Bhaskar Sunkara wrote:
No where is this insinuated. I can't understand how anyone could take that
reading from his article.
To repeat myself, WBM is a *very* slippery character. His prose is open
to multiple interpretations, no doubt a function of his exposure to too
many ALA conferences.
This is probably a very valid point. There should no question that the
immigrant rights movements
and organizing among other marginalized groups should be a primary focus for
Marxists right now.
I despise when people dismiss the White working class as hopelessly
reactionary, but there is no
No where is this insinuated. I can't understand how anyone could take that
reading from his article.
From his NLR piece entitled 'Against Diversity':
“In 1947 –seven years before Brown v. Board of Education, sixteen years
before The Feminine Mystique –the top fifth of American wage-earners
I am sorry but that is not a good critique of Benn Michaels. Like yours
Louis it too is filled with strawperson arguments based on things that he
never said. I am not going to get into specifics of his arguments, which I
personally think he does not present very well, because it is clear that
brad bauerly wrote:
I am sorry but that is not a good critique of Benn Michaels. Like yours
Louis it too is filled with strawperson arguments based on things that he
never said. I am not going to get into specifics of his arguments, which I
personally think he does not present very well,
A good critique would take what he actually says
and show how some of it is empirically wrong and politically a bad tactic.
Well, what he sloppily insinuates about income inequality and New Left
movements being the cause of it, is easily refutable.
But as far as tactics are concerned, I'd
