>>> dperrin13 at mediaone.net 03/28/01 01:38PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
>How is the direct action of destroying the papers "self-defeating" , except
with respect to the opinion of those of the predominanly mental intellectual
strata who have a fetish about the written word ? And shouldn't these
academics and other intellectuals be confronted on that fetish ?
Well, Chuck, if the students are indifferent to the opinion of those they ostensibly wish to persuade (in this case, the rather sticky -- for the white midde-class -- issue of reparations), then by all means, fire away. But since we are not in a revolutionary period, such actions are pointless at best, and self-defeating at worst.
((((((((
CB: Isn't the more important group to persuade the white workers, not the white middle class ? The vast majority of the population is working class, not middle class .
Why is it that "such actions are pointless" except in a "revolutionary periiod" ? The striking Detroit newspaper workers took papers in a non-revolutionary period. Why shouldn't students model themselves after striking workers ?
))))))))
> The Detroit newspaper workers used this type of civil disobedience in
their struggle with the newspaper monopolies. There wasn't any outcry from
the working class against destruction of newspapers then.
Different struggle, different era. And given the current media terrain, this didn't accomplish much, did it?
((((((((
CB: Same struggle , same fight, black and white unite and fight.
Why do you say different era ? It was in the last few years.
The strike was lost, but not because of the taking of newspapers.
What is the current media terrain ?
Did destroying property in Seattle accomplish much ?
((((((((
> The revolution will not come through polite struggle only. Shoot your
television.
See first point above.
(((((((((
CB: First point above is that there are plenty of examples of workers in struggle making physical attacks on private property in their protests, so why shouldn't the students follow this working class example. Seems like a very good symbolic act, attacking private property.
(((((((
> What would Seattle have been without the destruction of private property ?
To me, the success of Seattle lay in the political organizing. If you wish to cheer on adolescent rage and police-agent violence, feel free.
((((((((
CB: Ever hear of the Boston Tea Party ? Social progress through Gandian tactics is the exception, not the rule, and those using Gandian tactics were always supplemented by physical confronters.
Read Leo's tagline quote of Frederick Douglass. There is no progress without struggle. The struggle may be moral or physical or both.
((((((((
> Why do you place a special, sacred value on the written word ?
I thought all radicals did. Didn't Marx? Paine? Malcolm X?
(((((((((
CB: No, Marx was a materialist. He placed special value on action , practical-critical activity and empowering predomiantly physical workers , not predominantly mental workers.
Also, as to written words themselves Marx and Malcolm were more discriminating than you. Some written words are valuable, some written words are worthless. Radicals don't lump all written words together in some sacred category.
(((((((
>What justifies there being exceptions for libel , slander, etc ? Why
doesn't the First Amendment protect defamation ? How come racist speech is
not defamation , and therefore an exception to First Amendment protection ?
If Horowitz specifically targeted people with specific slanders, that would be another matter.
(((((((((
CB: Why ? There is nothing in the logic of exceptions for slander and libel that confines it to individuals. Group slander is no less bad than individual slander. Anyway, when you slander a group , you are slandering individuals who are members of the group.
(((((((((
As it was, he dealt in gross generalities which do not, so far as I know, constitute libel. If it does, then perhaps the Brown students should try to take him and the paper to court.
((((((((
CB: Why should radicals confine themselves to a bourgeois legal principle ? And why are you relying on the bourgeois courts ?
(((((((
>Don't see where the BRC is giving Horowitz so much attention. The statement
is very brief. BRC is concentrating on and has written much more on the
substance of support for reparations before Horowitz even came out with all
this shit. The BRC is also focussed on Black students victimized by
Horowitz.
And I dealt with that brief statement.
((((((((
CB: And its brevity demonstrates that your statement that the BRC is giving Horowitz so much attention is not accurate. The BRC is not giving so much attention to Horowitz. It is attending to other aspects.
)))))
> Why is it that you want to ignore Horowitz ? The logic of the liberal
doctrine of free speech in allowing fascistic racists to speak only makes
sense if a swarm of rational critics counters the expression of his noxious
doctrine, so it is encumbent upon you as an upholder of the rationale of
that doctrine to exactly focus on countering the content of Horowitz
statements.
One can attack racist doctrine without lending credence to a clown using said doctrine to get money and media attention. Horowitz isn't the only person attacking the call for reparations, but he wants you to see him that way, and it seems that you are only too willing to oblige him.
((((((((((
CB: Seems to me that a clown attacking reparations is the one you want to argue with in public , since a clown is likely to make the worst arguments against reparations and so will be defeated handily in the public debate.
The opposite of what you say is good tactics. We want to make Horowitz , the clown, the posterboy of the anti-reparations crowd