>>> "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> 05/04/99 11:50PM >>>
>>CB: The German and French examples are contra your general criticism on
this
thread. Their definitions of "racism" and "racial vilification" are
politically correct from a left point of view. Even these reforms in
capitalism were anti-fascist and not used to attack oppressed national and
racial groups.<<
oh, Chaz. I don't have general criticisms of racial vilification laws, I have a number of specific ones. on the question of the potential for the use of these laws against the left, my point of reference is distinctly the proposals for such laws in australia: i.e., they mention 'vilification of groups according to race, ethnicity'. I have little doubt that this opens the field significantly, similar in fact to the ways in which equal opportunity laws, framed in similar language, have been most effective for white men in this country, as I've mentioned to you before. they have been used to make illegal women's only events and clubs as women only spaces. (((((((((((((((((((((
Chas.: Yes, freedom is a constant struggle. Similar to what you say above about Australia, right now in the U.S. ,one of the greatest historic anti-racist laws, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution , which was one of the legal crystallizations of the revolutionary war to overthrow slavery, has been completely perverted by the current Supreme Court to strike down affirmative action based on on "color blind" logic. This argumentation relies on the idea that racism against oppressed races is a thing of the past, the same idea that underlies Reaganite denial of racism.
I dare say any legal remedies the left proposes can be perverted by the right wing. "Right to work" in the U.S means the opposite of its international sense. It means the right to keep unions out in many Southern states.
I don't think we can propose our program in an alegal form, however. It leaves us open to charges of terrorism and outlawism. It makes it too easy to criminalize the left based on our own words. ((((((((((((((((
I don't know about the French examples, but I raised the German example not in order to illustrate an inability to impose a leftist definition per se, but in terms of an inability to do anything concrete both to stem the rise of neo-nazism and to challenge the racism in that country which is not accompanied by swastikas, nazi insignia or holocaust denial. the racism in Germany today is most extreme against immigrants, and these laws have no capacity to deal with that. during the terrorising of immigrants in Rostock some years back, it was the left which went to defend the 'guest workers' who were targeted by police, not the racists.
Chas.: The racist villification laws are not panaceas for racism. They only target a specific aspect of the problem of racism. In other words, I don't disagree with what you say above, but it is not an argument against racist villification laws.
In general, my position is that laws are only the forms that a mass movement must use to crystallize its demands. The political movement is the substance. Words on the books are worthless without CONTINUING support by mass practical-critical activity, to coin a phrase.
(((((((((((((((((((
{There's an excellent video on this by Siobhan Cleary & Mark Saunders called The Truth Lies In Rostock. This is the blurb: Police withdraw as fascists petrol-bomb a refugee centre and the home of Vietnamese guest workers while 3000 spectators stood by and clapped. Using material filmed from inside attacked houses and interviews with anti-fascists, the Vietnamese guest workers, police, bureaucrats, neo-nazis and residents, a story of political collusion and fear unfolds.}
btw, here are some links that you or others might not have come across:
Crosspoint - Europe http://www.magenta.nl/crosspoint/
Universal Mind- Anti-Racism and Anti-Fascism http://www.harborside.com/home/b/brecke/activism/anti-racism/
European Roma Rights Center http://errc.org/
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Page http://cf.vicnet.net.au/aboriginal/
anti racist action - Toronto http://www.web.net/~ara/
Anti Racism Campaign (ARC) http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/arc.html
Race Traitor - Abolish the White Race http://www.netural.com/lip/abolish.html
Charles: THANKS, COMRADE
((((((((((((((((((((((
----
>>CB: Compared to academics, lawyers have a good record as revolutionaries
in
my opinion: Lenin, Castro, Mandela, Joe Slovo even Lincoln and Jefferson.
Part of it is that law itself emphasized unity of theory and practice.<<
I wasn't comparing lawyers to anyone. I was suggesting that the specific function of lawyers, which expresses a separation of law from the masses, is not a basis on which to conduct a revolution. as for academics, I would say the same thing, they express a distinction, and I would hope that such a distinction would be the target of any revolution, not a premise of its organisation.
CB: :>) The above are extreme exceptions from lawyers in general. Of course, as a class , you are correct about lawyers and all predominantly mental workers: they represent the separation of the head and the hand, the ancient antagonism between mental and physical labor. Indeed, a main goal of the revolution is to resolve the antagonism between mental and physcial labor. And even more, a great riddle that blocks the revolution is raising the consciousness of the masses or overcoming this ancient antagonism. Lenin and others are great (and rare) examples for us trying to become organic/insurgent intellectuals. On the original point, rather than "no legal advisors for the rev." , I would formulate it , we need millions of "barefoot"lawyers , so to speak.
----
>I haven't read Pashukanis. I read an analysis of him, but I didn't get it.
What is Pashukanis's thesis ?
I'll do a post on Pashukanis soon. I have to refresh my dim memory. I asked because since you were a lawyer, and since Pashukanis was one of the eminent, though heterodox, legal theorists of the USSR, I thought you would have a take on him.
CB: I should, but I'm not a speed reader, and I have to spend all of my time on e-mail. :>). I would appreciate your analysis of Pashukanis, if you have the time. Following Engels and Marx, I focus on "private property" as the key concept for Marxist critique of law, but I was not quite able to connect the Pashukanis terminology to this issue, and I never got back to digging deeper. But I am interested, as he is a famous legal theorist in the USSR, as you say.
Charles Brown