In response to Chuck0 who wrote:
">So, do you think "hand-wringing" about racism and sexism in activism
>are diversionary bullshit?
David, response: Well, Yoshie, I think we do have to be able to account for the Stalinist techniques employed by Workers' World, etc., and determine why they are getting the attention they are. Not only have they been mentioned quite often in the mainstream media lately, but they have generated several threads on this list in the past month or so that literally encompass hundreds of messages. We don't know if this is a phenomenon that will grow or die out as Bush maintains power in the United States, but we ought to be prepared with criticisms. Historically, popular front Stalinist tactics in the developed countries have been employed to stultify workers' movements. The justification for doing so has been, among other things, that workers in the developed countries are hopelessly reactionary. In the present context, this has engendered that "rah-rah-ing" of deformed workers' states abroad like Yugoslavia, DPRK, etc. This has seemingly been coupled with a chauvinist-- rather than materialist-- analysis of bourgeois nationalism.
Chuck: I don't think that Stalinim in the US is a problem worth talking about, but talking about "Stalinist" groups which aim to lead any social change movement
should be a discussion that activists engage in.
David: Exactly! Let's work on this.
Yoshie writes later on: If you think that WW/IAC/ANSWER organizing mass rallies and marches in DC/San Francisco is not good for the anti-war movement, the only practical remedy is for you to organize bigger and better ones, instead of dismissing them.
[...and then later:] You don't have to support WW/IAC/ANSWER at all, provided you can organize something bigger and better.
David: I can't say I'm too fond with this talk of pragmatism. It reminds me of "progressive" Democrats who argue against like-minded "progressives" voting for a Green Party. If the Green Party was getting a "bigger" slice of the vote, then (and only then) would it be "practical" to vote for them. It also reminds me of the CP-USA during the transition to Stalinism in the Soviet Union, where tens and thousands of workers were being killed and the CP justified their continuing support, in part, by declaring the Soviet Union to be the only living example of "actually existing socialism." Not much later, the CP-USA began endorsing Democrats for president....
By virtue of these formulations, the larger, status quo "progressive" organization is permitted to move as far to the right as they want, employing whatever strategies they care for. Meanwhile, the cynics say, "Well, there's nothing else...." Remember, a lot of folks at the Washington rally, ostensibly under the banner of ANSWER, actually supported war in Iraq, but not under Bush's specific terms....
In my opinion, it's far better to take a principled stance rather than a dogmatic one on what folks "have to" or "don't have to" support. And it's my understanding, based on the reading and studying I've been doing, that unless the events that are now unfolding engender a strong workers' movement that does not cast its lot with the bourgeoisie in Washington, these wars will continue, on and on.
Best, David