Carrol Cox said:
> This would be satisfactory if each community, each workplace, were
> a complete entity in itself, not intertwined with the rest of the
> capitalist system.
and Tony Evans said:
>As society in general is "beset by racism" then every workplace
>is also impacted by racism.
Dogs, in general, have four legs. However, there's one down my street that has three legs, poor thing. Dogs, and workplaces, don't really exist in general, except as topics of discussion; they only exist in particular.
Aren't we in danger here of conceiving of racism (or sexism, etc) on a superstitious basis, on par with original sin, constitutive of every aspect of our lives? Do we need to extend the racist analysis into every corner of our private lives and into every foot of public space? For instance, if the analysis is extended to the point where it is demonstrated why, when I eat a peach, I shouldn't enjoy it, aren't we moving beyond activism and into nihilism?
How important is racism? The question, and the answer (very important, to be sure), are banal -- as are chicken and egg arguments as to whether slavery caused racism or racism caused slavery. The danger is not that working class movements may develop "in abstraction" from issues of race and sex, but that the people doing the organizing are getting mired in abstractions.
I sympathize with Carrol's disregard for localism and personalism, and he is certainly not describing my outlook ( I prefer Robert Johnson to Leadbelly); however, the notion of the interconnectedness or intertwining of things, when given a new age twist, can be an argument for *not* disturbing the status quo, the "fragile web of life," and we encountered that argument when trying to organize a union at Borders.
Some people would have us intertwined with chains and others with slender filaments. I reject the dead weight of those chains--the dead weight of history-- *and* the fragile webs spun with an excess of caution and ignorance. I'm arguing for the freedom to give the strength of my loyalty and conscience where I think it belongs--not where history or fear would irremediably place it.
I am not arguing that racism is not a component of life on, uh, some days for all people. I'm just saying, as a practical matter, there should be some leeway in the strategic emphasis it is given.
Welfare reform is motivated in part by racism. But no one is a position to prove that it is primarily motivated by racism, because primary motives belong to the ethereal and unprovable realm of metaphysics. Racism is part of a manifold, and it's going to have to compete for attention with other causes and issues.
Given the stated prevalence of racism and sexism, if we were to summarily expel, despise and revile all racists and sexists, we'd be putting ourselves in the position of confirming the conservative canard that leftists love humanity and hate people --including, in some cases, themselves.
Sad and Lonely,
Kevin LaPalme
Borders/Waldenbooks Employee Website http://members.tripod.com/~unionize