INTELLECTUALS, reason & al.

[Ralph Dumain]

I have been more or less incommunicado and unable to respond to the many
posts that have come rushing in over the past few weeks, though I have read
several of them at least in a cursory manner.  I intend to respond to Jim
J's latest post as soon as I get a chance, but first I need to deal with
Jonathan Broad.  Broad may be a worker, but as an academically trained
person he has developed the habit of lazy and inattentive reading, and I'm
going to nip his bullshit in the bud right off.

At 07:51 PM 7/29/97 -0400, Jonathan Broad (NC) wrote:
>Greetings, citizens.  First time caller, long time listener, etc. Ralph
>and Jim seem hell-bent on filling the dataline with a lot of good
>old-fashioned (self) righteousness.

Piffle!

>Ralph and Jim advocate affiliation with "working-class" organizations.  By
>which they seem to mean a Marxist organization, or perhaps a union.

I never advocated any such thing, not on this list, not ever.  It is not my
business to tell people what to do.  I feel no greater compulsion to tell
academics to get involved in political organization than I would any other
group of people in any other walk of life.  It would be great if everybody
could get involved in something, but I don't make it my mission to draft
intellectuals into the class war.  I don't think this is the proper way to
address intellectual or political issues.  What I have been addressing all
along is the basic sense of reality that comes from everyday living, not
political activism as a specialized form of activity.  Why is this not clear?

>Although I have no particular interest in commenting on the "hip-hop"
>schizm entwined with this thread, I must note that as far as I can tell
>hip-hop (or goth, or reggae, or industrial) "clubs" are as populated by
>the honest-to-god "working-class" as anybody else.  If the music did not
>articulate some aspect of that experience, only the booze would remain.
>To which I expect a standard Marxist pat answer, something along the lines
>of the "false consciousness" of the "working class".  It doesn't wash.

Again, you are not paying attention.  I don't deal with cultural forms, e.g.
music or religious belief, in an instrumental manner: i.e. whether it is
politically expedient to either endorse or abjure them.  One cannot address
fundamental questions of alienation or the quality of life or the intrinsic
good and bad of things in this manner.

Re quality of life.  Riddle me this?  There was a time when miserable
inner-city or oppressive rural conditions produced people who could sing or
play instruments, people like Aretha Franklin or BB King.  30 years ago
everybody and their sister could get up on a stage and sing.  A few people
became famous, but ability was commonplace.  Now nobody can sing or play
instruments.  All they can do is dress up like bank robbers and shout.  What
does this suggest?

>To Ralph, who I suspect is either a Marxist-Humanist or something close:
>What did you mean by the "Universal", which is the "development of human
>beings" or somesuch?  I sympathize with your stance that there are many
>things which cannot be learned except by engagement with those you call
>"working class", but I find your language suspect.  "Development" can only
>be managed within a totality, and one articulation of the Marxist position
>has determined that said "development" can only be had via a statist
>revolution.  

This is all childish crap, the product of laziness and the incapacity to pay
attention.  Yes, the Dunayevskaya cult does use the term "universal", and I
may have picked up this lingo from them, but then CLR James wrote about the
universals of 1948, back in 1948 or thereabouts.  I am not into
discipleship, though, sorry to disappoint you.  

I am not in a position to manage people's development.  But I am as much in
a position as any human being to judge, as one must, what furthers or
hinders human development.  Only an intellectual could be stupid enough not
to understand this.  You stupid lazy bastard, why don't you make an effort
to read?

>Do you believe that the "universal" is an ahistorical
>perspective accessible to human consciousness via a "party" organization?

This is your problem, not my agenda.

>Is this party sole propriator of the universal "theory" or perspective?

Heavens no.  I don't think much of parties.  In practice, they are as much
behind as ahead in these matters.  And they have done a dismal job of
developing their own members.  Rather, they seek to manipulate and control
them by exploiting their willingness for self-sacrifice, holding them
hostage to party discipline and wasting their lives and ultimately
destroying their most human qualities. The Trotskyists are as bad as the
Stalinists, no, worse.  Nothing more can come of these people.

>Are its articulations and actions in some sense guided by this totality?

They may think so, but I'm not into political cults.

>You and your friend have spoken volumes about the problems facing academic
>language--but what of your own? 

What friend?  My own what?

> What gives you the right to shout down
>the voices of fellow travelers who have chosen a different path through
>life, however confused? 

Your dishonest rhetoric is an attempt to shout me down.  I haven't shouted
down anyone.  I came onto this list seeking information on how Frankfurters
and other western marxists have treated philosophy and intellectual life in
relationship to the division of labor.  Responding to other people's queries
about my views, I have attempted to clarify and expand on them.  I'm not
interested in arguing with academics, for I find them useless outside of
their capacity to give me the information I need to do my own work.

> Academic language may retreat into its
>solipsistic channels from time to time, but we must admit that it is this
>type of language which has given rise to the piercing insights which we
>must find a way to broadcast in more timely fashion. 

This is nonsense.  The harder certain concepts and systems of ideas are to
understand, the more clarity is demanded, so that we can concentrate on the
ideas and not be unnecessarily obstructed by unclear language.  Technical or
scholarly language may not be immediately accessible to the untutored, but
there is no need to write badly on purpose.  There is no excuse for not
trying to communicate.

> Instead of "human
>development" being the guiding light, I would suggest that "articulation"
>(a word I will leave in pupae state at the moment, for lack of
>time--except to say that by articulation I refer to more than simply
>language, as it must include social organization and production as well
>to be more than idealistic or simplistically pluralistic) is a better
>guideline for left-minded people.

This is childish drivel and completely irrelevant to my concerns.  Human
development is not obscure.  Everybody knows what it means.  When parents
send their kids to take piano or ballet lessons, as they do in black
Washington by the thousands, they know what they are trying to develop,
which is more than those specific skills, but self-confidence, perseverance,
and all the human qualities that enhance life.  They know this, so why don't
you?

>Please make an effort to disclose what you are bringing to share with us,
>the insights of a different way of life, rather than simply venting your
>spleen.

It takes two to tango.  Educated people who talk rubbish need not be
tolerated. You have made no effort to read anything _I_ wrote with any
attentiveness, or you would not project your twaddle onto me.  So feel free
to kiss my ass.

>  I for one think that most Marxisms are bankrupt for ideas or
>useful action, although not hopelessly so.  If we continue to be inspired
>by the visions of our Marxist predecessors, we must find new ways of
>bringing their perceptions to bear on our world, and to understand why
>they have all failed (although not entirely) to transform this world for
>the better.  

Yes.  However, I have no illusions about myself or any other small band of
people thinking they are capable of controlling the entire historical
process, so my point of departure is not how we can effect the revolution by
supporting or rejecting hiphop or liberation theology.  These kind of
questions cannot be addressed in this manner.  That they would be so
addressed by highly educated people indicates the intellectuals' desperation
and self-abasement before power. I never advocate that academics get
politically involved in anything.  The reason is that the need for such
people to belong and feel useful makes them easy prey for totalitarianism,
as we have seen with Stalinism and Maoism.  I thought my quote from CLR
James on intellectuals and the division of labor should be clear, but of
course I knew it would not be understood.  So I see I have my work cut out
for me.