Re: Re(2): Lang embodied?

From: Judy Diamondstone (diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 16 2000 - 19:52:00 PDT


Paul,

I for one appreciate the specification of a class analysis. But I just
cannot agree that

>the only appropriate framework for a social
>>transformation that might resolve all the specific instances is found in
>>class analysis.

-- even with this qualification:

>This is not to say that women or subjugated minorities
>>don't have their own particular, separate issues, but that those
>>particularities are not the essential basis of oppression in capitalist
>>society or the basis for any true liberation.

No doubt, one basis of pervasive & profound oppression of all kinds is the
capitalist state (woops, we're past that already -- rampant global runaway
capitalism) & its ideology. But the exercise of power simply does not /
would not disappear OR become benign, even if we were all to revert to
pre-feudal economy.
 
You wrote to Elisa:

 I see the 20th century socialist experience in terms of the international
struggle between capitalist and socialist states. Perhaps the time wasn't
ripe yet as Rosa Luxemburg thought, and the formation of the Leninist Party
that morphed into the socialist totalitarian state, led to its final demise.
More speculation.
>
>I don't know if this clarifies my position about the position concerning
the subjugation of women in capitalist society. There is certainly a lot of
room for thought.

There is much need for thought here. What might subjugation/oppression mean,
what would be the referent, what the object, if subjugation/oppression were
NOT fully explained by a social class analysis? This is a very tricky
question if you play it out in concrete terms in everyday situations....

Judy

Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 01:00:35 PDT