[Marxism] DISILLUSIONED WITH MARXMAILers!

[Haines Brown]

> From: Haines Brown
> > In fact, a university population consists of both petite
> > bourgeoisie and working class. I'll assume for the sake of
> > discussion that you are an instructor and so fall within the
> > former class in objective terms.
> 
> "for the sake of discussion". How charming.

You obviously are being ironic here, but I don't understand your
point. I had reason to infer from the message that its writer was on
the teaching staff, but I wished to address the issues he raised
without presuming to comment on his personal situation. So I raised it 
"for the sake of discussion". You don't seem to grasp that I was
trying to be polite and to keep the discussion from being ad hominem. 

> > "Why do I assume you are objectively petite bourgeois? Because..."
> 
> Because you are trained in sectarian habits, perhaps?

As best I can make out, your comment is a non sequitur. What does my
inference about the social location of someone have to do with
"sectarianism"? The logic here escapes me. I inferred he was on the
teaching staff because of the tenor of his comments, and some
assumption was necessary if my response were to be constructive. My
inference was either correct or incorrect, not "sectarian".

It just occurred to me: do you see the term "petite bourgeois" as an
insult for some reason? If so, let me remind you that this is a
Marxist forum. Actually it might be a kind of complement, for it
implies the person has some unusual level of skill or has the
advantage of some productive property, both of which, taken in
themselves, are reason for congratulation.

I should note that in my own social milieu, the term "bourgie" is
a frequently used criticism or insult. However, the context is
cultural rather than Marxist, and so obviously I did not intend it
that way. Also, the full term "petite bourgeois" is never used in my
milieu, for it is a technical term appropriate in social analysis.

> > And why the jibe at intellectuals? If you are a college professor,
> > you are a professional intellectual.
> 
> And here, Haines' "assum(ption) for the sake of discussion" is
> treated as truth.

That obviously is not so: I said "if". Besides, I was not making a
statement of truth, but only defining what being a college professor
means. This is so logically obvious I can only wonder that you try to
use it to derail my point about the class position of
intellectuals. I'm sure everyone else saw the word "if".

> Nick isn't "an instructor", incidentally.

OK, then I suppose he must be either a student or a staff person. If a
student, I wouldn't know how to respond in regard to his class
position, for it probably is in formation. If he is on the staff, my
limited experience organizing food service folks is that their
situation is entirely different than the rest of university staff, and
so how I would discuss class consciousness would depend a lot on which
kind of job it is. 

I don't know why you troubled to reply. My intention was to be helpful
and constructive from a Marxist perspective. You instead seem to have
construed it as an ad hominem criticism of someone known to you
personally, which somehow justified your replying in kind. You offered
nothing at all of any substance.

-- 
 
       Haines Brown, KB1GRM