Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:27:25 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: M-G: Engels on ancient Greece & split between sexes


Siddharth,

you wrote on 02.01:

>On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Rolf Martens wrote:
>
>> INTRO NOTE:
>> 
>> Present-day putrefuing bourgeois-imperialist society i.a. is trying 
>> to exacerbate a split between men and women, is conducting a 
>> campaign *against* normal ordinary sex and *for* all kinds of
>> perversions. 
.........................
>
>Rolf,
>
>A few questions. What is your view of social movements which have
>goals of getting some beneficial reforms from the bourgeois state?
>For example, affirmative action for African-Americans and similar
>job and education opportunities for the "scheduled" (read "lower")
>castes and tribes in India? The opposition to these equal-opportunity
>programs has come from certain sections of the proletariat and also
>ruling class of these countries (for example, Prop 209 abolishing
>affirmative action in California supported by the white working class
>and their local rulers). Would not supporting affirmative action
>create a "split" between the white and African-American workers?

No. I'm for affirmative action (as far as I'm informed on it,
which isn't much). The opposition from "certain sections of the
proletariat" I'd say was from labour-aristocratic sections. This
question may be more complicated that that, though. Perhaps there
in what's called "affirmative action" are involved certain negative
things too? I know far too little about it to exclude such a
possibility. On the whole, I think it's very good and necessary.
>
>What about national liberation movements, which  you presumably support?
>Does that not create a split between the first-world and third-world
>proletariat?

Absolutely not. On the contrary. Btw, you forgot the second-world
proletariat. *If* some workers in Sweden and/or the USA are
*against* the (genuine) national-liberation movements, I would
attack such workers as having a labour aristocratic standpoint,
no matter whether they were earning relatively mush or relatively
little. Marx and Engels in the late 19th century denounced even
the majority, then, of Brtish workers as labour aristocrats.
Today, the phenomenon still is big. But the majority of workers,
in Sweden for instance, tend to support such movements. Many
things are keeping the workers down, such as not least ignorance,
as e.g. Ang pointed out.

>As regards gay movements, it is true from the evidence that such
>questions have become important in the first world (but not in the
>third at present) and will have to be addressed. One should, of course,
>adopt a critical attitude, but at the same time one should be extremely
>careful of *not even appear* to be siding with the ruling class and
>the fundamentalist reactionaries and associated fascists who want to
>oppress gay people. The causes of homosexuality (genetic, environmental)
>and whether or not it is a "perversion" is a *separate* issue. This
>distinction should be kept in mind. In class society, supporting an
>*oppresed* group in their fight for attaining basic rights (non-
>discrimination in jobs, housing, education, etc.), albeit bourgeois,
>is the proper duty and it does not mean that one encourages the
>practice of that particular group. The decision of whether such a group
>exists and also its oppression, will, of course, have to be made on
>empirical evidence.

Yes. I say, there *is* no "oppressed gloom -'gay' - lesbo group".
>
>Once again, this campaign for gay marriages is not a conspiracy of the
>bourgeoise to split men from women. There is a division among them
>on how to address this issue.
>
>Sid

You're right about there being a division among them. In another
posting, I've called it the division between their (old) "church"
repectively "queer" lines. *Both* ALWAYS WERE out after splitting men
and women. The present campaign of the "queer-liners" IS, if you
like to use that term, a RATHER BIG CONSPIRACY. Not as big as the
anti-indistrial one is (again, if you want to have that word),
but big enough, and, as Doug Leftie Biz recently showed in a
posting, also *coupled* to it.

Let's discuss those salty factual scientific questions (on ozone
etc) again later, shall we? I don't know when I on my part will
have time to check out on those "600 Mtons"(?!) of Cl-2, but
I've already learned a little from our "ozone yap-yap" so far.

Rolf M. 



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---