Good points, Doug!
>
>Talk about caricature without evidence. What about generations of
>"traditional" leftists who organized unions and fought for civil rights,
>with tremendous dedication and at great risk and sacrifice? This
>"traditional" left has existed almost nowhere except in the minds of
>posties in 30 years.
It's easy to forget this; it's easy never to have learned it. I confess I
don't know this history as much as I would like it; but I think I have a
good sense of it. I would not be surprised at all if in fact there has been
much of the type of dialogue that, in my view, pomo promotes; how could
there not have been any? But, to the extent that there was, it was perhaps
due more to the good sense of leftists, as engaged and caring people, than
to effects of the modernist epistemology that informed their theoretical
discourse. How much more there could have been remains a matter of
speculation, by necessity; but I am led to speculate that there would
indeed have been more. I have not meant to condemn, or perhaps even to
criticize (perhaps I should have been more careful--but this is an ongoing
discussion, so things can be adjusted as we go along) actual leftists; I
admire their dedication and courage; as I do that of many caring and
dedicated leftists today--including you, Doug. Rather, the point is the
effects of a certain way of understanding "knowledge" and the relationship
between the narrower boudaries of one theory and the larger, more flexible
boundaries for a left political practice.
>
>Correlation is not causation, fer sure, but I notice that the assertion of
>all these new ways of knowing and doing have coincided with the rise of the
>right. If these new modes were of such great practical utility, why aren't
>we seeing some results? And why is it that in the U.S. at least the right
>has been the great beneficary of class resentments?
There is much in traditional Marxist theory that can itself explain the
shift to the right; I don't know if my other pomo friends do (many don't,
and I argue with them), but I believe in the usefulness of theorizing the
effects of fundamental shifts in patterns of accumulation. I believe that
historically the left has always been left behind, as we are now, during
such periods of restructuring. But, I do believe that
1) we Marxists would not have been left behind as much as we are (I
am talking about here, in the U.S.) if we had worked out a different
relationship with probable allies (not too difficult to imagine that this
could have happened in the last 30 years, except for the baggage of
official orthodoxy); and
2) unless we are condemn ourselves to a continuation of this cycle
of capitalism running out ahead of the forces of resistance and the left
having to play catch up every time there is a new cycle of accumulation, we
better broaden our basis for political organization--and think about the
theoretical conditions that would allow for such broadening.
Antonio
>
>Doug
>
>--
>
>Doug Henwood
>Left Business Observer
>250 W 85 St
>New York NY 10024-3217
>USA
>+1-212-874-4020 voice
>+1-212-874-3137 fax
>email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
Antonio Callari and/or Elisabeth King-Callari
939 Martha Ave
Lancaster, PA 17601
Phone 717 397-3228
FAX 717 397-1790
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
