>>We're not talking about internationalism.
>Yes we are, we're talking about internationalism because we're talking
> >about people who self-identify with differing opressed "nationalities"
> >[the concept of which I disagree with, but they exist merely by their
> >abstract construction by people].and how they relate to one another. >The
>question is immediately one of internationalism in outlook.
So a Canadian black man is a nationality completely seperate from his nationality as a Canadian? And a member of a Canadian org, no matter what his/her skin colour, approaching this man for a membership would be internationalism in action? Or are you assuming that just because a person in one country whose skin colour matches or is close to that of other people in different countries these people will have an "internationalist" affinity for one another, beyond merely the accidental commonality of their skin colour?
>>From a Marxist perspective, I'd rather see people relate to each >>other
>>that way too. However, an internationalist perspective isn't >>something
>>that pops up spontaneously, from what I've read and >>experienced; it has
>>to be learned.
>Vary few marxists in practice are internationalist. Certainly not the
> >trotskyists, who are far from it... the ethno-centrism of their
> >rejection of "socialism in one country" is party to a very
>counter->internationalist outlook.
I can't really speak for the assertion of your first sentence; I really don't know the answer, assuming there is one.
How does the rejection of socialism in one country link up with ethno-centrism and a counter-internationalist outlook?
>I've never said an internationalist perspective is something that >merely
>"pops up spontaneously", although this can happen in accordance >with the
>circumstances.
No, you didn't explicitly say it, but you seemed to, implicitly, by stating: "we'd rather people relate to each other from an internationalist perspective, rather than the below mentioned practice." I took you as meaning that the recruiter and the potential recruit would automatically meet one another via an internationalist perspective, which seemed strange since recruits, especially ones who are "cold solicited", might not have acquired an internationalist consciousness by that time. The statement seemed to be assuming too much. That's why I said what I did.
>Primarily, anarchists believe in education around this issue and >others.
>We use compulsion in our education, however, only with the >ruling class
>whose compulsion we are at issue with... not with other >members of the
>opressed class.
Well, that's fine; Marxists are big on education too from what I've read. It must stem from being "of the Left" <tongue in cheek>. But what about members of the oppressed class who identify with their oppressors?
>>Sorry, I don't see your point here. What do "socially-starved people"
>>(whatever that means) joining a group have to do with people of colour
>>talking to a member of an org who looks like them? Wanting to "fit in" is
>>pretty natural, although conditioned by society, history, psychology, etc.
>>But your observation seems to imply that people who want to join a group
>>JUST want to fit in, to anything. They don't care what the group is, they
>>just "want in". A bit simplistic that seems to me.
>To put it straight up, its condescending and elitist, not to mention
> >enthocentric [and typically trotskyist] to specifically get someone of
> >the same skin pigmentation to talk to another person about a said >group.
So, it's can't at all be a means of putting the newcomer at ease? I don't know about you, but when I'm alone in a roomful of dark-skinned people, I feel ill-at-ease because I know I'm the one standing out like a cue-ball. I understand that people visiting a foreign country are far more at ease with chance-met strangers of their own country than they would have been had they met them in at home. I agree that my condition doesn't rule yours out completely; they're not mutually exclusive. However, if you want to put forward the idea that there are indeed people of colour like the solicited individual in the group already, I don't know what else you can do to make the newcomer more comfortable.
>It's a fundamental denial of the internationalism that people of >different
>ethnic backgrounds from the opressed class have the same >fundamental
>interests in common.
You seem to be collapsing a variety of different intersts to make your strawman work. Capital doesn't give a fig about the skin colour of its workers, all other things being equal. Marxists should be working to instill class consciousness, among other forms of consciousness, in workers, no matter what their ethnic background.
>Your extrapolation of my comment that people "just" join groups >to "fit
>in" is indeed simplistic, and not what I was implying - this >can be an
>underlying motive, or a secondary motive, but not the whole >picture of the
>psychology of the situation.
<shrug> I can't help my mistakes if you keep making these leaps of logic. I can only do the best I can with what you write down.
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus