Results 21 to 40 of 85
I'm quite amazed that the OP can't see that burning a Mosque in southern America isn't a racist act, and that he has no remorse for it. It's not hard to link the two together.
[FONT=Arial Narrow]"Body tissue deprived of life energy turns cancerous. Cancer is the hysteria of cells condemned to death. Cancer and fascism are closely related. Fascism is the frenzy of sexual cripples. The swastika owes its magnetism to being a symbol of two bodies locked in genital embrace. It all stems from a longing for love. Comrades, make love joyously and without fear."
[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]Khrushchev: "It’s interesting, isn’t it? I’m of working class origin while your family were landlords."
Zhou: "Yes, and we each betrayed our class!"[/FONT]
As long as there's a sizable portion of communists who think its ok to kill anyone with even a mildly reactionary belief, most workers will recoil at what seems like a violent and inhumane ideology.
Even Lenin came out in favor of religious equality because he, unlike the OP, saw the connection between state religion, interfaith violence and the idealist basis of autocracy.
Socialist Party of Outer Space
Church bombings during the US civil rights movement? Pre-Nazi Germany Nazi attacks on Jewish areas and buildings? The Egyptian SCAF government playing Muslims against Copts in order to weaken the solidarity built during the uprisings and to give themselves justifications to show that "military rule is still needed to protect people from themselves"?
What justifications does the US still have to rally the US population behind US imperial aims in the Middle East and North Africa? No one believes in WMD but a minority fully adopt Islamophobic reasons and a larger percentage at least go along with the basic assumptions such as: "Islam being more reactionary than comparable religions"; or the middle east being "devoid of culture and stuck in the Middle Ages"; or current conflicts of countries that didn't exist before British and French Imperialism and many that didn't exist until after WWII being "ancient tribal conflicts".
Racism and xenophobia and religious repression are TOOLS to keep the class system intact, to keep people as 2nd class citizens, to make people afraid to speak out or exercise any rights they are supposed to have, to demonize people and rally support for Imperialist wars.
In the case of Islamophobia in the US, it's the modern version of white man's burden: secular/christian capitalism has to save Arabs from themselves because their religion prevents them from being "civilized" ("ready for Democracy").
If your concern is the working class then you should take these kinds of attacks as seriously as anything else in the class struggle. These kinds of attacks are how our rulers keep people fighting amongst themselves and repression against one group of non-rulers gives the capitalist state new powers to go after the rest of the class. Demonize poor drug-dealers and create SWAT teams that are now used against strikes and Occupy protests. Demonize Arab "terrorists" and create a whole new infrastructure for going after immigrants and political dissidents. It's happened time and time again in modern history.
Nah man you've misunderstood. In revolutionary terms I don't think the petit bourgeois are an obstacle to revolution. Socialism is for the most part in their interests these days as they are unable to compete with the bourgeois proper. This means their interests are in line with the revolutionary class. So in this instance I was including them when referring to workers. What I was talking about is the sort of tribalism we see in football hooligans, or the bloody murderous drug gangs around the world or religious wingnuts burning down each others place of worship. Petty and senseless violence like this hinders the working class from uniting and realizing who the real enemy is. That's what I mean by opposing worker on worker violence and of course that goes for attacking small business owners as well.
I think you've misunderstood campesino. He's not saying that we should go around killing religious people, he's not saying we should celebrate when it happens. He's just saying that the faux left wing defense of religions is pointless and leads to liberal politics.
I actually don't agree with you that the interests of small business owners, particularly those who employ workers, are in line with working class interests. But I think this is beside the point completely. Racism and ethnic or religious persecution isn't always directly reducible to class. Sometimes the people on the receiving end of said persecution are even members of the bourgeoisie. That doesn't make it any more excusable. It doesn't make it any less reactionary or any less antithetical to a communist perspective.
This I think is the danger of taking political action in this situation. Of course, it is a tragic act and I oppose it. But the danger of reformist politics is evident for a political organization to endorse and organize over it, because there is no class line. If you feel you have to endorse this position, why not endorse every position like animal rights, environmentalism, etc.? Then the anger becomes misdirected, not focused on capitalism. Then tying those issues to capitalism is like trying to play the kevin bacon game and people just look at you like a reductionist nut.
Of course, the OP's attitude, that it is somehow good that they are being violently attacked is off the mark. But the advocacy of liberal ideals part is relevant.
Those who, in the name of the quest for the "new," reject the use of the tested insights, understandings, and accomplishments of the last century or more, will merely repeat "old" mistakes.
Siembra Socialismo, I cant really make heads or tails of your post, to be honest...
What situation?Which is my entire point.
To 'endorse' what? As for whether there is any merit to 'organizing over it', it would obviously be dependent on the situation and other factors relating to the size and influence of the organization.
If I feel I have to 'endorse' what position? Animal rights and environmentalism? What are you even talking about? I genuinely have no clue at this point.
I think that is exactly the function of a lot of religious and ethnic persecution, actually.
