Re: AUT: strategy/ies

[cbac2 <cbac2@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Whether or not racism and sexism "originate" in capitalism, don't you agree
that the capitalist class has consistently sought to divide ethnic groups from
one another - witness the recent Australian govt crackdown on illegal aliens:
persons claiming to be refugees are seent to a "detention centre" in the South
Australian desert to await processing. Media hype suggests an aramada of boats
overflowing with yellow and black hordes ready to swamp the "lucky country".
Some of my family, first and second generation italian immigrants themselves,
justify this with the rhetoric of protecting "our" standard of living.

Does the bourgeois party in power seek to hermetically seal Australia only out
of anachronistic attitudes? No - capital finds it convenient to have discrete
labour forces confined to nation states, able to be played off against one
another, working in the "national interest". Capitalist governments prefer to
regulate and monitor immigration because this is in their interest.

Andrew C


Bill Bartlett wrote:

> Alain Kessi wrote:
>
> >Didn't patriarchy preexist capitalism, as did racism?
>
> I believe so.
>
> > Seems to me both need to be analysed as systems of power and
> >privilege in their own right, and in their relation to the
> >working-class/capital contradiction.
>
> My analysis of that is that these are anachronistic attitudes in the
> context of capitalist economic relations.
>
> > The struggle can therefore not be
> >towards abolishing capitalism and holding on to patriarchy and racism,
> >but has to be aimed at abolishing capitalism, patriarchy and racism all
> >at once. At least, it would seem to me that anything else might stem
> >from male and/or racist phantasies about holding on to one's privileges
> >in those sectors once one has gotten rid of the disadvantages one had in
> >the capitalist power system.
>
> I'd agree that patriarchal attitudes and racism can be eliminated before we
> herald in a socialist society. Given that, I believe entirely different
> strategies are called for to eliminate patriarchy and racism. But defeating
> these evils, righteous as that may be, shouldn't be confused with a
> strategy to defeat capitalism, anymore than defeating capitalism is the way
> to end patriarchy and racism.
>
> That is my point here. It is folly to believe that the different strategies
> are all for the same purpose. Racism is not something that is vital to
> capitalism, the strategies best suited to that task will thus be entirely
> different to the strategies best suited to ending capitalism. The
> capitalist class is not necessarily the enemy in the fight against racism
> or patriarchy, it *is* necessarily the enemy in the struggle for socialism.
>
> To confuse the two objectives is terribly dangerous.
>
> >Are you suggesting that a working-class woman whose husband never does
> >the dishes or washes his own laundry has all the same interests as the
> >worker who is her husband?
>
> Hang on a tick, I'll ask the missus. ;-) But seriously, I'd really like to
> know how you managed to read *that* into anything I've said?
>
> > If you think that patriarchy/sexism and
> >racism will automatically disappear once capitalism is abolished, can
> >you suggest by what mechanism they will be led to disappear?
>
> I don't think that. I never for a second suggested any such thing. Where on
> earth did you get the impression I was suggesting that?





     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---