>> Let's keep in mind that the ratio of African-Americans in the general
>> American population is around 12%. If our movements could get near
>> that rate, on a national average, that would be pretty good.
>
> A qualified yes to both (e.g., anarchism is whiter than most left-wing
> formations), but we are far from getting to the 12%.
Anarchism is whiter because anarchism in North America was kept going for many years by the mostly white punk movement. This isn't a bad thing and I'm very happy that a music movement had such a strong political orientation to it. But the anarchist movement has changed since that period and we need to be more diverse. I've argued that anarchists have been doing good on this score, despite the difficulty we face because we don't resort to standard recruiting methods.
> 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 the same time, when you talk about contemporary African-Americans, you also need to talk about class. This is especially evident in Washington, DC, with its large black middle class. It's a different discussion when we talk about a city where African-Americans have more power than usual (in city government and as government workers).
And we're totally leaving out the other non-white groups in American society and their relationship to left and anarchist political movements.
>> 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?
Anarchists have different opinions about this. All would agree that anarchism has had a long relationship with the left. Many anarchists today would say that they aren't leftists. There is some confusion among anarchists and lots of confusion about this among leftists. Anarchism is not a spikey, black-clad version of socialism or social democratic politics. Anarchism is fundamentally opposed to the state. It advocates direct action and non-compliance with authority. It is anti-capitalist and socialist/communist in a libertarian sense, which means that anarchism can be close to leftism, but I would argue that anarchism is not part of leftism.
I will sometimes identify myself as a leftist during disucssions and conversations, but politically I think anarchism is outside of the Left.
>> 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.
Sure, that how it happens sometimes. I'm sure that there are plenty of people of color who have thought things through and want to belong to these groups, but when you are talking about groups with cult-like qualities, they will draw in the gullible and confused, no matter what color they are.
> 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.
I wasn't talking about them. Were any of these members of the ISO or RCP or WWP? They were socialists and communists, sure, but were they members of socialist cults?
>> 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).
Because riots get results. One of my anarchist friends is the talkative sort and she talks to politicans. Over and over again they tell her that the only way that radical social change will happen is if the people get out of control. This is what those in power fear, when people go around the poverty pimps, union pimps, and activist pimps to directly demand change.
Chuck0
------------------------------------------------------------ Personal homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/
"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free..." ---Utah Phillips