Raju (and Michael),
I don't think you can ASSUME much of anything from the response or lack
thereof to your e-mails about radical political economy.   However, there
are some assumptions one might make about your own assumptions.

First, there is a problem with assuming that your interests might coincide
with a large number of members.  The many different members of the CGF have
a multiplicity of reasons for joining... and participating in discussions.
Many members are strong supporters and practitioners of radical political
economy... they may or may not have TIME to engage actively with your
comments...

Second, you seem to assume that non-response means a lack of engagement.
many people may chose to participate 'silently' in the discussions.

Third, you appear to assume that non-response means a lack of agreement
with your statements.  I for one have found your statements very intriguing
and have learned much from what you say... but I have not felt comfortable
responding to your postings.  I support radical political economy, but I am
not a political economist myself.  I do not feel I have the expertise to
comment in a meaningful way.

Fourth, you (and perhaps this is mostly aimed at Michael Fisher's comments)
appear to feel the need to trash other critical perspectives?  Can we not
work together as a coalition of structuralists, post-structuralists,
political economists, etc.?  Why the either/or stance when we might more
productively engage in a both/and approach to critical scholarship and
praxis?

Fifth, you appear to be critical of everything BUT what Marx had to say.
Marx was racist, ethnocentric and masculinist... sometimes we need to
critically reflect on his position too.  Perhaps the kind of critique that
you draw on Marx for (as Raju says: "It is perfectly ok to 'trash' a
submission: otherwise what is the point in being critical? As Marx said, we
should be 'ruthlessly'  critical of everything that exists. I would just
add: politely and humbly") is in fact a bit too ruthless ... and just
maybe, the politeness and humility gets lost on some of us...

For example, your comments could be read in this way:  "I think the
critical geography forum is deficient... i don't like what people are
saying... but i want to have a discussion with you folks ...maybe so I can
set you straight."

This kind of smacks of a will to power that so conveniently aligns with a
normative hegemonic masculinity of academic as to remain hidden to many.
On the other hand, this masculine will to power is not so transparent to
others... I know I've had private conversations with a number of colleagues
who find the testosterone levels in the CGF a little too great at times
(and maybe my own submission here reflects this... sorry folks)

Perhaps there are better ways to engage 'critically' with colleagues and
the material world...
lawrence


>Dear All,
>
>I have seen some but not many responses to my e-mails about
>capitalism, war, poverty etc and the parochialism of radical
>development geography. I have been waiting to learn something from
>people.
>
>Can I/we assume that one or more of the following is true?:
>
>a) most of you agreed with everything I said, so there is nothing to
>discuss; b) what I said was trash, so it's not worth responding to
>at all; c) we as critical human geographers have, generally speaking,
>a relatively poor understanding of ('technicalities') of how class
>relations and capitalism work; d) the center of gravity of critical
>geographic work has moved away from radical political economy.
>
>I had thought that by criticising each other politely and
>constructively, we would learn from each other. When it comes to
>radical political economy, the crit. geog. forum does not seem to be
>facilitative mutual learning.
>
>I used to subscribe to a radical political eocnomy e-mail group based
>in the western US. But since I moved to the UK last year, I have lost
>their address. That group, which is heavily dominated by radical
>'economists' and which discusses, among other things, the economic,
>political, ecological, etc aspects of (global) capitalism as well as
>racism and gender, frankly, was much more productive and interesting
>than the critical geog forum. We would discuss things like state
>policies, organic composition of capital, globalization, films and
>capitalism, and so on.
>
>One important problem with the critical geog forum is that
>_often_ what we say is _not_ explicitly rooted in or, at least
>related to,critical political economy, to the social-material
>aspects of our lives. Or perhaps, I am expecting us to do too much?
>
>It is perfectly ok to 'trash' a submission: otherwise what is the
>point in being critical? As Marx said, we should be 'ruthlessly'
>critical of everything that exists. I would just add: politely and
>humbly.
>
>Raju
>Raju J Das
>Department of Geography
>University of Dundee
>Dundee DD1 4HN
>United Kingdom
>Phone 01382 348073 work
>      01382 737097 home


Lawrence D. Berg, Ph.D.
Department of Geography
University of Victoria
PO Box 3050
Victoria, BC, Canada  V8W 3P5
Facsimile: (250) 721-6216, Telephone: (250) 592-2278
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~wwglobal/Berg/LDB.html




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%