> I would, however, not trust the capitalist state to do it for me. Most of
> the time that the state 'does something for me' I find that I've been done
> in in the process. I'd support the tactic Antonio Gramsci argued for
> against the original fascists in the 1920s - mass action to deny fascists
> freedom of action.
>
> Same with racism everywhere, I'd argue. The capitalist state is not the
> answer.
Some specifications are needed. First, it is useful to distinguish state from government, exercise of police power from the provision of services. We can always demand more of the latter (and of course such activities would continue even with the withering away of the state). Secondly, in respect to the police power proper, we can always fight for the equal application of that power, resisting some applications (e.g., harassment of racial minorities) and insisting on the enforcement of others (e.g., the punishment of police who exceed their powers).
One of the reasons it is necessary to make these specifications is that in the debate over humanitarian intervention left advocates of such aggression have argued an analogy between (say) the invasion of East Timor by imperialist forces and the demand of blacks in the South for federal intervention to stop lynching, enforce desegregation, etc. A second reason for specification is that some governmental activities overlap the police power or seem to. Specifically, I have in mind affirmative action. The demand for legally enforced affirmative action does not in any significant way give the state more power over individual activity.
The battle over affirmative action does illustrate one danger in proposals that increase the power of the capitalist state: whatever laws are passed, the state (and the relevant non-state organs of the capitalist class) retains the power of definition. Thus laws (mandating affirmative action) passed to combat racism are declared unconstitutional on the grounds that they are racist..
In the last six months there have been a series of acts in Chicago (including a particularly egregious one by off-duty sheriffs' police) which are self-evidently hate crimes, but in each case the States Attorney has refused to label them so officially. Hence the Hate Crime laws in Illinois are toothless where they might make a difference.
(Actually, the off-duty police should be accused of attempted murder.It would make more sense to demand that charge being brought than to demand that hate crime laws apply.)
The columnist who has replaced Royko at the Chicago Tribune has written some *almost*-good columns on these hate crimes -- but their total impact is probably to strengthen the kind of racism which calls affirmative action racist, for he is treating black attacks on whites as equally hate crimes.
Carrol