Drunken Marxist
You were supposed to be getting Shabcast 18 this week… but it vanished into the ether, owing to a malicious and inexplicable failure of my recording software. The Mailer Daemon collected it and conducted it to internet Hades. It was great too. I had Gene Mayes and (at last!) Jon Wolter in, and we chatted about Umberto Eco, Jorge Luis Borges, Italo Calvino, etc, in a podcast that was a lot sillier, funnier and more ribald than the subject matter really warranted. But, as I say, it is lost forever, doomed to live on only in the memories of the three men who experienced it… which, in a way, makes it all the more precious. One day, it will be the most sought of all lost Jack Graham-related media, and take on a near-mystical reputation, rather like London After Midnight, or Orson’s cut of Ambersons. I actually remember very little about it, as I was somewhat drunk and we were recording in the wee small hours here in Britain, and I spent most of the discussion in a haze of fatigue and mild inebriation. I seem to recall that we talked about the hip-hop musical Hamilton, which apparently at least one podcast listener is desperate to hear me talk about. Well, that listener lost their one and only chance. They’ll never hear what I said. Not even the bit where the three of us imagined a hip-hop musical about Garibaldi, written by Umberto Eco, and I said I’d go to the theatre heavily armed and force the cast to perform for me at gunpoint.
So, as I say, this Thursday was supposed to be release day for the April Shabcast, which means I had no writing anywhere near ready. Which means I had to either scrabble and really work hard, or fob you off with something I dashed off in another drunken haze the other night, and hope I get away with it.
Guess which option I chose.
What follows is actually a revised and much-expanded version of something I wrote as a result of an online discussion I was having with Daniel Harper. It is not a cogent argument. It has become, to put it humblebraggingly, the outline of a groundwork of a personal theoretical position. It is not meant to masquerade as an original and profound work of philosophy. I am not an original thinker and I make no claim to be one. I am not a philosopher and I make no claim to be one. It is a semi-refinement of the outloud thoughts of a intoxicated man who, determined to embrace intersectional discourses while retaining the (to him) irreplaceably valuable core of Marxism, has been mulling this stuff over for a while and, even if he doesn’t fully realise this himself, needs someone tolerant to talk at.
Please feel entirely free to ignore everything below if Marxism does not interest you. People interested in Marxism should, perhaps, feel even freer.
*
Classical Marxism has basically nothing specific to say about human diversity, sex, identity, gender, sex, stuff like that. …