We can say that the Republicans won based not on the votes of the yuppies and the rich, but based on the money and the power of the yuppies and the rich, the hard core of the rich. Funding to the GOP from 19 business sectors has shifted in ten years from app 50/50 to an overall GOP advantage of 2:1. In some business sectors the shift has gone to 5:1.
And Contributions from business far outweigh labor unions, by about 4:1.
Certainly labor failed to mobilize to roll-back the advance, and certainly elements of white workers are now, have been, and will remain racist and right wing. That element even grows; but it grows in concert or as a reflection of economic distress and not as the creator of changes in administrations.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lance Murdoch" <MurdochLance at netscape.net> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:06 PM Subject: Re: Color of Anarchism Re: Protest ISO...
> > From: David Schanoes (dmsch at attglobal.net)
> > Don't you think that split between young whites=GOP,
> > African-Americans=Dems is a rudimentary index to economic status?
>
> Of all of the cited figures in the Washington Post article that particular
one can be thought of as having the possibility of being so, but not the
ones showing that working class whites are drifting towards
conservatism/Republicans/etc., or other polls and so forth that show the
same thing. How did the Republicans take over Washington, solely on the
votes of the rich and yuppies?
>
> > And if a common point among revolutionists is to actually develop a
> > process, method, program, activity for revolution, doesn't that process
> > need to reflect, attract, and be developed by the economically less
> > advantaged?
>
> Yes
>
> > In which case, Yoshie is right on it.
>
> No
>
> >>
> >>
>
> > From: Yoshie Furuhashi (furuhashi.1 at osu.edu)
> > I've already said that if anarchists don't think that's a problem, so
> > be it. Just don't expect others not to think of it as a problem of
> > the anarchist movement.
>
> OK, I'll keep in mind that some back-seat drivers are unhappy with the
driving.
>
> > Affirmative action means more than simply "not turning black people
> > away" when they do show up -- it had better include active efforts to
> > recruit and retain the currently underrepresented -- even in the
> > context of employment and public education.
>
> I have no desire to recruit blacks. What am I going to say - "Hey black
guy, I know what's good for you better than you do. But despite having
broadcast my message, you don't seem to have realized this fact. So come
join my group".
>
> > Is there any contradiction between being concerned about
> > underrepresentation of people of color in anarchism and being
> > concerned about the rightward drift of white voters?
>
> Focus on "identity" and focus on "class"
>
> > Can't you be concerned about both? If you can't, you might explain why.
>
> You can if you have a lot of time on your hands...
>
> > Why look at only the voters (especially if you are an anarchist!)?
> > There are lots of people who are not voting for the rightward drift.
>
> The Washington Post article was chock full of polls of people including
non-voters, poor whites etc. The voters was just one of many polls cited in
the article.
>
> >> The anarchist mentality is to form groups with others in your
> >> community who share similar concerns and ideas, and then eventually
> >> federating with others.
> > That may still work, but the historical moment for that may have
> > passed. Increasing class polarization within communities of color
> > means increasing difficulties of organizing blacks as blacks, Latinos
> > as Latinos, etc.
>
> Unfortunately, I haven't been blessed as others presumably have with
profound insights into dialectics and historical materialism to judge
whether or not historical movements have passed or not. Blacks don't want
to be organized as blacks, nor do they want to be organized as workers?
Perhaps, this is not really a problem I'm focused on or care about though.
>
> I'm a white worker. If a black worker is introduced to me, and they're
black, I have absolutely nothing in common with them. They're black, I'm
white, we are different. If a black worker is introduced to me, and they're
a worker, then we have a commonality of being workers together. Black
workers have problems from being black and from being workers. If they want
to fix the worker problems they can become anarcho-syndicalists. Maybe they
are too busy dealing with black problems. So we can have a division of
labor - while they're busy working on black problems, I can work on worker
problems. I'm not interested in what I can do for people of color, I'm
interested in what they can do for me. If I have to drag them kicking and
screaming to anarchist meetings and then I have to worry about recruiting
and retaining them, I don't know how much they'll be helping out.
>
> I'm already busy dealing with problems. I don't need to hear other people
complain about what else I should be doing. If someone thinks something
isn't getting done and needs to be addressed, they should deal with it. If
they don't want to deal with it and want me to deal with it, I really don't
want to hear them complaining because I don't care about the problem or I
would have been addressing it already. If they really think it is a problem
then they should deal with and take some initiative. It's like the WWP
running the anti-war rallies - if you don't like the WWP, do the organizing,
don't complain that you don't like the people doing the work. Because the
only two alternatives are to out-work them or try to undermine them like
David Corn going on O'Reilly.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now!
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp
>
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/