> Like her, you fail to confront the political options that are
> available at this moment in history.
Oh brother. I've been the subject of many ridiculous attacks this year, including an attack on Wikipedia that maintains that I'm not an anarchist, but this statement is a nadir in sheer ridiculousness.
I understand what political options are available, but you are the one who insists on a narrow NPR view of those options. You would like to cast those options into this cartoon choice. If I support a continuation of the Castro regime, I'm a good anarchist and leftist. If I oppose the Castro regime, then I'm a stooge for U.S. imperialism. In my experience, at this point the standard leftist response is to say that I'm doing the work of Dick Cheney.
There are more options than just the two one you see.
> 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.
Because you don't want to see a third, or fourth, or more options. You subscribe to the dogmatic American leftist position that it's either the Castro regime or domination by the U.S.A. There are other option available. Recent history is Latin America shows that there are several options possible. Regime changes around the world in recent years show possibilities. The U.S. also has its hand tied because of Iraq, which further complicates the possible range of options.
>If
> you do, pray tell us what this third option and is and
> what social forces would be behind it.
I think that there are more options than just 2 or 3. How about something like Chile or Venezuela? I'm not saying that I support those regimes, but there are other options.
> Barring any
> such third option, then to oppose Castro's regime
> is to support the US backed, Miami Cuban alternative.
That's just silly. My position is that I support the grassroots self-determination of the Cuban people and I actively work to undermine U.S. imperialism in its own backyard.
> 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.
Do you really believe this?
> 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).
We saw how that worked out. Lenin and the others basically destroyed the revolution, consolidated power, and established a regime that brought misery to millions of people. Goldman later criticized the Soviet Union in two books and other writings.
> Between the Bolsheviks
> and the Whites, she looked for a third
> alternative, but that third alternative never
> did materialize.
Cough, cough. Makhno. Control of the collectivized farms by the people who worked them.
> 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.
Oh, right. That old excuse that the Great Communist Revolutions fialed because of Western imperialism.
> 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.
The ISO is not a credible source of anarchist criticism. They've been bashing anarchists for years. Hey, maybe they'll write another piece on Haymarket that turns the anarchists into "radical trade unionists."
You just hate anarchists. Admit it.
> 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.
Well, at least you are admitting that she had some accurate points. Her critique is still relevant today.
> 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.
How is that working out? It's really awesome that there is gender balance in both the U.S. House and Senate. Kind of amazing that the U.S. has had 5 women presidents since the early 20th century. Women are paid the same amount as men and guys do more dishes than women. It's amazing how much change you can accomplish through the ballot box!
> 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.
Goldman was arguing that women's suffrage would not lead to radical changes for women and that they would still be subject to capitalist exploitation and other oppressions. Her point was that a larger social revolution was needed in order to truly change things for women.
>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.
So you are just throwing in the "young" part and this stuff about the eight-hour day to diss her? I know that you are just chomping at the bit to cast all anarchist thought as something that is the province of angry adolescents.
> 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.
I really don't think you are in a position to criticize Emma Goldman. Saying that she was utopian and elitist is just absurd. Goldman spoke to thosuands of people and inspired many to engage in radical (and reformist) social change. She was not asking people to join her organization nor did she pose herself as the leader of some revolution.
As for reforms, anarchists do fight for reforms all the time, but we are against reformism. What you are arguing is that anarchists should give up and become social democrats for practical reasons. What's the point of doing that, when you can fight for something more revolutionary?
> 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.
So you are saying that Cubans don't have the intelligence and agency to determine these things for themselves?
Whatever.
Chuck