The fundamental point for a socially transformative feminism is that sentimentalizing the other; mystifying the seemingly, unrepresentable, unknowable alterity of the other, or reifying the situation of the other as local (separate, distinct, and thus isolated) cannot be substituted for material struggle in solidarity with the oppressed. However, ludic feminists have taken refuge from the necessity for material struggle in the ludic motto that one should not speak for the other. In doing so , they have left the other in exile from common humanity. Drucilla Cornell, for example, insists on an 'ethical feminism' that 'would demand the recognition of each one of us in her singularity, not in the commonality we share as persons as defined by a particular context.' But the particular context that Cornell denies is, in fact, the global material context of the laws of motion of capital. We need to be critique-al indeed of 'ethical' claims to deny the commonality - that is, the relations that explain the welfare of the few and the misery of the many - in global capitalism. In short, the other that dominates ludic feminism - whether Cornell's notion of mimesis, Butler's strategy of citationality, Spivak's notion of subalternality, Gallop's view of the body, Grosz's trope of pure difference, Meese's 'desire for feminism and (with) a Quiche Indian woman' - all provide sites for arguing for otherness as the space in which the self is one more time isolated from the collectivity in the name of respect for uniqueness and specificity: what Cornell calls 'honoring...singularity.' But this notion of the other has reduced ludic feminism to a reactionary defense of monadic individualism that is so profitable for transnational capitalism. In his essay, 'Identity, the Other, and Postmodernism,' Jorge Larrain is critical of the way (ludic) postmodernism 'reduces otherness to pure difference and opposition, and it understands otherness as an incommensurable world of its own.' He warns that this leads to 'another form of racism' for 'postmodern discourses...although allowing the other to speak for itself, do not want anything to do with it because it is constructed as totally different, as belonging to an alien world. The other may be acknowledged in its right to exist but it is suspected as culturally invasive and so different as to be inferior or unacceptable.'