I have absolutely no fucking clue how Kevin Bacon relates to this discussion at all, but I actually do think 'those issues' are very much tied to capitalism. I am not sure what in any of my posts in this thread would make you think otherwise. The fact that not all ethnic and religious persecution is immediately reducible to 'worker on worker violence' does not at all suggest that it isn't tied to capitalism; it most certainly is.
I would choose liberal antiracist politics over the shit politics of some of the weirdos in this thread any day.
Last edited by Silvr; 21st August 2012 at 10:05.
Can capitalism survive without racism. Yes it can. Can capitalism survive without patriarchy. Yes it can. Can capitalism survive with responsible environmental protection. Yes it can. Will these things happen under capitalism. It seems highly unlikely maybe even impossible. But that's a different question and is not dependent on whether capitalism as a mode of production can continue to exist.
So if capitalism can exist without these things then these are reforms. It really is a strawman to say that just because we won't campaign and organize around these things that we don't want them or that we oppose them. It's just that we realize that they are improvements to capitalism, not a threat to capitalism itself. It's like if you asked me what's better state capitalism or free market capitalism. I'd probably take state capitalism any day over the shit we've got at the moment. However I would still oppose both equally as both are capitalism. I'm about abolishing capitalism not improving it or making it run better.
I hope that helps explain it.
First this is an abstract argument because no capitalist regime has ever existed - probably no class system (at it's mature-state) has ever existed without some kind of special rules or repression, often for the sake of dividing the majority to preserve the power of the ruling minority.
But can capitalism as we know it exist without racism or sexism or religious repression? Sure, the levels and varieties of these kinds of oppressions have changed at various times. But I am very very doubtful that there could ever be a capitalist regime that did not in SOME WAY divide up the population and create or encourage divisions within the mass of the non-ruling population.
But I think your argument needs to be flipped. Can the working class organize itself for mass collective rule of society with rampant racism? With commonplace female and sexual oppression? With religious minority persecution? For those who believe that socialism can only come from working class self-emancipation, I think the answer is no, a divided and pitted-against working class is a weak working class.
The fight against forms of specific oppression (religious, ethnic, etc) is one of the prime ways that working class movements can begin to develop and strengthen. In the US this is the history of trade unions where anti-Chinese and anti-black and anti-immigrant racism allowed the system to scapegoat poverty, excuse crackdowns, and also allowed the bosses to directly pit workers against each-other in strikes by using segregated workforces and using scabs from a marginalized group of workers. When workers were able to begin to overcome these divisions is when workers began to shift the balance in struggle.
OP should be banned for being a reactionary. The fact that he/she has no sympathy for people who were recently massacred by a racist, for merely not liking their religion, is disgusting. Your right-wing rubbish would go down better with Hitchenist cliques, not on a site for revolutionary leftists.
By his logic the Holocaust was a tragedy that we shouldn't really care about because they were all Jews!
FKA Red Godfather
The class line in the latter example is very clear though. You are endorsing trade unions, as they halt creation of surplus value at the point of production, and condemning racism of one racial grouping of unionists against another. Obviously, a division of unionists on racial grounds is a victory for capital.
In the situation we are describing, as put clearly by slvr:
Racism and ethnic or religious persecution isn't always directly reducible to class. Sometimes the people on the receiving end of said persecution are even members of the bourgeoisie.
the class line is not so clear. And for a socialist party to endorse or campaign with a specific church against the actions of another church runs a risk of reformism, especially if it cannot be reduced to class and has members of the bourgeoisie. All these issues might hurt the working class, but for a party to ally itself with a mosque, an environmental group, a human rights group, a charity, etc. and it no longer becomes class struggle, nor does anything to further class consciousness. It just becomes a demand for capitalism to improve its racial, environmental, human rights policies. Look at parties that build up a lot of front groups. Do the front groups really help build the party? Or do the front groups grow at the expense of the party?
Well what I should have added is that no reform is made that is not int the interest of private capital. If one of these things were to occur it would be as a result of it being profitable. But I would cite ancient Rome as an example of a society which for the most part existed without racial discrimination. If you were a citizen and lived in Rome, you were a Roman. You weren't an African Roman or a German Roman you were a Roman. The reason for this is when you have greater threat from outside enemies than you do for your own population it is better for the ruling class to have a united population in order to defend wealth from outside invaders. Now when we look at current day US it's never faced a real threat except from the internal population so it's been highly beneficial to stratify the population and enhance the alienation. What I'm saying is it depends on the material conditions a ruling class faces, if something is in their interests they'll usually get around to doing it. I am of course not saying that Rome did not have other means to divide people, obviously on gender and class just not on ethnicity. So I agree when you say that probably "no class system (at it's mature-state) has ever existed without some kind of special rules or repression" Just citing an example where it is in the interests of the ruling class to have a less divided society.
