Re: [Marxism] re: New Orleans: "It's the system." - are we missing an opportunity?

[Josh Saxe <joshsaxe@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think we do have some general agreement here, and that this is an
interesting discussion, and that your responses are well thought out
and interesting.  We do agree that we have to locate specific sectors
of the working class where organizing is possible and where there is a
receptivity to left ideas.  There is a "third world" within the first
world where this seems to be possible, where it _has been_ possible
for two generations (which makes it all the more ridiculous that the
far left has so privileged student organizing).  There are also, of
course, sectors of the working class taking incredible blows (those
mechanics you seem to imply are not worth our time) who could be
offered a different perspective.  Along with other more privileged
sectors (public school teachers, etc) who are seeing their standard of
living and work process under dramatic attack.  I'm sure we could find
other places where left intervention with short term results is
possible.

But do we agree that actually doing this organizing work should be the
priority of the left in this period, to ensure the left has an
influence when the next wave of struggles hits?

About your historical narrative where the union leadership and
rank-and-file workers are blurred into a single actor.  Yes -- as a
generalization there was no substantial radical sector of the white
working class in the "golden age" or since.  Yes white workers have
engaged in racist, exclusionary policies against non-white people. 
But why are you still assuming the American working class is "white,"
or at least that when we talk about the working class that is who we
are, basically, talking about?  You still haven't responded to my
argument about the mistake of much of the left in not privileging an
orientation to the fighting sections of the working class (first and
foremost, the black proletariat) in the 50's, 60's and 70's, and the
role those decisions played in our situation today.

Also, about percentages.  If something like 80% of the country is
white, so was 80% or so of the French population conservative peasants
(or at least Marx thought so) in 1848.  I never said Los Angeles is a
microcosm for the United States.  But, just to take L.A., it's the
dominant urban complex of California, which I think independently
would be the 5th largest economy in the world.  We could find other
impressive statistics for the other economic/cultural/political
"capitals" of the country.  So again, if non-white workers are a
demographic minority, they have enormous social weight as the majority
of the proletariat in the socioeconomic centres of the imperialist
core.  Like Trotsky said about the black proletariat in the U.S. -
they could be the vanguard of the revolution.  So it's not ridiculous
to refer to them as just as much the American working class as are the
"Chevy truck commercial" white workers you deplore.

Junaid I think you may be doing this; starting from the question,
where is there potential base for radicalism in American society
today?  Naturally we look to academia, where in certain disciplines
leftism is almost institutionalized, where there is a tradition of
student radicalism, where it seems the left is having the most success
recruiting, etc.

Not to depreciate your question, the more important one is: where is
the power?  And again I think that leads us back to the non-white
proletariat in the major centres of the country, who have links to
rank-and-file soldiers in the military, who run the cities, who have
the power to shut down the system, who have links back to the third
world, who have proven over the history of capitalism their
willingness to struggle.  Even the L.A. riots showed this, even the
images coming back from New Orleans.  As a social sector they have the
power to act as a vanguard for the more conservative sectors that are
also being hit by the capitalist offensive.  Anyways, both questions
are important, because we need cadres for the movement and to find an
immediate home for our ideas, but ultimately the second question,
about where the power is, is the most important.  And it leads us to
the need to privilege and prioritize left organizing in working class
communities, a reorientation of the left in this direction.

About my views on race, which you maintain barely exist.  I view race
as a cultural system, the central construct around which revolves mass
politics in this country, and as a relationship to the means of
production.  In terms of "whiteness" I agree with David Roedigger that
it is a political term referring to a particular relationship to the
state and to outsiders to the race.  Whiteness as a kind of mythic
system of signs refers to inclusion in the American political system,
into the corporatist American family and the American meritocracy.  It
developed in counterposition to "blackness", to Chinese workers, to
myths and fantasies about Indians and American-Indian societies, etc,
as the U.S. developed and expanded as a colonial settler state with
internal colonies.  And it is a relationship to the means of
production and the means of subsistence - there are white
neighborhoods, predominantly white industries, systems of promotion
and advancements that privilege whites, etc.

As there are hiring practices exclusive to Mexican immigrants (and
even to, say indigenous people from southern Mexico) that lead
Mexicans in L.A. to get jobs in certain service sectors, there are
processes by which they obtain apartments in certain neighborhoods,
etc.  So race is more than a way of talking about sets of people and
politics, a way of representing them: there is a materiality to race,
ethnicity, skin color, that helps to place one in a certain
relationship to the state (think of the way black skin places one in
relationship to the armed reps. of the state), to employers, to
members of other social groups, as well as helping to determine where
one lives and with who one associates.  So in a very concrete way the
struggle against racial oppression is often a _class_ struggle, and
the class struggle is often a struggle against the economic and
cultural systems of racism.

Of course it's very complex and I can't sum up all my thoughts here. 
But that's ridiculous that you argue I think race can be dismissed by
simply mentioning class.  Our difference maybe goes to the way we wish
to organize - I think, and I got this from E.P. Thompson, that class
has to be _built_ by a _movement_ - class is what we would get if we
knit together, say, the black, white, Chinese, Korean, and Mexican
communities, in, say, Los Angeles, in a series of common fights
against the employers and the state so that we would have a culture
and tradition of unity, resistance, and struggle that crosses race
lines.  That would be a new thing consciously built by left activists.
 So I stress class because it's my goal, not because it exists in any
more than mechanical economic terms at this point at least where I
live.

Hope this clarifies my views and where Junaid and I agree and disagree.
Comradely
Josh

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism