A Question for the Moderator
The Soviet Union was defeated, as was the Ottoman Empire before it and Yugoslavia after it -- first economically, later politically (mainly from inside the the Soviet Union, its multinational elites acting against its multinational masses) or with a combined political, economic, and military warfare (Yugoslavia). Russia and Serbia today cannot be expected to play the same roles that the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia used to be able to play. -- Yoshie ^^ In what sense do you mean that the Soviet Union was defeated economically ? Charles
Re: A Question for the Moderator
In a message dated 7/31/2004 7:33:32 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I recall DuBois and James Jackson produced the best articles on the national question (especially as it regarded African Americans) for PA in the 1950s, all of which broke with the "Black-belt thesis" and the concept of regional autonomy, though they continued to argue for self-determination. In fact, about 10 years before he officially joined the CPUSA, DuBois, according to some, is said to have authored the Party's official position on the question in an article he wrote in 1951 -- the title of which escapes me and I can't find my copy of it. Joel Wendland Comment Yes . . . I still read Political Affairs on line. A part of my political history is tied to the CPUSA . . . through the old Communist League and before than the California Communist League and before that the Provisional Organizing Committee (POC) . . . that break with the party over the question of Stalin Contributions and the Negro Question. The theoretical presentation of issues tends to blind us of the historical moment and context or environment. Montgomery had exploded and most revolutionaries understood that the social and political equality of the African Americans was key to the revolutionary line of march. One must remember that this was the period of Nikita Khrushchev and the 20th party Congress of the CPSU. These sharp theory and ideological battles create a polarity and no one can stand adrift or outside whatever poles become crystallized. It is not a question of one side having all the answers or being "right" and the other side being all wrong. If life was that simply none of us would really have to study the issues closely and master the meaning of language and words. The California Communist League was formed on the basis of the Watts Rebellion in 1965 in Watts. The League of Revolutionary Black Workers or rather what would become the League took shape on the basis of publishing the newspaper "Inner City Voice" and factory leaflets on the heels of the 1967 Rebellion in Detroit . . . 1968. In the summer of 1969 . . . maybe 1970 I had go a part time job at Wayne State University and had been hanging in the offices of the League for about two years. The CPUSA book store was a couple of blocks from Wayne Campus and I use to live in the bookstore. After the split in the League - around 1971 . . . we joined up with the California Communist League on the basis of their presentation of what was then called the Negro National Colonial Question. Their presentation made sense to what we where experiencing as industrial workers . . . not African Americans. The LRBW was a federation with groups and factory circles at every conceivable scale of development. Those who criticized some our actions toward factory gate distributions focused on black workers tend to be people that have never done a factory gate distribution, worked in large scale industry, have never been elected to anything in life or for that matter have any experience in the flow of the social movement. I listen and keep stepping. They remind me of the guy who has never played baseball but also have the answer for what every player should have done . . . after the game is over. We are not involved in a spectator sport. What made us receptive to communism was the history of the CPUSA in the factories and their book store . . . although as a mass we could not accept the proposition of a peaceful transition to socialism . . . after the 1967 Detroit Rebellion and the little written about explosions in Detroit and Highland Park in 1968. Our demand was never for self determination of African Americans as a theory proposition or political policy . . . because it simply does not make sense. This was a demand more in tune with the Republic of New Africa or the Nation of Islam. Self determination for African Americans means electoral rights and voting blacks into political office or Black Power. Our slogans were "Black Workers Power" and we were very clear we did not mean the black bourgeoisie or the black petty bourgeoisie or what in history had been called the "Talented Tenth." The LRBW was formed almost at the exact moment of the political rupture of the workers and black bourgeoisie. The reason I did not join the CPUSA was its lack of militancy and its position on the Negro Question as well, as opposition to the Nikita Khrushchev polarity within the International Communist Movement. We sided with China in the polemics and their were some Maoists within our group as well as followers of Leon Trotsky . . . but our basis of organizational unity was victory to the workers in their current struggle. The point is this . . . if Lenin is the index for the slogan self determination of nations and the African American people are not a nation . . . what is one talking about other than the bourgeois ideology of
Re: A Question for the Moderator- race, ideology and the right thing to do.
In a message dated 7/31/2004 4:17:43 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I remember trying to speak with the boyfriend of my first wife's mother. He worked in a gas station. He was not stupid, but he was angry. He directed much of this anger at Blacks, but I think he was racist. He just had this anger and he did not know where to direct it. Fortunately, I just read a wonderful book -- The Hidden Injuries of Class -- which helped me to translate some of his words into what he was really thinking rather than to come down on him as a stupid racist. I do not pretend to be entirely successful. Usually the discussion would get to a degree of rationality, but then would return to the same ugly spot the next time we would meet. Comment I have met a few . . . not many ideological racists in my time in the plants. They are few and far in between . . . really. And they did not like me or my communism and this had nothing to do with my communism. Really. I must apologize if my distinction between chauvinism and racism is not crisp and sharp enough because none of the comrade are racists . . . period. I have been hard on Lou but he can take it on the chin and he has been most generous with me as a contributor on Marxmail. I am truly grateful for his art at moderation and squeezing out of all contributors . . . everything they got. to give. Folks who in fits of anger or causal conversion spew forth some of the rot all of us inherent in our society should not be condemned but understood and worked with. If I was held responsibly for all of my stupidities I would be in jail facing death role. After 9/11 about 30 percent of my electoral base wanted to string my ass up . . .. and 70% of my area . . . the Machining Division let me know I could kiss their multinational ass. Folks feelings were deeply hurt. The African Americans were disoriented and trying to find their balance in what seems to be unending waves of white chauvinism without beginning or end and the younger white workers wanted to kick my ass. I tend to offend America's honor. This is not my intention as a political leader . . . but what I supposed to say when you keep fucking me up? I happen to love America and hate being fucked up. The Slavic workers were my dogged base of support after I issued the open letter asking it our new German owners were going to put us in the ovens . . . after they called the police to escort the white collar workers from Auburn Hills during the first wave of massive layoff in 2001. (Auburn Hills is the headquarters of Chrysler Group.) The Slavic workers basically said "you really understand class and the German do not discriminate . . . they are better that everyone." Now . . . I happen to like the German managers better than my Yankee brothers and their bullshit. But . . . no one is going to call the police on us to escort us out of work after you have taken my fucking job and livelihood. I told the workers . . . "they coming for us tomorrow" and I will be damned if they did not lay off at the Jefferson plant and ask people to surrender their badges. I was very clear . . . you might think my badge is company property . . . but I shall not surrender shit. Not only am I not surrendering shit . . . but have a notion to chain myself to the job and make your ass pay me for my work. It got sticky and before I knew it my letters where being published in 20 plants in Chrysler's system. My brother was called . . . who is an International Representative in the Chrysler division. "What wrong with your fucking brother . . . we have to cut back staff and this is not no goddamn blue collar workers. Talk to your brother before we put him on the streets and make him bargain for his job back." Big brother is the Stalin of the family and said "fuck you. Why did you call the police on the laid off members of the family in the first place?" "Because they steal the software programs to start an independent business and sabotage the system because they are mad." Brother say "I would steal everything to make sure my family had a chance to each what your family eat and ain't nobody a stool pigeon." The company say . . . "Nobody in the mood for this bullshit Maurice. You and your fucking brother are going to hit the wall." Maurice says . . . "what did you just say?" "Look Maurice we need to get together and resolve this issue. When can we talk/" Now this crap cause me to lose my last election to a black women I have known 40 years . . . and dated. Yers we had sex . . . and a lots of it. Her mother and my mother went to elementary and high school together. She became the first black women to win highest elected union position in our industrial compound . . . by kicking my ass. But then I aint a trade unionist or William Foster but a communist worker. Ain't no abstract class shit but real people and real individuals with opinion
Re: A Question for the Moderator
--- michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was the problem that I was referring to when I was trying to describe a progression of fragmentations. I first began to think about this sort of problem when Lebanon began to fall apart. At first, it seemed to be a religious division, but then I began to realize that there were divisions within each religion that were made each others throats. The situation seemed like a fractal to me. Look at the post-Soviet situation in the early 90s. The Union falls apart, and you immediately start having all these bloody ethnic conflicts around its former borders: Armenians vs. Azerbaijanis, Georgians vs. Abkhazians and Ossetians, Romanians vs. Russians, Ossetians vs. Ingush... There are 34 distinct ethno-cultural groups in Dagestan, which is about the size of Maryland. There are villages of a few hundred people there that are the only representatives of entire languages. The potential for conflict is immense. __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
Re: A Question for the Moderator
Chris wrote: Look at the post-Soviet situation in the early 90s. The Union falls apart, and you immediately start having all these bloody ethnic conflicts around its former borders: Armenians vs. Azerbaijanis, Georgians vs. Abkhazians and Ossetians, Romanians vs. Russians, Ossetians vs. Ingush... There are 34 distinct ethno-cultural groups in Dagestan, which is about the size of Maryland. There are villages of a few hundred people there that are the only representatives of entire languages. The potential for conflict is immense. Something similar happened earlier, when the Ottoman Empire was defeated during WW1. The Ottoman Empire could integrate an endless variety of groups into its multicultural empire, but the nation-state of Turkey with its centrality of Turkish culture could not do the same thing -- hence wars on Armenians and Kurds. The Soviet Union was defeated, as was the Ottoman Empire before it and Yugoslavia after it -- first economically, later politically (mainly from inside the the Soviet Union, its multinational elites acting against its multinational masses) or with a combined political, economic, and military warfare (Yugoslavia). Russia and Serbia today cannot be expected to play the same roles that the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia used to be able to play. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: A Question for the Moderator- race, ideology and the right thing to do.
Melvyn's story about his dealings with the red necks at the workplace illustrate the degree of skill required to navigate the class divide. No easy answers in this regard. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: A Question for the Moderator
On the subject of foreign fighters in Chechnya, I should have added that, if memory serves, both the Kremlin and the various rebel sources put the number of foreigners in Chechnya at any given time at about 200. So, it's not a lot (given that there are supposedly about 1,500 full-time fighters). But they serve a major ideological and financial role. There is really no group of rebels in Chechnya. Chechnya has been in a state of civil war since 1996. You have the nationalists around Maskhadov; then you have the Wahabbis around Basayev; and then simple bandit gangs making money of carnage. (And the three groups interpenetrate.) Finally, you have the so-called Kadyrovtsy, the pro-Moscow security force, composed mostly of former rebels who switched sides, supposedly about 3,000 men. Most of the fighting in Chechnya is between the Kadyrovtsy and the rebels; I have heard that the Chechen Special Forces have declared blood feud on the Basayev clan, and they want the Russian Army to leave so that they can take care of business in their own way, if you get what I mean. The relations between all these groups are very obscure. During de facto independence, there were pitched battles between Maskhadov's men and the Wahabbis. Nevertheless, until the Dubrovka theater hostage-taking, they claimed to be on the same side (Maskhadov condemned the act, while Basayev took credit for it and resigned his official post). When Kadyrov was assassinated, Maskhadov condemned it (it took place, BTW, after a period in which Kadyrov and Maskhadov were allegedly negotiating the latter's surrender). The next day, Basayev took credit for it, and said I only regret that I do not have Kadyrov's head to give to Maskhadov. Then there is the alternative theory that Maskhadov and Basayev are actually working together, with Basayev carrying out terrorist acts, Maskhadov doing PR in the West while maintaining a state of plausible deniability, and the now-deceased Yandarbiyev doing PR in the Muslim world. Frankly, I don't think Maskhadov has much backing him up at this point beyong his own teip (clan). His men, I think, have mostly either joined the Kadyrovtsy or been radicalized and are now with Basayev. Maskhadov may not even be in Chechnya. __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: A Question for the Moderator
I wrote: On the subject of foreign fighters in Chechnya, I should have added that, if memory serves, both the Kremlin and the various rebel sources put the number of foreigners in Chechnya at any given time at about 200. So, it's not a lot (given that there are supposedly about 1,500 full-time fighters). But they serve a major ideological and financial role. -- I add: Peter Lavelle interviewed the recently assassinated Akhmad Kadyrov, ex-rebel turned pro-Moscow president of Chenchya, last year (I edited the interview). I've linked to it before. Here, Kadyrov is referring to the role of the foreigners in Chechnya. By people of other nationalities, I assume he means, first and foremost, Arabs like Khattab. How do you estimate your opponents' chances? Can they pose serious competition for you in the election? I say it again - time will tell. I do not want to be philosophical about the seriousness of my competitors; I do not want to discuss that. One can see with the naked eye what they have done and contributed to the Republic of Chechnya to avoid war. Where were they in 1997-1999, and what were they doing when I was fighting Wahhabism? What were they doing to prevent the war? I have been living in Chechnya all this time, and I have always been against Wahhabis, which is why they constantly had me in their sights. The assassination attempts against me were not accidental. Who prepared them and what for? I always said that Wahhabism is unacceptable for the Chechen nation. We are Muslims, and we did not convert to Sufi Islam just a couple of days ago. They tried to thrust an idea upon us that had been originally invented against Islam, albeit allegedly under the banner of Islam. Do you see the Republic of Chechnya as a Muslim, an Islamic one? I was strongly against the introduction of a Sharia government in the republic - but not because I did not want such a thing. I am working hard for it, actually. But I know that we are not ready. One has to nurture a new generation, to raise children in the spirit of Islam. The Sharia regulations that they gave us were simply an interpretation of the Sudanese ones. They were approved by Yandarbiyev, and he did not ask anyone. When Aslan Maskhadov and I visited Saudi Arabia and met with the government of Sudan, Sudanese officials told us that it had taken them 11 years to institute a Sharia government. Did we want to have everything done in one day? Things do not work like that. Furthermore, who dictated Islam to us? Movladi Udugov, who does not have any idea what Islam is? Or Maskhadov and Yandarbiyev? Who are they? They do not know the bases of Islam, they do not understand it. All these people ran a separatist policy deliberately. Why is all this happening in Chechnya? Because the Chechens are warriors, first and foremost. Second, they are very trusting people - I am saying this to you as a Chechen man. We trust everyone else, but we do not trust each other. We believe people of other nationalities more than we believe each other. All the wars that have taken place in Chechnya since the era of tsarist Russia were unleashed by people of other nationalities. Unfortunately, our nation has never had a leader who would stand up for his nation. Military troops were withdrawn from Chechnya on Dec. 31, 1996. But what did free Chechnya do? It opened the door to criminals from the entire territory of Russia, the former USSR and its outskirts. Criminals were coming to Chechnya from all over the world - they did not have a place in their own countries. But they could live perfectly well in Chechnya. Non-Muslims were allegedly converting to Islam. It is ridiculous to talk about such a thing . Becoming a Muslim for them implied growing a beard and learning how to pronounce salam aleykum. What kind of a Muslim is that? I grew up in a very religious family. I could read the Qu'ran easily at the age of five. Do you think I can stay calm when such people try to teach me what Islam is, how to pronounce it and what to do with it?! If Yeltsin and Maskhadov signed a peace treaty between Russia and Chechnya, why did the incursion into Dagestan take place? If we, as a separate state that had concluded a peace treaty with Russia, attack a neighboring republic, a unit of the Russian Federation, is it called Jihad? No, it is not. It is a provocation to unleash a war in Chechnya. But you declared Jihad on Russia in 1995. You were waging war on Shamil Basayev and Aslan Maskhadov's side. Yes, I was on that side, and I am proud that I was able to choose the right way to go. There are specific reasons for why I declared Jihad and why I changed my position. That was a time when people were gripped with the idea of liberation. They thought that people like Dudayev or Yandarbiyev wanted freedom and an Islamic state for Chechnya. And what happened next? There is a rule of Sharia: If the enemy wants to suppress you, you are supposed to put up a strong resistance. But the enemy did
Re: A Question for the Moderator
--- Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Kurds, Kashmiris, Chechens, etc. exercised the right to self-determination, would that necessarily result in the breakup of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, India, and Russia? Presumably, they could very well choose to remain part of the countries in which they currently reside -- especially if most of the armed militants in Kashmir and Chechnya were indeed foreigners as you and Chris have suggested (on this point I am myself agnostic). --- I don't think the _majority_ of fighters in Chechnya are foreigners. Most of them are 15- to 20-year-old Chechen men who have grown up thinking this way of life is normal. But the presence of the international mujaheedin and their ideology is foreign, and it is that ideology and international muj fighters themselves that were decisive in starting the current war. I think it should be pretty obvious that a secular region in an atheist country does not mutate into a fundamentalist Islamic state in four years without foreign influence. Actually the Islamic Code of Chechnya was copied from the Sudanese one. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: A Question for the Moderator
--- Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question, I thought, was whether Kurds, Kashmiris, and Chechens (as well as East Timorese, Albanians in Kosovo, etc. from recent history) have the right to self-determination. --- Yoshie, upon a little reflection, I think this is a pretty naive way of considering the situation. Who gets to determine Chechnya's status? People who live in Chechnya? In 1991, Grozny's population was about 50% non-Chechen. The Nautsky district in Chechnya was about 75% non-Chechen, mostly Russians, Ukrainians and Cossacks who lived there since the 15th century. Those people have almost entirely fled, been forced out, or killed. None of them would have voted for an independent Chechnya. Do their voices matter? If not that, then who? Ethnic Chechens? What about the Chechen Diaspora? There are more Chechens who live outside Chechnya than inside it, and most of them have family members, and certainly have tribal ties, in Chechnya. What about the 100,000 Chechen Akkins living in Dagestan? What will they say? What about the people who live around Chechnya, in Dagestan, Georgia and Ingushetia, who have their lives affected by Chechnya's status? Nobody there wants an independent Chechnya. The Dagestanis would rather see at atomic bomb dropped on Grozny than see it revert to its 1998 condition. The Chechen militants supported the Abkhaz in Georgia's civil war. What do you think Georgians have to say about this? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: A Question for the Moderator
In a message dated 7/31/2004 8:22:28 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In 1991, Grozny's population was about 50% non-Chechen. The Nautsky district in Chechnya was about 75% non-Chechen, mostly Russians, Ukrainians and Cossacks who lived there since the 15th century. Those people have almost entirely fled, been forced out, or killed. None of them would have voted for an independent Chechnya. Do their voices matter? If not that, then who? Ethnic Chechens? What about the Chechen Diaspora? There are more Chechens who live outside Chechnya than inside it, and most of them have family members, and certainly have tribal ties, in Chechnya. What about the 100,000 Chechen Akkins living in Dagestan? What will they say? Comment In my estimate the American Marxists are the least qualified amongst world Marxists when dealing with the national factor. Between 1973 and I978 I had compiled much of the writings on the national factor in our history using a collection of roughly 30 years of Political Affairs as the core material. In terms of the Trotskyists position my base material had been the writings of CLR James. Members of his Facing Reality group had played a role in the formation of the old League of Revolutionary Black Workers . . . notably James Boggs. In our history the national factor has basically meant the color factor. Self determination of nations up to an including the formation of an independent state means exactly that. Self determination as a political slogan and policy meant . . . a nation . . . as opposed to a historically evolved people. For instance the African American people are a historically evolved people and not a nation. Nations are not something one can build. Nations evolve as the historical _expression_ of a community of people, culture, land and economic intercourse at a certain stage in development of commodity production. Self determination for nations mean exactly that . . . the political determination . . . will . . .of a nation not simply a people. Whether a group of people are a nation defines the form of resolution of the national question and national factor for the Bolsheviks. The various Indian nations are not nations in the modern Marxists sense of the word. In my estimate they are advanced national groups whose formation and gestation spans centuries. This is not the case with the African American peoples. The formation of the African American people is unique. Their consolidation was not based on common land or religion. The words "common land" is not simply a geographic description of the land mass called America for instance. Common land embraces a distinct economic center of gravity with a division between town and country and their economic intercourse that welds a nation together. In respects to the African American people there is no internal dynamic to hold them together as a people . . . yet they are a people . . . in transition. The current transition taking place is the result of the destruction of segregation - Jim Crow, and this stage of passing from the industrial system. The force that held them together and formed them as a people is not color or racism but the legal and extra legal pressure of the whites. The most brutal social and political oppression was necessary to carry out the extreme level of economic exploitation of the blacks. After the Civil War and the defeat of Reconstruction the sharecropping blacks were cheated by the landlords, brutalized by the legal authorities, terrorized by the extralegal forces and basically reduced to the level of peasants in India. The near total isolation of the blacks through segregation law and Southern custom was necessary for the level of exploitation they faced and institutionalized. The era of segregation, lasting about 95 years, isolated the mass of African Americans to a greater degree than did slavery. This isolation and oppression based on and institutionalized as the color factor was the condition for the final stage of their development as a people . . . not a nation . . . and self determination is a political solution involving nations. During the 1960s into the 1980s and even today one hears advocacy of self determination for African Americans and it makes no sense. Even a modern scheme for regional autonomy in respects to African Americans make no sense because of their dispersal throughout the American Union. These so-called modern national movements within the former Soviet Union are not national movements or colonial revolts. Very real grievances exist but applying Lenin's pre First Imperial World War slogan prevents the Marxists from understanding the economic logic of nations . . . not peoples . . . and dismiss the class content of these more than less reactionary bourgeois movements. The national factor is a factor operating on the basis of a fundamentally different realignment on earth today. The
Re: A Question for the Moderator
This was the problem that I was referring to when I was trying to describe a progression of fragmentations. I first began to think about this sort of problem when Lebanon began to fall apart. At first, it seemed to be a religious division, but then I began to realize that there were divisions within each religion that were made each others throats. The situation seemed like a fractal to me. Chris Doss wrote: Who gets to determine Chechnya's status? People who live in Chechnya? In 1991, Grozny's population was about 50% non-Chechen. The Nautsky district in Chechnya was about 75% non-Chechen, mostly Russians, Ukrainians and Cossacks who lived there since the 15th century. Those people have almost entirely fled, been forced out, or killed. None of them would have voted for an independent Chechnya. Do their voices matter? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: A Question for the Moderator
Ours is a war for position and ideological and political statements are converted into policy . . . in real time. Who determines "what" is the great war of attribution and will. If we win over no we lose by default. We cannot win over any segment of our working class on the basis of ideological mental cavities and categories we learn from books. Don't get me wrong. . . I love books . . . but a segment of the so-called Marxist intellegincia have not asked people what they actually think and feel. Melvin P. This was the problem that I was referring to when I was trying todescribe a progression of fragmentations. I first began to think aboutthis sort of problem when Lebanon began to fall apart. At first, itseemed to be a religious division, but then I began to realize thatthere were divisions within each religion that were made each othersthroats. The situation seemed like a fractal to me.Chris Doss wrote:Who gets to determine Chechnya's status? People wholive in Chechnya? In 1991, Grozny's population wasabout 50% non-Chechen. The Nautsky district inChechnya was about 75% non-Chechen, mostly Russians,Ukrainians and Cossacks who lived there since the 15thcentury. Those people have almost entirely fled, beenforced out, or killed. None of them would have votedfor an independent Chechnya. Do their voices matter?
Re: A Question for the Moderator
Melvyn posed posed one of the truly difficult challenges that the left faces: learning how to learn from the masses at the same time as we supply them with information. Listening is a very difficult skill. I remember trying to speak with the boyfriend of my first wife's mother. He worked in a gas station. He was not stupid, but he was angry. He directed much of this anger at Blacks, but I think he was racist. He just had this anger and he did not know where to direct it. Fortunately, I just read a wonderful book -- The Hidden Injuries of Class -- which helped me to translate some of his words into what he was really thinking rather than to come down on him as a stupid racist. I do not pretend to be entirely successful. Usually the discussion would get to a degree of rationality, but then would return to the same ugly spot the next time we would meet. In a way, Melvyn is at a great advantage, coming from his experience as an auto worker, an environment that has a long history militancy, both intellectual and practical. But he is absolutely correct in realizing that Bush is much more effective than speaking to the working-class family on the left. I wish it were otherwise. On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 04:36:05PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't get me wrong. . . I love books . . . but a segment of the so-called Marxist intellegincia have not asked people what they actually think and feel. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: A Question for the Moderator
Waistline2 wrote: In my estimate the American Marxists are the least qualified amongst world Marxists when dealing with the national factor. Between 1973 and I978 I had compiled much of the writings on the national factor in our history using a collection of roughly 30 years of Political Affairs as the core material. I would be interested to learn which articles in PA you considered valuable and those which you found unhelpful on the subject of the national question. As I recall DuBois and James Jackson produced the best articles on the national question (especially as it regarded African Americans) for PA in the 1950s, all of which broke with the Black-belt thesis and the concept of regional autonomy, though they continued to argue for self-determination. In fact, about 10 years before he officially joined the CPUSA, DuBois, according to some, is said to have authored the Party's official position on the question in an article he wrote in 1951 -- the title of which escapes me and I can't find my copy of it. Joel Wendland _ Planning a family vacation? Check out the MSN Family Travel guide! http://dollar.msn.com
Re: A Question for the Moderator
At 6:22 AM -0700 7/31/04, Chris Doss wrote: --- Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question, I thought, was whether Kurds, Kashmiris, and Chechens (as well as East Timorese, Albanians in Kosovo, etc. from recent history) have the right to self-determination. --- Yoshie, upon a little reflection, I think this is a pretty naive way of considering the situation. Who gets to determine Chechnya's status? There is no a priori answer to the question. For instance, Palestinians are divided in several ways: those who live in Israel as its second-class citizens, those who live in Israel illegally, those who live in the occupied territories, those who live in refugee camps outside historic Palestine, those who are citizens or permanent residents of other nations. The levels of Palestinians' own struggle and international support for it will determine whether or not Palestinian refugees can return to their homeland, to take just one example. The same goes for every other national question: after all, what will be decisive is the levels of struggles on the ground and international support for them. Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: A Question for the Moderator
In a message dated 7/31/2004 7:33:32 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would be interested to learn which articles in PA you considered valuable and those which you found unhelpful on the subject of the national question. As I recall DuBois and James Jackson produced the best articles on the national question (especially as it regarded African Americans) for PA in the 1950s, all of which broke with the "Black-belt thesis" and the concept of regional autonomy, though they continued to argue for self-determination. In fact, about 10 years before he officially joined the CPUSA, DuBois, according to some, is said to have authored the Party's official position on the question in an article he wrote in 1951 -- the title of which escapes me and I can't find my copy of it. Joel Wendland Reply Perhaps my favorite author was sister Claudia Jones. Memory escapes me . . . but I had lifted the saying "behind the Cotton Curtain" an author who had wrote several articles on what was then called the Negro Question. Harry Haywood "Negro Liberation" is excellent as part of a series of historical documents. I seem to recall a couple articles by James Allen. It of course fell to the lot of William Z. Foster - a great trade union leader and syndicalist, to import within American Marxist the concept of a nation within a nation in respects to African American Liberation. Dr. James Jackson's "New Theoretical Aspects on the Negro Question" was always considered offensive to the communist in Detroit I was a part of. Dr. James Jackson as well as the beloved Dr. Dubios are in history militant representatives of a section of "Negro capital." Whereas Dubois was an authentic intellectual giant . . . . Dr. Jackson theoretical posturing is of no value whatsoever. The color factor and white chauvinism obscures the National Colonial Question in American history. The Mexican national factor . . . Puerto Rico . . . the various Indian nations . . . Appalachia . . . the Black Belt . . . the Aleutian and Hawaii peoples . . . and the list goes on. If the African American people are not a nation and have never been a nation then Dr. Jackson's thesis makes no sense. There is an element of confusion in history related to the original Comintern Documents on the Negro Question - 1928 and 1931 and even Lenin's writing on the Negro Question. Nevertheless, one has to deal with the body of literature as constituting distinct historical time frames and opposing political and ideological tendencies. That is to say Harry Haywood "Negro Liberation" - 1949 and Dr. Jackson's "New Theoretical Aspects" -- around 1951, are grouped together as opposed to simply comparing them with the 1928 Comintern document . . . because the period of the 1920's was the battle for a Leninist approach to the national and colonial question. The Comintern document was forced on the party under the threat of expulsion . . . as was the demand to dismantle the European language press. The African American people as a historically evolved people and the Black Belt of the South as a colonial nation are distinct but interconnected historically evolved entities. America was basically Southern in its inception and evolution up until the Civil War. Its core areas was Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia. America was Southern . . . especially in all its political institutions. The New England states were shipping and manufacturing appendages of the slave plantation system. By roughly the late 1840s, the political leaders of the South viewed the population and industrial growth of the North with apprehension. They realized that the shift from manufacturing to industry was creating a new nation in the North. This new evolving nation in the North was being formed as waves of European immigration created an industrial proletariat in what a few years earlier had been the North western frontier. The evolving culture of the African American slaves is in the final instance what had made the South Southern . . . as it existed in relationship to the evolving nation inNorth of the American Union. What made the North . . . Northern . . . was its working class formed on the basis of successive waves of European immigrants. That is to say the European immigrants did not remain Anglo-European but rather underwent a mechanical and chemical mixture that is the meaning of Anglo American. One can now understand the importance of dismantling the European language press in a country whose primary language is English and Spanish. Plus . . . the language of the South is a Southern form of English rooted in a different development than the North. We have really faced some harsh political dynamics related to our developmental process in the North. The Black Belt nation is called the Black Belt nation referring to its economic centers of gravity . . . not the color of the
A Question for the Moderator
Michael Perelman, Some posters on this list have expressed their support for the breakup of Russia, India, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. I would like know what is your personal opinion in this matter. Ulhas Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony
Re: A Question for the Moderator
I don't have any simple answers. On the one hand, fragmentation makes for inefficiencies. On the other hand, the larger the extent of the central government, a greater number of minority groups might find themselves oppressed. Even if you fragment the state, you'll probably find even smaller ethnic minorities find themselves oppressed. Most societies are like fractals, break them up and you'll find even smaller divisions within each element. One overriding problem is that by fragmenting political units, an imperial power will have an easier time controlling them. So here is the closest I can come to a simple answer: let us hope that we can get to a socialist society in which people cannot profit from stirring up racial and ethnic hatred; so that things that are truly local can be handled locally; and that people can learn to cooperate. Of course, how you get there -- that is the central question. On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 04:36:05PM +0100, Ulhas Joglekar wrote: Michael Perelman, Some posters on this list have expressed their support for the breakup of Russia, India, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. I would like know what is your personal opinion in this matter. Ulhas Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: A Question for the Moderator
Michael Perelman wrote: I don't have any simple answers. Please unsubscribe me from your list. Ulhas Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony
Re: A Question for the Moderator
Ulhas Joglekar wrote: Some posters on this list have expressed their support for the breakup of Russia, India, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. this is a bit of an unfair characterization, especially if it refers to my contributions on these threads. i should probably check the archives first, but from memory, i do not recall anyone (and definitely not me) calling for breakup of these nations as the only satisfactory option. --ravi
Re: A Question for the Moderator
Ulhas Joglekar wrote: Michael Perelman, Some posters on this list have expressed their support for the breakup of Russia, India, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. I would like know what is your personal opinion in this matter. It is a (sort of) interesting _academic_ pursuit for leftists in the comre imperial nations (Western Europe, UK, US, Japan) to discuss what sort of precise policy should be (were we able to dictate implementation as well as general principle) followed by our governments. It is even of similar interest for us to discuss what policies should be followed by other governments or by resistance movements in other nations. Such discussion and/or explorations can (perhaps) expand our understanding of the overall social reality of the world today. BUT we should understand that our opinions on such detailed questions are toothless, that the discussion can NOT be directly (or even indirectly) relevant to our theory and practice as leftists in a given nation (the U.S. say). Our aims, of course, are to affect U.S. actions and policy. But we have to understand what the scope and limits of the change which popular pressure can bring to bear on government. (I will eventually get back to the particular question posed by Ulhas, but I want to first establish what I think is a reasonable context in which to answer it and many similar questions.) Let's take a particular instance. Many leftists since the criminal u.s. assault on the people of Iraq have suggested that we (and the content of we is always ambiguous) should support a UN replacement of the U.S. in Iraq. Such a proposal is (to be kind) an alice-in-wonderland proposal. Even if it were possible to marshall significant public pressure behind such a policy, the best (and this is nearly hallucinatory) that could be accomplished would be for the u.s. government to declare such as its official position. But here _everything_ that counts lies in the day-to-day particularities of implementation. As an academic proposal, there is no doubt but what the best thing for Iraq would be for a true UN (independent of the U.S.) to administer Iraq for a brief period before giving power to a provisional government backed by public opinion in Iraq. But anyone who proposes this as a popular demand just simply isn't living in the real world. (I think journalists are rather more apt to make this academic mistake than are academics themselves. Academics after all have to deal with _real_ audiences -- their students -- continuously, and hence can at least develop a realistic understanding of what does and what does not influence the opinions of actual people. Journalists can live in a dreamworld forever -- though that dream world can be lethal, as in the case of Bernard Fall in Vietnam. He was a marvellous journalist, perhaps one of the 20th century's best, and his reports from Vietnam were quite splendid. But when he occasionally allowed himself to speculate on what should be done, he was no better than any Harvard professor.) What popular movements _can_ do is create tremendous pressure on government to relieve the pressure by doing _something_ that will remove or soften whatever it is in the world that generates the pressure. (Had the UAW supported the organizing efforts of foremen back in the late '40s -- to the point of a new round of sitdown strikes and illegal secondary boycotts -- that would have very possibly brought about the repeal of the Taft-Hartley law (without any lobbying or wanking or complex argufying at all on the need for its repeal). When there is enough pressure on the U.S. government (in the form of growing militancy behind the Demand of Out Now, no Conditions), it may well be that the U.S. government _will_ use a U.N. presence as a face-saving measure behind u.s. retreating (the U.N. being good camouflage for the tail between the legs). There are some interesting complexities here in respect to the various simultaneous routes to mobilizing the needed pressure, but those can only be worked out in day-to-day discussion and wrangle within the 1001 different local/regional/national coalitions against the war. The success of William and Hillary in crushing the nascent movement for national healthcare by diverting it into endless wankery and journalistic navel-gazing is characteristic of what happens to mass movements when they are diverted into debates over detailed policy. Now to come back to the question posed by Ulhas: Some posters on this list have expressed their support for the breakup of Russia, India, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Is that a good idea. Personally (merely personally) I hate to see breakups anyplace outside the U.S.; they expose the areas concerned to more manipulation and control from imperialist powers. So to that extent I agree with Michael's own answer, and of course I agree that it would be nice to have a socialist world. But in respect to opinions in the U.S. which might make a difference in all these areas, I
Re: A Question for the Moderator
Michael Perelman, Some posters on this list have expressed their support for the breakup of Russia, India, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. I would like know what is your personal opinion in this matter. Ulhas The question, I thought, was whether Kurds, Kashmiris, and Chechens (as well as East Timorese, Albanians in Kosovo, etc. from recent history) have the right to self-determination. If Kurds, Kashmiris, Chechens, etc. exercised the right to self-determination, would that necessarily result in the breakup of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, India, and Russia? Presumably, they could very well choose to remain part of the countries in which they currently reside -- especially if most of the armed militants in Kashmir and Chechnya were indeed foreigners as you and Chris have suggested (on this point I am myself agnostic). -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
