The Problem with Chomsky

rc-am rcollins at netlink.com.au
Sat Dec 18 09:02:30 PST 1999



> And to Ange's theme that:
>
> >all claims about unity are founded on exclusions, including yours and my
> >own -- >i've noted this now three times.
>
> Yeah, but let's not chuck in some a priori inhibition to possible,
> meaningful, sincere and potent unities, eh? Unity is what works, I
reckon.
> All we gotta do is unify by judicious exclusion, I reckon.

rob, in all seriousness, what are you talking about? do i really have to endure more abstract invocations of unity as a way of avoiding the real question of what such 'unity' consists of post-N30. not some wishful sense of what it might or can consist of (not yet anyway), but precisely and concretely what politics are in the process of being both included and excluded (at the same time) by way of this rhetoric about unity post-N30.

my question has always been: why is it more important to focus attention on the trashers and whether they are or aren't a legitimate part of the campaigns, but not, otoh, to consider more seriously the presence of xenophobic and racist elements and 'solutions'? in short, what kind of unity is in fact being proffered here, why, and what are the consequences of any particular variation of such?

'unity', like 'democracy', means many different things depending on your political perspective. and i would have expected that it wouldn't have been reduced so easily to a slogan that leaves unexamined the actual practices, forms and political alliances being advanced or legitimated or simply shifted off our critical radars.

this is the context from my previous posts for that one line comment you took exception to:


>all claims about unity are founded on exclusions, including yours and my
own -- i've noted this now three times. i'm interested, for instance, in why you see fit to get all bothered (now a number of times) about those apparently rule-breaking eugenians and fail to make any serious criticisms when it comes to the xenophobic elements at seattle? is this because you see the latter as part of some coalition who's unity you have to defend; and why?<


>the attempt to 'fix it' will not produce those elements of social
democracy that we might like and support: basic incomes, welfare reforms, labour rights, not to mention redistribution in any serious sense, etc. the only thing -- and i really mean the only thing -- that will be 'conceded' here are along the lines of the ravings about the threat of mexican and chinese workers. that, plus a new round of criminalisation of those who remain outside this process, whether they're part of the nominal constituencies of those who are at the table or not.<


>what this means is that unity and representation -- if by that we take it
to mean a sense of political direction and perspective on tactics, etc -- emerges from _within and through_ movement, and not outside of or 'above' it. it does so through debates leading up to, during and after, which is why the J18 pamphlet was so important, as i hope the forthcoming one on the anti-wto will be.<

Angela _________



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list