I accept your criticism of my use of the phrase 'belly of the beast'. I agree that our primary responsibility is to our neighbours.
When Paul Gilroy wrote There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack in the 1980s I think his position was black nationalist. Certainly the universal humanism he is now advocating is a big shift in position, and a good one. I may go to the Caudwell conference (which I did not know about), but not sure at the moment. Phil -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 04 October 2007 09:33 To: [email protected] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Presentations to the Fifth International Marx Congress Examples will take some time to tackle, so I'll be brief for now. My late friend Jim Murray taught me that you're never as isolated as you think, and that in actuality individual dilemmas are also social dilemmas, so don't think your frustrations are yours alone. Actually, CLR James said much the same thing. I don't know what to say about your humble regard. I'm not sure it's deserved. Let's just say we're up against a behemoth and it's hard not to be completely swallowed up by it. As for the 'belly of the beast', I generally don't use that expression, because when American lefties use it, they are expressing their subcultural fetishism divorcing themselves from the surrounding society, as if their primary responsibility is to people halfway around the world and not to their neighbors. I find this attitude extremely obnoxious, as it reinforces all the bad cultism that infects the activist subculture. The ruling class is the beast, and the subordinate classes can be mighty beastly as well, but the USA is our home. There are certainly some people among the lower classes who are hungry for ideas. It doesn't seem to be a majority, to put it politely. First, there is the question of respect for education. I suspect that has declined, accompanying the general cynicism and directionlessness of the population. A reverence for education historically has tended to be a vague ideal rather than a specific grasping at it, because generations who were deprived of the opportunity often idealized it. A lot of people of the Depression generation felt this way and a number of their children raised in the 1950s did as well. It may be my experience of (Southern) black people that gave me the strongest impression of what I'm describing, though I've met other quite successful old folks of various backgrounds who've got it all yet somehow have an inferiority complex about a lack of a respectable college education. But I don't think we have any real respect for education now, having been degraded by the general disarray and infantilization of popular culture. People I know who value education and hold themselves to some standard find themselves resisting the general culture. Minorities feel the squeeze more than others, I daresay, though there is no public forum in which to express this. Again, I'm biased by the demographics of the people I know. The situation is more complex now because the ideas we need now have to cut through many more ideological layers, and then they have to be communicated in a social context that does not support a high level of discourse. A little bit of intelligence in the public areas is so rare, it is mistaken for profundity. The "first-rate" intellectuals you name are all academics, and I would not testify as to the size and characteristics of the audience they reach, though structurally they do have positions with which to reach some audience. I'm curious about your remarks about Paul Gilroy. Gilroy was never a black nationalist from what I know. I haven't followed him for a few years now, but as a black Brit migrant to U.S. academia, he found himself in conflict with black American academics in Black Studies (or whatever it's called now--I can't stand using the now obligatory term "African American"). Gilroy got some hostility for his book AGAINST RACE. But comparing him to such second-raters as Cornel West or Mike Dyson, it's not hard to see why he would be resented as a foreign interloper. But I'm a few years out of date on what Gilroy is up to. He's not exactly a Marxist, but he's also not exactly a non-Marxist. He deals with cultural questions, and naturally he's influenced by post-marxist thought as occurs everywhere including UK Cultural Studies, but he's better in his field than most, it seems to me. I'm not sure what it means to forget the race question: here there is no escape from it. At best there's a recognition that it is necessarily tied up with the class question, but given the repression of class politics, it's tough to make that a central concept beyond a laundry list of specific social issues (poverty, health care, affirmative action, etc.). The question, however, is more subtle than putting everything in cookie-cutter Marxist terms. The interrelationships of cultural, generational, economic, and other components of the situation are of a subtlety that demands more than what we as a society or even an intelligentsia are putting into it. Whatever "debate culture" we have cannot sustain any great depth of debate. Depth exists in various individuals, but it gets communicated to relatively few. That's no reason to give up, but it is what it is, as we say. At 10:43 PM 10/3/2007, Phil Walden wrote: >Ralph, >Yes I am interested in your examples. Anyway you and the USA guys are in >the belly of the beast and we in the UK regard you humbly with great >respect. But, forgive me, is it possible that your isolation is not quite >as severe as you are expressing it at the moment? You may not be aware of >this to the full, but your idea-disseminating efforts have done much to >break down dogmatism within Marxism. Of course there is loads to be done to >build up a debate culture and dogmatism is a constant incubus on all our >backs. Philosophy should teach us that good debate is not really about >winning the debate (I'm serious) but about giving people more options than >they currently have. You are probably more of a scientific Marxist, Ralph. >But many moons ago you went beyond the narrow horizons of the Leninist >groups in order to give people tools to think with. It cannot be a total >coincidence that the Leninist groups have lost so much influence in this >time. This is wholly positive and in the interests of the American (and >international) working class. OK, frustration at the media culture is >entirely warranted, and even worse in USA than in UK. But let's hold onto >the truth that the working class loves ideas when it comes into contact with >them. And what's more don't you have some first-rate intellectuals in the >USA? Fredric Jameson, Robert Pippin, Terry Pinkard, Robert Wallace, David >Harvey, Bertell Ollman, to name a few. Can I just say that I think Paul >Gilroy's now revised position (he used to be a black nationalist) that the >way forward for black people is to forget the race question and adopt >universal humanism is very important and very smart. That doesn't make him >a Marxist of course but we Marxists can learn things from people who haven't >learnt the Marx lesson. >Phil > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
