Gordon Fitch wrote:
> In that sense, nothing has any bearing on one's politics --
> there can be racist Communists and kindly fascists and
> intelligent Republicans. That is, people can exhibit
> contradictory beliefs and behaviors.
Political principles are always in part predictions of the right demands to make to mobilize a particular constituency around one's central goals. "Racist Communists" is an oxymoron because racism is inherently a barrier (perhaps the chief barrier) to the mobilization of a movement around communist goals. On the other hand, the demands of (say) *PETA* or of those who oppose Makah whaling rights are a barrier to mobilizing a constituency around communist goals but *not* a barrier to organizing around anti-working class goals. In fact, the goals of PETA (or of those who make vegetarianims a political principle) cannot be achieved (even in theory or daydreaming) except through terrorism, probably state terrorism. There is no way to mobilized even a potential majority around a program which includes any abstract prohibition of the human use of animals for human purposes.
Again, I take it as nearly axiomatic that habits of brutality are barriers to solidarity. It's just that this important fact cannot be articulated in a set of philosophical principles.
Those who are enemies of the Makah on the issue of whaling are enemies of successful working-class mobilization
I haven't followed this thread very closely, since I place the Singers and his ilk in the same camp with Mary Baker Eddy. The question is not how to debate that position theoretically but rather a set of practical questions as to methods of preventing them from fucking up political activity.
Carrol