Re: AUT: strategy/ies

[Harald Beyer-Arnesen <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

Angela wrote:
>i can't seem to find the various posts in this thread, but i recall some of
>the discussion (people can/should correct me if i'm wrong)...
>
>harry i think queried whether what andrew was referring to (see below) was
>racism or not.  i'm not sure that it's possible to say that it isn't.  so,
>maybe i can urge harry to restate his argument.  i happen to think this is
>racism -- but then, i think nationalism is racism.

Neither I have all the posts in this thread. But I am quite certain
that it is a less than brilliant post of mine (reposted below) and
not of Harry, you are referring to.

I agree with you that nationalism is racism in so far as much of
the same phenomenom lies at the root of both nationalism and
racism and that no clear borderline can be drawn between them. But
it still appears to me that racism has a "supernational" character,
and in its modern form involves a greater level of abstraction,
probably having as its premise a certain level of commodification
of social relations on a global level. On the other hand there
certainly was no lack of pariah castes, or slaughter of aliens,
in the pre-national and pre-capitalist area either.

        One side of the family of a friend of mine from the northern
part of Norway comes from a parish where recently a girl was murdered
by a possesive ex-boyfriend. A relative of my friend here in Oslo
when first hearing of the the news stated that surely the culprit had
to be from the neighbouring (and traditionally poorer) parish. People
there obviously could not be wholly trusted. She had moved from the
parish she grew up in fifty years ago, but still had a clear opinion
of the general moral character of the people of the neighbouring parish.
Now, is this racism?
        To another time and place in what today is called Iraq. When
in April 1915 the people of Najaf rose against the "Turks" and expelled
them from the city, each of Najaf's four quarters declared independence.
The constitution of the Buraq quarter contains the following: "We have
assembled ourselves and become united and of one blood, and follow one
another should anything happen to our quarter from other quarters. We
will rise together against an outsider who is not from us, whether the
result be to our advantage or to out didadvantage..."  Is this racism,
nationalism, or a phenomenom historically predating both?



My post of December 17 read as follows:
_____________________________

Andrew C writes:
        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

The question is if this phenomenom is necessarily racism. That
it tends to produce racism seems quite obvious, but it seems
to me that main general criterium for letting someone pass a
border is the general level of wealth in the country s/he is
coming from. The former West Germany has not been too happy
about all those poorer "aryians" coming in from the east either,
and black South Africans have not all been too happy about
blacks coming in from neighbouring states, etc ...

                       - - -

Whether or not racism orginated in capitalism depends entirely
on how you define racism. But valuing the life of an "alien"
less than one of ones own "tribe" surely is not a modern phenomenom.

I hate the word "sexism" but that is beyond the point. But
oppression of women surely did not originate in capitalism.
I belong to those who are convinced that capitalist social
relations at least up too a certain point tends to work towards
the emanicipation of women qua women, but it does not come
with any guarantees. Times changes, and you never now what
a period of crisis might bring. Capitalism does not develop
along some abstract predefined schema. There is too much old
history and history in making out there.
        What I'm quite sure of however is that the days
of patriarchy will never return where it has been overcome,
but then I don't see oppression of women as identical to
patriarchical social relations. (The places they talk the
most about patriarchy are where it belongs to the past.)

I generally agree with Bill that "defeating these evils,
righteous as that may be, shouldn't be confused with a
strategy to defeat capitalism". On the other hand as far
as racism, nationalism etc is concerned, which is a whole
other phenomenom than the relations between sexes - some-
thing which is all too often forgotten - this is question
directly linked to out ability to create a new world, and
the question of women is also often intimately linked
to racism. That a majority of men and women from Pakistan
living in Norway still tend to see Nordic women as
whores is not very helpful when it comes to overcoming
racism. So the beginning rebellion of their daughters (and
sons) against patriarchical relations, will also be very
helpful towards overcoming racism here. And overcoming
racism will again be very helpful in the class struggle.
And as I am sure will be pointed out by others, there are
also other areas where these questions interlink. Overcoming
these evils fully, or far more likely, in part, would
also free or redirect a lot of energy.

end of old post ______________________


You write:

        but on the issue of whether or not sexism and racism
        are integral to capitalism or not; i find many of the
        premises of the whole discussion a little strange.  i
        don't find the assumption that class operates in any
        concrete sense without or outside of racism and sexism
        at all convincing -- it just looks like a bad version
        of weber's ideal types to me, where the only way one
        could 'solve' such a problem politically is by way of
        pluralism (the trinity of race, class and gender) --
        the kind of 'solution' that stems from bad premises, and
        in the terms of representation, can only amount to a
        kind of corporatism.


Is is self-evident that capitalism does not operate without
or outside of what exists. But what exists today is not
what existed in preceding centuries or even a few decades ago.
Capitalism operates within a different world than it started
out from. And it seems to me that we are living through a
historical process where clear demarcations between genders
are breaking down. That girls and younger women increasingly
are involved in violent crimes - and not just shop-lifting -
as well as cases of sexual abuse, is an expression of this.
I still find it useful to see the numerical relation between
men and women behind bars as a clear indication of the level
of emancipation.

you write:

        but let's suppose that the end of capitalism is
        not the end of domination.  does anyone seriously
        think that this will mean that what we might call
        sexism and racism sans capitalism would operate
        in the same ways as it does now?    does anyone
        seriously think that capitalism is not a mode of
        production but rather a cartoon version of hegel's
        master-slave dialectic consisting of two figures
        locked in battle?

That "what we might call sexism and racism sans capitalism
would operate in the same ways as it does now," appear to
be an implicit assumption of feminism, leftist or not, and
the double- tripple- quadruple- (ad infinitum) oppression
theories.

Harald

  in solidarity,
  Harald Beyer-Arnesen
  haraldba@xxxxxxxxx



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