-----Original Message----- From: Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari at phoenix.Princeton.EDU> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>On whether we non-blacks agree to or pass over in silence our exclusion
>from the Congress (and it saddens and angers me) I still don't know what
>Michael and Nathan think.
>One doesn't beat the Nation of Islam by setting the same parameters--the
>exclusion of non-blacks. Michael, Nathan--do you support or oppose the
>formal exclusion of non-blacks from the Conference?
Why should I be angry over my exclusion from a single conference? We are in a political process that is excluding vast numbers of blacks from higher education and a whole range of jobs with the abolition of affirmative action, yet I am supposed to be angry that a bunch of black folks want to work out some differences among themselves without having to also negotiate with me?
Maybe it's because I know a number of the folks who are organizing the conference, including a number who vocally opposed the Million Man March, and know they don't want any permanent exclusion of whites or others, so three days of exclusion just doesn't seem like that much.
Your comments seem to be a strange echo of conservative complaints about black student organizations, black graduations or other racially-defined communities that sustain folks in majority white environments. If folks spend all their time in such, there may be a problem, but for political folks who spend most of their time in multi-racial organizing (as most of the conference organizers do), I just don't see a problem.
>Nathan makes it seem as if I am being divisive by criticizing the DP and
>AFLCIO;
No, I think it is fine to criticize them. What is devisive is to exclude those who disagree with your criticism from your vision of the Left. There are many approaches to progressive change and folks of good intent are trying many different ways to push through change. If we can gather our power within a broad multi-tendency organization, we may pursuade each other of the best approach through logic and experience, but the first step is to walk together and fight together where we agree and let the disagreements find their own consensus over time.
>As for the Congressional Black
>Caucus, I am hardly convinced that the creation of majority minority
>districts has been a good thing, all around.
The Congressional Black Caucus preceded the rise of majority minority districts. It was founded by Ron Dellums who did not even have a majority of black people in his district when he was elected. Majority minority districts increased their numbers, but the point is not just the Black Caucus but other progressives, latino, white, asian etc. There are fifty-seven members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, led by independent socialist Bernie Sanders along with folks like Maxine Waters. It is a multi-racial group with its own proposed federal budget and has been a force for fighting NAFTA and fast-track, pushing single-payer health care, and, yes, fighting the recent bankruptcy bill.
If there was a third party in this country, I doubt it would act much differently from the Progressive Caucus. It's one reason I am so skeptical of the third party argument, since it appears to me we already have a functioning left party that fights pretty hard for our issues.
>A couple of black men I know have been organizers for the AFLCIO (one
>has quit; one is still an organizer--hence, confusion in tense below):
>they have complained of the overemphasis on numbers over action (success
>of which can be the best way to increase numbers of course);
>I never made a proposal to exclude such critical AFL-CIO supporters from
>within the black community
You did argue that we should define a radical Congress by those who reject the Democrats and reject the present AFL-CIO leadership. It's not that such criticism can't be justified, but the place to start on building the Left is finding our unities and beliefs, not our exclusions.
Why not define the Left by all those who think health care is the right of every child and adult, who believe that everyone who can work has the right to employment, who believe that every women has the right to control her reproduction and every person the right to define their own sexuality without punishment, who believe in a world of expanding justice and peace for all, and believe that one-person, one vote, not one-dollar, one-vote should govern the economy.
Unfortunately, that defines only a small chunk of the population that will step up immediately to endorse all these points, and we need every one of them. We may disagree on the best tactics and strategy to achieve these goals and may pursue multiple approaches, but it is still radical enough if we can bring all those who believe this together.
--Nathan Newman