This really is the crux of the argument. First with rampant racism are we talking systemic or general racism? ( I never know with Revleft) If it's systemic then we have no control over that. As I demonstrated it depends on the material conditions that the ruling face. The greater internal threat they face the greater the need for them to divide us will become. Systemic racism may be the way they do that and no amount of protesting will make them do something which is not in their interests, unless of course it's a threat to capitalism itself then you'll see them pull out all the reforms. I always say if what you want is reforms then go for revolution as it's the only sure fire way to get them to do something they don't want to do. If we're talking about general racism, you know ignorant name calling or stereotypes and that stuff. Then I don't know. The only way we can do anything to stop that is to integrate more in the face of division. But what unites us is the oppression that we all face, capitalism.
Certainly no-one can deny the historical impact that uniting against racism has had in raising wages and fighting back against employers. Even contemptible parties like the CP-USA did commendable things for black workers in America during the 50's. However, did this lead to lasting class consciousness among black or Latino communities? Has any of this solidarity actually lead to greater unity within our class? I see no evidence of significant progress coming from these tactics. Generally what we see with solidarity actions is dropping revolution in favour of reform. As we see with SWP Respect thing over here.
Yes it is. It is "reducible" to class (even if the impact is not) in that all these oppressions (which generally do cross class-lines in practice in society, though not always in the same way depending on the person's class) because ultimately they are STRUCTURES and TOOLS for maintaining ruling class power. In fact they would be less useful strategies if these kinds of restrictions did not, to some degree, cross class lines in their impact.
This is not to say that the interests of the oppressed worker and oppressed petty-bourgoise of the same group are completely harmonious. All movements against these kinds of oppression generally do have a class split over perspective, aims, and tactics. That's why class politics is necessary for these movements to develop beyond a reformist phase; that's why these things are interlinked, not opposed as in there's class oppression and then other oppression.
Workers need to aid non-working class people suffering from oppression if only for the reason that if racism/homophobia/sexism is being employed against petty-bourgoise people of a particular group, for example, there's no way that that oppression isn't also in some way impacting working class members of that group - probably to a much greater degree. Hell take sexist attacks on a ruling class woman like Hilary Clinton. She's complete shit in my opinion but if it's acceptable for her to be attacked in the mainstream on a sexist basis, do you really think that her "lack of ability to do serious work because of her gender" or "being assertive means you are not a real woman" has NO impact on what flies as far as treatment and attitudes towards women in the workplace?
As'ad Abu Khalil said "Atheists are opposed to all religions. A person who opposes one religion only is a bigot. Big difference."
I am not a bigot. Do not associate me to Hitchens. I do not support colonialism, I do not view ethnicities as savages, I do not believe in western superiority.
Why is everyone so quick to defend the religions, what purpose is their in supporting them?
do you fear atheism is too unpopular or weak an ideology that we must appease the religions. Change will not happen if we rely on the current consciousness to create change, a new radical consciousness will create the conditions for socialism.
I don't support organized religion at all, but if it makes someone feel better about their life to go to a church/synagogue/mosque etc. once a week, then who the fuck am I to say they can't? And I certainly would defend their right to organize without insane machine gun-wielding Nazis killing them based on their skin color or having their gathering place burned down by crazed bigots.
Religious people are a HUGE part of the working class that you would be alienating through your lunacy.
"We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves." - Errico Malatesta, l’Agitazione (1897)
I think your problem (well, one problem amongst your vast panoply of problems) is that for whatever reason your malfunctioning brain can't process the difference between a defence of religion as a whole [or even specific religions] and defence of people, largely workers, getting killed and harassed because of their religion. I don't think anyone here thinks religion is a good thing but that sure as shit doesn't mean we should tacitly endorse people shooting up temples and burning down mosques.
Not shooting people is appeasement, now?
You've used words and put them in a grammatically adequate order but you've managed to say absolutely fuck all.
Sciences & Environment rocks my bedroom.
[FONT=Arial]Say what you mean and say it mean...[/FONT]
"Frankly if we have a revolution and you stop me eating meat, I'm going to eat you."- The inimitable Skinz.
Be careful, lest the time comes where we have to weigh you against a duck.
Can I ask people what they mean by defence? and what they have done personally to defend the rights of religious workers within the last month or year or ever.
Because all this talk of defense sounds like hot air as if you think posting on an internet forum = Defence.
1. Opposing people being targeted because they were born into a culture or are searching for meaning through supernatural explanations or wanting to belong or whatever other reasons religious people are religious is not "appeasement"; it's opposition to oppression.
2. How do you propose that people develop a "new radical consciousness"? How does ignoring attacks on oppressed groups help build that consciousness among people?
it is hot air, this is just a a debate in between differing viewpoints. when I say defence, I mean ideological support not material support.
@Jazzrat
should right-wing workers be protected to practice their right-wingism? because they are workers.
should religious workers be free to practice their foolishness? just because they are workers.
@Terminator X
what do you think of the statement
I don't support reaction at all, but if it makes someone feel better about their life to go to a fascist/nationalist/tea party etc. meeting once a week, then who the fuck am I to say they can't?
this is liberalism.
