The mother of all circular agruments (was RE: SDS and FRSO[FR] (was RE: [Marxism] White Skin Privilege

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Mark Lause

>
> People have argued that the "white skin privilege" concept of
> the 1960s was needed to describe a new awareness of race and
> white privilege, as opposed to a strictly class sense of
> social hierarchy.  I've argued that an awareness of race and
> white privilege was around a long time before the 1960s
> (albeit among non-academics and non-whites), which raises a
> question about the value of a "theory" that tells us nothing
> that we didn't already know.

Awarness of class and class privilege was around for a long time before the
1840s (albeit among non-academics and workers), so those this means that
Marxism has no value?

I cannot accept a view that questions a theory not on its merits as to how
it both fits reality and asserts ways to transform it, but questions it
simply because other competing or complementary theories exist. Nor can I
accept that instead of answering with specific examples of how previously
existing theory answers the same questions as the one in question, you
simply say that others are better.

By this logic, we all should be Critical Critics, or Proudhonists or
Saintsimonists. After all, they were around long before Marx.

Doesn't cut it at all!

sks


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism