Re: the next wedge issue

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with everything that Doyle wrote and mostly agree with everything
that Carroll wrote.  I take issue with his agreement with Lou's statement
that a Revolutionary party would have to expel Melvin.

I think that Doyle was closer to the mark.  He seems to understand that we
need to learn to communicate with Melvin and people like him.  If we were
to have the left in which everybody would have to agree with everyone one
of a large number of defining issues, we would have few people left.

I have great admiration for the courage of the Berrigan brothers.  They
did far more for the left than 1000 Michael Perelmans, yet they were very
bad on abortion.  Should we have expelled them from the antiwar movement?
I wish Melvin were more tolerant.  I hope that we can be equally so.

At the same time, we need to struggle against all injustice, and cannot
let toleration blind must to inequities.  I wish I knew the formula to
achieve this.



On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:19:17AM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:

> _Every_ issue of any importance to the left gets people emotional, or
> ought to. And gay marriage no more prevents rational discourse than does
> (e.g.) the question of whether radicals should support the DP in the
> 2004 election.
>
> There can be no left in the United States that does not take this issue
> seriously. To treat it as marginal or as a distraction is to deny the
> possibility of a unified left. As Lou says, a revolutinary party that
> did not expel Melvin would not be a revolutionary party.
>
> How can you expect us to be concerned about wages if the only wages we
> are concerned with are (a) those for white male homophobes and (b) those
> wages revealed in the numbers on a check?
>
> Wages for the working class equal (with no real remainder) daily expense
> of reproducing themselves to go to work the next day. Those daily
> expenses include rent.
>
> You, by trivializing the issue of gay marriage, are saying that the
> wages of all gays and lesbians should be reduced since the denial of
> marriage rights means they pay more for rent, and also more in taxes.
>
> It is the defenders of gay marriage that are really most concerned with
> wages.
>
> Opponents of gay marriage (or those who trivialize the issue) are a
> disunifying force.
>
> That is obvious to everyone in respect to sexism and racism. Why is it
> not equally obvious in respect to any other sector of the working class
> who are singled out for special repression under contemporary
> capitalism?
>
> Solidarity is not a sentiment. And on this list now solidarity is
> measured by the total repudiation of the kind of horseshit melvin has
> been putting out.
>
> Carrol

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx