>>> "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> 04/22/99 11:24PM >>>
Jim had written in reply to Chaz:
>In the meantime, demanding more powers for the police and the
>authorities will only succeed in arming the very people that are out to
>crush us.
Chaz, now how can I resist this one?
I don't think you should dismiss this so easily as ultra-leftism, Chaz. (even if it was ultra-leftism, you would still have to argue the case and not resort to designations which you assume are bad.) ((((((((((((((((
CB: I did argue the case and there was no resorting to anything in the usage of "ultra-left". It is an accurate, well thought-out logical description of what it wrong with Heartfield's criticism. All reforms efforts presume influencing the state in favor of the working class. )))))))))))))))))
if there is a sense in which the state has become increasingly violent towards its own 'citizenry' (and others), and if the state's ability to control popular sentiment relies more and more on the criminalisation of (esp) those deemed to be foreigners, rebels, etc, then there is a sound basis for the reticence to hand over to the state more powers. ((((((((((((((((((((
CB: We don't have the powers to hand over.
Also,To win the working class to support this proposal will empower the working class more, as it will have to become more conscious of the divisiveness of racism to get behind it. ((((((((((((((((((
we are not talking of increasing the state's power to combat tax evasions, enforce working conditions, etc are we, no one has made the claim 'reforms = bad', 'abstention = good', so it's not properly speaking ultra-leftism is it?
((((((((((
CB: There is no principled difference between enlisting the state to combat tax evasion and enforce working conditions ;and the current proposal. So, yes it is an ultra-left rationale for opposing the current proposal.
(((((((((((((((
we are talking here of specifically police powers and the extension of definitions of criminality are we not?
(((((((((((
CB: How do you expect to enforce laws against tax evasion or poor working conditions if you do not ultimately rely on police powers. What if a capitalist evades taxes ? How do you force them to pay ?
(((((((((((
understanding that the working class is incredibly weak and is not in a position to impose its definitions of what constitutes hate speech is important to assessing whether or not it should be supported. you cannot on the one hand insist that the US state is a racist state and then insist that it can frame laws which will not turn out to be racist in their application if not in their definition. can I call for the abolition of the 'white race' under these laws? doubt it.
(((((((((((((((( CB If and when the working class has enough power (and consciousness) to get this passed, they will have to have enough power to get its definitions passed.
(((((((((((((((((
Chaz, me thinks you been a-lawyering for too long.
(((((((((((((((
CB: Do you anticipate socialism as having no law ? We will still have law and lawyers with socialism. Plus, the movement needs People's lawyering to clarify the legal goals of the revolution, how socialism will change bougeois law.
Charles Brown