On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 11:51:15 -0600 Chuck <chuck at mutualaid.org> writes:
> Jim Farmelant wrote:
>
> > I would say everything, or almost everything, since the
> > way Emma approached the issues of her day, especially
> > concerning Russia and Spain, is not so different from
> > the way that you approach issues like Cuba. And
> > your brand of elitist, utopian politics is not so different
> > from her brand. Just as Emma Goldman scorned
> > the struggles of her day for things like the eight-hour
> > day or women's sufferage, so you expressed scorn
> > for the achievments of the Cuban Revolution like
> > free and universal public education, free health
> > care, guaranteed employment etc. But just
> > as importantly, I think the article was good
> > on pointing out the inapplicability of many of Emma
> > Goldman's principles to real life political
> > struggles. The citing of Emma's bending
> > and even breaking of her own political
> > principles in regards to Spain was most
> > telling, as she found herself defending the
> > decisions of the Spanish anarchists to
> > participate (as cabinet ministers no less!)
> > in the Spanish Republican government
> > along with their decisions to back the
> > development of a professional army
> > for the Spanish Republic.
>
> You have still failed to answer my question: what does Emma Goldman
> have
> to do with this discussion about Cuba and the current situation
> there?
Like her, you fail to confront the political options that are available at this moment in history. As I asserted before, the two main political options open to the Cubans are (1) a continuation of the regime founded by Castro or (2) its overthrow and replacement by a US backed rightwing regime. I don't see a third option here. If you do, pray tell us what this third option and is and what social forces would be behind it. Barring any such third option, then to oppose Castro's regime is to support the US backed, Miami Cuban alternative. You might say that you oppose both Castro and the Miami Cubans but unless you can specify a third alternative that is capable of taking political power in Cuba, then to oppose Castro is to support the Miami Cubans. In this situation, the available political choices do appear to be binary.
Emma Goldman faced an analogous situation concerning Russia. She welcomed the overthrow of the Czar but she balked at the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks (even though Lenin had specifically invited her and Alexander Berkman to come visit). Between the Bolsheviks and the Whites, she looked for a third alternative, but that third alternative never did materialize. The Russian Civil War and the accompanying invasions of the country by the Western powers sufficiently polarized the situation so that the only available political options before the Russian people were to support either the Reds or the Whites. That is something that Emma Goldman had a hard time accepting.
>
> It looks to me like you don't have a rational response to my
> positions,
> so you've dug up a half ass ISO attack on Emma Goldman that was
> written,
> I should note, in reaction to a favorable American Experience (PBS)
> documentary on Goldman.
Well as the ISO piece states at the outset, the concern was with her political principle, not her personality or character. As a human being, I think she was most admirable, but that's not what is under discussion.
>
> It also appears that you haven't even bothered to read Goldman's
> writing
> on women's suffrage.
You mean like this piece here? http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/suffrage.html
I, in fact, had first read it many years ago. As a critique of the limitations of suffrage under bourgeois democracy, Emma Goldman made many valid points. And she was undoubtedly correct that many of the advocates of women's suffrage had oversold its benefits to women and society. It was never very likely that the extension of the franchise to women would lead to a radical amelioration, overnight, of the conditions under which women live. Having said, it was still the case that she downplayed the improvements in the lot of women which did eventually come from the extension of the franchise. I suspect that the granting of women's suffrage might have benefited women much more, if the Socialist Party, which was then led by Eugene Debs, had not been smashed by the wave of repression that followed US entry into the First World War. As I read Goldman, she seemed to be arguing that the benefits of women's suffrage were too small to make it a reform worth fighting for. I would respectfully disagree with her. And keep in mind, as a young anarchist militant, she had also scorned the struggle for the eight-hour day. After why fight for a meesely reform like that, when one can, and should, be fighting for the overthrow of capitalism. In fact, she later admitted to have been mistaken on that issue. But that's precisely the point. Her brand of elitist and utopian politics had blinded her to the benefits that could be obtained from even such a limited reform as the eight-hour day. And she failed to comprehend that it was precisely through the fighting for such reforms that it could be possible to build a workers movement that would be strong enough to overthrow capitalism.
>
> Eltist, utopian politics? LOL! How in the hell is saying that Cubans
>
> should have a right to self-determination elitist? An elitist
> argument
> would be one where I would argue that a class of radicals should
> lead
> the Cuban people. I've argued that they should run their own lives,
> which is an anti-elitist argument.
Well, nobody is going to disagree with you about the value of self-determination for Cubans, or everyone else for that matter. If you had said that Cubans ought to be able to live to be five hundred years old, I would not have disagreed with you either. But of course, the question is how such noble ideals are to be realized. And that requires a frank and realistic appraisal of the conditions under which people live and what political options are realistically available to them.
>
> Chuck
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>