On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, James Michael Craven wrote:
> I
> did not find these women and men seeing themselves as "self-
> valorizing" themselves or practicing a form of "self-determination"
> or "empowered" in any meaningful way. Sure some would mock the tricks
> and take delite in getting over on them but there was always a look
> of sadness and expression of marginal pleasure out of a situation of
> desperation and hopelessness.
>
Jim:Once again since I have no idea what you mean by "self-valorization"
and I'm convinced you have had no idea what I mean by it, I hardly know
how to evaluate your "evidence". Since I rather doubt on the basis of
your last post that we might agree about what "meaningful" empowerment
or self-detrmination might be, I can wonder if I might come to the same
conclusions from the same interviews. Given what I do mean by
self-valorization (which I spelled out briefly in my last response) I
would hope that things are not as bleak in Puerto Rico as you paint them,
but they may well be. I'm willing to assume that there are any number of
very desperate situations in the world of prostitution, as there are in so
many other domains of work.
> Prostitutes by virtue of their conditions of work, atomization
> (atomization is consciously designed to keep them powerless and
> unorganized) and isolation, attitudes (many were extremely anti-
> communist and anti-socialist eventhough they sometimes had a hard
> time articulating what it was about communism and socialism they
> opposed) typically belong more in the lumpenproletariat than in the
> classical proletariat. Of course there are many in the
> lumpenproletariat who have progressive sympathies and have played
> progressive roles while there are also some in the proletariat who
> are reactionary and have inhibited progressive struggles. I think
> that much of Franz Fanon's work helped to break down some of the anti-
> lumpenproletariat biases and stereotypes common in the left and that
> he was right on in suggesting that the potentially progressive
> sympathies and roles played among some in the lumpenproletariat have
> been grossly underestimated.
>
Jim: 1.Certainly those that seek to control prostitutes try (and often
succeed) in keeping them seperated from each other, atomized as it were.
On the other hand, clearly in some places at some times, prostitutes have
been able to organize themselves and have fought for and won better
working conditions, etc. What is needed is an analysis of the conditions
under which and the means through which some have succeeded and others
failed to do this, not just a focus on failure and a dismissal of success.
2.I don't think the "classical proletariat" - "lumpenproletariat"
dichotomy is very useful, especially not now, perhaps not ever. I
certainly don't see what we gain in understanding of the exploitation and
struggles of prostitutes through the use of these terms. Recent Marxist
studies of 18th C England have shown how the "criminal class" usually
lumped in with the lumpen was actually made up of ordinary workers. (See
Peter Linebaugh, The London Hanged, and also Albion's Fatal Tree by
Linebaugh and other Thompson ex-students.) At any rate all you have done
is label them, not used the concept to reveal anything.
> On the other hand, it was not because of petit-bourgeois morality
> that the Chinese and Cuban revolutions de jure abolished prostitution
> as one of the first official acts and worked to abolish it de facto.
> They understood that prostitution is about much more than the
> "exchange of use of genitals"; it is about commodification, which
> under capitalism is more about degradation and depreciation than
> "self-valorization" and "empowerment"; it can cause all sorts of
> problems in families (imagine the husband goes home and after giving
> his wife STDs from a visit to a prostitute says "But honey, I was
> only aiding in the empowerment and self-valorization of a fellow
> worker who just happens to be selling a different kind of product but
> essentially doing what I do at work"), for the families of
> prostitutes as well as prostitutes themselves (drug addiction,
> pimps).
Jim:Pretending that I think prostitution is just about fucking
and then making fun of it is not a convincing way of arguing. Concocting a
ridiculous scene and then making fun of it does not consistute a serious
argument either, however entertaining. Obviously prostitution is about
"commodification","degradation" and "depreciation", as is every other sale
of labor power. Self-valorization and empowerment are things people
sometimes manage to accomplish despite and against these things. What I
don't understand about the whole trend of your comments is your continual
tendency to ridicule or dismiss the possibility that such accomplishment
CAN happen. Why are you so determined to deny the possibility of sucessful
struggle?
Further, in the Chinese and Cuban revolutions, there was an
> understanding based on bloody experience that revolution requires
> dedication, focus, discipline, sacrifice, compromise, resoluteness
> etc and that these pathetic and marginal and individualistic
> (read "atomistic") attempts at "liberation and empowerment" generally
> lead nowhere except to even more marginalization and powerlessness
> and alienation.
>
Jim:What does this diatribe have to do with the issues at hand? I guess
you just feel the need to show your colors and associate yourself with the
valorous Chinese and Cuban Marxist-Leninists while dismissing the
"pathetic" struggles of everyone else. Since I make a rule NOT to debate
with ML types --as a futile exercise-- perhaps I should refrain from any
further effort to have a real discussion.
> BTW what is this stuff about "atomistic Marxism"? On the inscription
> on Marx's grave at Highgate it says: "The Philosophers have only
> interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to
> change it." "Workers of all countries unite" It doesn't say "workers
> of all countries do your own individualistic and atomistic thing and
> cut the best deal for yourself and your own limited and jaundiced
> notions of self-empowerment and self-valorization and screw your
> oppressors in marginal individualistic and self-destructive ways.
>
Jim:Let's see, Louis distorted the term "autonomist Marxism" into
"autonomic Marxism" and now you have further twisted it into "atomistic
Marxism", despite Franco's explanation to Louis about how he got it wrong.
Strikes me as willful misrepresentation. But then it's useful right,
because it fits in with your general assault against anything less than
fully organized, partly-led, collective class action? "Atomistic" fits
with your effort to dismiss the struggles of individuals and with the
general observation (which which we all agree) that atomization means
weakness. Unfortunately, autonomist Marxism is not about "the Marxism of
atomized individuals" or anthing like it. It is a tradition and body of
evolving theory, as Franco explained, that recognizes and focuses on the
self-activity of workers through which they move from dominated labor
power to revolutionary subjects. It includes a whole body of literature
analyzing the dynamics of changing "class composition" through an
examination of the divisions and interactions among sectors within the
class and between the class and capital.
At any rate I see no evidence whatsoever of any effort on your part to
understand either the arguments I have made or the theory associated with
them. What I see is a very nasty proclivity to missrepresentation,
belittlement and dismissal.
> Elements of the lumpenproletariat, petit-bourgoeis, anmd even
> nominally progressive bourgeoisie may play and have played a role in
> revolution. But I wouldn't want to build or participate in a whole
> movement based on rationalizing some of the worst tendencies and
> ideas found there.
>
>
Jim Craven
>
Well, Jim, now just who the hell do you think would "want to build or
participate in a whole movement based on rationalizing some of the worst
tendencies and ideas"???? I'm sure there is a name for such a style of
argumentation (trying to dismiss a very delimited argument by associating
it with gross generalizations that are not held by the author) but I can't
think what it's called.
What I do think is that there is no reason to continue this exchange
because it really hasn't been one.
Harry
............................................................................
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173 USA
Phone Numbers: (hm) (512) 478-8427
(off) (512) 475-8535 Fax:(512) 471-3510
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cleaver homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index.html
Chiapas95 homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html
Accion Zapatista homepage:
http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/
.............................................................................
