Marx
himself would been one of our most prominent social
fetishizers.

Response (Jim C): Actually, what Marx meant by "fetishism" (of commodities
or of whatever) was simply reifying or not going beyond the appearances and
superficial aspects/relations between "things" (appearing as exchange
relations between "things" rather than deeper productive and exploitive
relations between producers of things and those appropriating their surplus
value in the course of the production and exchange those things) to a deeper
level of understanding of power/class/exploitative relations between
individuals and groups embodied within--and governing--any nominal or
superficial relations between "things"[e.g. commodities--produced by and
through those "hidden" productive processes and relations beneath the
surface. In this sense, bogus or reifying analyses may not turn society into
a fetish (whatever that is supposed to mean) but rather does reify various
aspects and dimensions of "society" [even the construct "society" itself]
taking the superficial for the essential in order to hide the essential in
the service of those requiring that the essential be hidden.



N. Bumbrack writes:

Do I detect a note of anti-intellectualism here? Don't
tell me anti-intellectualism doesn't exist in any Marxist
movement because I know it does. Strange when you
remember that Marx himself was an intellectual, and
Engels too.

Response (Jim C): What exactly is a generic "intellectual"--in Marxist
terms? Actually Marx reserved his most vehement rhetoric and invective
against so-called "intellectuals" of his times. What is commonly called
"anti-intellectualism" in many Marxist movements by outsiders of those
movements is often simply calling a spade a spade; that is because so many
so-called "intellectuals" are fucking useless--even in bourgeois and
petiti-bourgeois terms. Of course there are some who want but lack "formal
education" and resent those who have it; but they are a small minority. Many
workers, with good cause, resent slogan/jargon-spouting, so-called
intellectuals, far more concerned with knotching their CVs than making any
serious contributions to serious change and struggle. Even many of the
so-called "progressive" intellectuals are apparently far more interested in
their personal research projects, teaching their classes for their own
personal gratification etc. than making any serious contributions or
submitting to the discipline and compromise necessary for any serious
movement.

Where we often see the male radicals sitting around and waxing
philisophical/poetic/radical while the women do the "shit work", the same
applies along the line of class and strata: often we see the so-called
intellectuals sitting around counting how many true revolutionaries can
dance on the head of a pin while the workers carry the heavy loads many of
the so-called "intellectuals" never had any experience in (and often
avoided) carrying. Where conditions of work and relative degrees of freedom
and security at work have a whole lot to do with overall consciousness,
so-called generic "intellectuals", even the self-declared/defined
"revolutionary ones", can, and often do, easily acquire petit-bourgeois
habits and mentalities. I see this all the time when, for example, lunching
with radicals, seeing how they treat and interact with those serving them.
Marx, Engels, Lenin and others understood this; they also honestly alluded
to such deficiencies in themselves in private letters. I see a whole lot of
"radical intellectuals" who "love humanity"--but hate or treat hatefully
people and are themselves rather miserable people.

I for one supported the notion in the Cultural Revolution in China of
sending the so-called "intellectuals" out the countryside to slop hogs and
do real physical labor as an educational experience (with the workers voting
as to which "intellectuals" had been sufficiently transformed and were
sufficiently trustworthy to do "intellectual work" in the service of the
oppressed rather than in the service of acquiring tenure, building CVs,
building personal empires or market niches etc.) I thought it was a neat
idea.

So I don't know what it means to talk about "intellectuals"
generically--irrespective of the outlooks, commitments, intentions and
actions of any given set of or individual intellectuals. Some see themselves
as simply mental workers, differentiated from those doing physical labor
only in terms of what capabilities are being used--and perhaps conditions of
work. Others think that because they can wax eloquent or employ complex
syntax and vocabulary that they, by virtue of the organs being used in work
and levels of formal [bullshit] education, are somehow destined to
leadership, special conditions, special percs etc; and they often
objectify/reify/use/exploit real workers and their struggles/issues. Such
types should be attacked by any real Marxists.

I have a simple test that I use when talking with "radical intellectuals"
who have done this or that study on oppressed whatever and have used some of
those oppressed whatever for their research: When was the last time you
spoke with so-and-so who was part of your research? Where is that person?
How is that person doing? If that person were far away and asked for your
help would you go and do what you could? I find, more often than not, that
some of the so-called "radical academics/intellectuals" are just as adept at
using and throwing away oppressed people for their own personal
agenda/advancement in academia and elsewhere as some of the hard-core
bourgeois academics and "intellectuals". And for such behavior, they are
often rebuked and indeed should be by any real Marxists.

At our institution, we just had removed the president, a woman claiming to
be a feminist, who had all the right slogans and quotes down. Interestingly,
most of the victims of her cunning, opportunistic, megalomaniacal and
predatory behavior were oppressed women and it was generally women who most
loudly celebrated "Karma time" for this individual. She also claimed that
she was removed because of anti-intellectualism and anti-feminism; truth be
known, she was neither, but she had plenty of help from the opportunistic
types of "intellectuals--many of whom so piosly claimed to be progressive
and "bleeding hearts" (My mother's definition of a "bleeding heart liberal":
Someone who "bleeds"--with other people's blood.)

Jim Craven



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