From UticaRose@aol.com  Fri Apr 18 04:39:17 1997
From: UticaRose@aol.com (UticaRose@aol.com)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 23:39:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: M-TH: PANIC LEFTIST ... and the working class ?
Message-ID: <970417233754_2015636091@emout16.mail.aol.com>

In a message dated 97-04-17 23:30:19 EDT, ajsahay@mailbox.syr.edu (Amrohini
J. Sahay) writes:

<<  Critique is part of class struggle.  The language of
 critique must be complex enough, layered enough to be able to analyze
 the highly sophisticated, nuanced and elaborate constructs of ruling
 class practices and ideas. To demand that critique be "translated"
 into a commonsensical language is to systematically reduce its
 analytical ability:  to turn it into a "moral" sermon (Uncle Lou),
 abuse and scatological shouting (Hugh Rodwell), or simply ranting
 (Malecki).  Critique must remain theoretically thick and deploy a
 language resourceful enough to engage the most advanced discourses
 and practices of the bourgeoisie. >>

this is actually what was written. class struggle's critique must be complex,
layered, not commonsensical, not moral, thick and so designed as to engage
the bourgeoisie. 

where has the working class gone ? 

the SUNY socialists are disinteRESTED from engaging the only social class
which can move towards socialism. they are engaged by dialogue, linguistic
theory and the phantasms of their own academic aridity.

this is not socialism. this is not marxism. the net left is a mighty
International compared to the SUNY socialists. these are reemerged young
hegelians or liguistic blanquists. 

this has as much to do with working class politics as stalinism had to do
with socialism. and there are other analogies. for good reason.


     --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.village.virginia.edu ---