A qualified yes to both (e.g., anarchism is whiter than most left-wing formations), but we are far from getting to the 12%.
Also, we have to consider the facts that (A) the African American population in the USA is still much more decidedly working-class than the white population (as blacks are underrepresented among power elites, higher-level managers, self-employed professionals with higher incomes and prestige, etc.) and that (B) the proportion of African Americans who are in favor of left-wing views on economy, civil rights and liberties, etc. within the total African American population is far larger than the proportion of whites who are in favor of the same within the total white population. Given these facts, there should be a much higher proportion of African Americans than 12% in any decent left-wing movement.
At 12:18 PM -0500 1/2/03, Chuck0 wrote:
>while anarchism has had a long relationship with the left, it is not
>of the left and its future does not lie with the left.
Is that a consensus among anarchists today or an idiosyncratic opinion of yours?
At 12:18 PM -0500 1/2/03, Chuck0 wrote:
>>Besides, people of color in other left organizations would bristle
>>at your representation of them as dupes and victims of "tokenism
>>and opportunism" of white leftists. Maybe you think people of
>>color are not as intelligent as whites, therefore easily exploited
>>as "tokens." Where is respect for us that you say you hope to
>>emphasize?
>
>I never said anything about dupes or victims. We are all humans and
>we make wrong choices. When cult-like groups come around with sneaky
>tactics, they can often exploit somebody who is newly radicalized or
>wrestling with their beliefs.
>
>I've often compared the ISO to campus evangelical groups. Instead of
>"come up to our dorm room to talk about religion over cookies," it's
>"come to our forum on socialism and George Bush."
You are basically saying that people of color in left organizations are dupes and victims of white cultists, dumb enough to be easily brainwashed by white evangelists. It seems you can view leftists of color only as objects of white leftists.
You are also completely ignoring the long and diverse tradition of socialist thought and organizing developed by Marxists of color here and elsewhere: W.B.E. DuBois, Paul Robeson, C.L.R. James, Jose Carlos Mariategui, Eric Williams, Amilcar Cabral, Manning Marable, etc.
At 12:18 PM -0500 1/2/03, Chuck0 wrote:
>>The LA riot resulted in 52 deaths, more than 200 injuries, more
>>than 800 deportation of Latinos, 12,545 arrests (45% of the
>>arrested were Latinos, 38%, blacks, and 14%, whites), and 2,300
>>Korean-American businesses that were looted, burned or destroyed
>>(Cf. <http://www.cityresearch.com/pubs/la_riot.pdf>,
>><http://www.hhh.umn.edu/pubpol/pubpol-d/199505/0064.html>,
>><http://web.nmsu.edu/~dboje/speech93.html>, and
>><http://www.interrupt.org/L.A._Anniversary_Chron.html>), without
>>being able to force any significant concessions from capital and
>>the state in response to the riot:
>
>You are missing the positive things about the L.A. Rebellion.
Did the "positive things" outweigh the casualties such as 52 deaths, more than 200 injuries, more than 800 deportation of Latinos, 12,545 arrests (45% of the arrested were Latinos, 38%, blacks, and 14%, whites), and 2,300 Korean-American businesses that were looted, burned or destroyed? Have you followed the fate of families who lost their loved ones in the riot, the injured, the deported, the arrested, those who lost their life savings, etc.? What has happened to them?
At 12:18 PM -0500 1/2/03, Chuck0 wrote:
>>The riot basically functioned as a safety valve for anger of the
>>exploited, oppressed, and marginalized and recuperated their
>>dissent; and the temporary eruption of anger mainly victimized none
>>other than the very ranks of the exploited, oppressed, and
>>marginalized (especially Latinos and blacks), hardly causing any
>>damage to capital and the state (the rich business owners were well
>>insured -- the only business owners who lost everything were small
>>shopkeepers in the depressed neighborhoods -- mainly relatively
>>recent immigrants -- who couldn't afford expensive insurances).
>>One might say that it is the very riot and its aftermath that tamed
>>the exploited, oppressed, and marginalized.
>
>Wow! A saftey valve, huh? I guess it was just a more violent safety
>valve than unions and socialist parties and the Greens. If we're
>going to talk about safety valves and the recuperation of dissent,
>we must talk about the standing institutions which perform this
>function everyday.
Safety valves can be violent or non-violent. Violent safety valves are no better than non-violent safety valves.
At 12:18 PM -0500 1/2/03, Chuck0 wrote:
>>It would have been much better if the anger of the exploited,
>>oppressed, and marginalized had been directed at the right targets
>>in a way that would allow them to work toward radical social
>>change. That's impossible without the work of organizing (meetings
>>and all that), though.
>
>Bullshit. We all know what would have happened if that energy had
>been directed into the right channels. That energy would have been
>dissipated in an orgy of permitted rallies, Green Party meetings,
>socialist forums, and monthly dues-paying to unions that are in bed
>with the bosses.
What makes riots better than "an orgy of permitted rallies, Green Party meetings, socialist forums, and monthly dues-paying to unions..." in your opinion? Riots _without_ conscious political self-organizing of the exploited, oppressed, and marginalized, _at best_, only play into the hands of social democrats (at worst nothing happens in response to riots except further police repression). -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>