Re: SWP says 'don't vote' on Prop 54 in California

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In criticizing the SWP's opposition to opposing Proposition 54, John Cox
completely forgets Marx's denunciation of reliance on government reports on
factory conditions that makes up much of Volume 1 of Capital.  I'm sure Marx
would not have cared a whit if parliament had abolished the collection of
such statistics.

Just kidding. In fact, Volume 1 is based heavily on the statistics and
reports collected by the British government, and Marx clearly indicated his
positive SUPPORT for these efforts, giving high praise to some of the
inspectors.


NOW for my main political point:  JOEL BRITTON'S REACTIONARY,  ANTI-WORKING
CLASS REFUSAL TO OPPOSE PROPOSITION 54 DISQUALIFIES HIS CAMPAIGN FOR THE
SUPPORT OF CLASS CONSCIOUS WORKING PEOPLE AND OTHER FIGHTERS.  Working
people have no use for an election campaign that refuses to stand up to an
attack on our rights.

Why does opposition to "reliance" (whatever that means) on government
statistics lead to being neutral on a proposal to ban their collection in
order to obstruct affirmative-action efforts?  Britton apparently advocates
neutrality so that Prop 54 can teach working  people a lesson: not to rely
on the government.  Why not abstain on other legislative attacks on
democratic rights so that working people will learn not to rely on the
government to protect them?

Remember what is on the ballot is ONLY Ward Connerly's reactionary proposal
to bar the collection of government statistics on race in specific areas
(not all areas)  where affirnative action is clearly targetted.  The
position of the liberal opponents of Prop 54 or the position of LA Police
Commissioner Bratton is not on the ballot, and the SWP is not being asked to
vote on it.  The decision here is solely a decision NOT TO OPPOSE CONNERLY'S
PROPOSAL.  The entire critique of the liberal opponents or Bratton is a red
herring which cannot justify or explain the refusal to oppose Proposition
54.  The same arguments, or many of them, could be made by a revolutionary
opponent of Proposition 54.

For instance, Britton berates those who say that Prop 54 will roll back all
the civil rights victories of the last four decades.  Well, of course it
won't.  But what if all it will do is FACILITATE THE CURRENT EFFORTS TO CHIP
AWAY AT THOSE RIGHTS  and MAKE THINGS MORE DIFFICULT FOR THOSE WHO OPPOSE
THEM?

Isn't that more than enough justification to vote no?  Of course it is.  As
an argument for not opposing Connerly's proposal, Britton's critique of the
liberals is a scam and a diversion.

The SWP's reactionary  workerist position is basically based on an
accelleration of the tendency to rejection of the right of
self-determination of oppressed nationalities before or after an
anticapitalist revolution. It also reflects the view, unstated but I believe
it is very much present, that government collection of racial statistics
serves to "divide the working class" and should be opposed, but from a
different point of view than Connerly's.

As we build a revolutionary workers movement that can fight for a workers
and farmers government that will put an end to capitalism which breeds
racist oppression and discrimination of all typesa color-blind society
will then become possible. This is not what Connerly and Co. have in mind.

Note that the overthrow of capitalism by a workers and farmers government
will bring about a "color-blind society." The formulation indicates that
not only the right of self-determination for Blacks or  Chicanos, but even
affirmative action measures will no longer necessary or desirable once a
workers' state has been established.   The "color blind" workers state will
apparently have its own Prop 54, which the SWP will then support.  Blacks
and Chicanos who don't share the "color blind" vision and want "their own
thing," including possibly their own state, will be "petty bourgeois
nationalists" guilty of  "dividing the working class."

Well, the SWP may not yet intend to say this, but that is the direction  of
motion and has been for a long time.

Just to express a more narrowly personal view, I have always hated the idea
that the solution to racism is "color blindness."  The idea that the fact
that people come in different colors is the problem and that inability to
see this is the answer is a repellent idea to me.  It's not a racist idea
per se but it could only arise out of the ideology of a STONE racist
society.

The SWP position may well be the same as the Spartacist's League's, since
the latter -- unlike the SWP which officially supports affirmative action
including in this editorial -- completely opposes affirmative action.  The
truth is that  the "social democratic" "Barnesite" SWP (the SL's
characterizations of the party) is running a campaign  that has EARNED the
endorsement of the Spartacist League.  And that is not a campaign in the
interests of working people.

I assume Camejo opposes Proposition 54.  Has he said much about it?
Fred Feldman


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.