Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 08:29:10 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: Re: M-I: community, etc.




> 
> Louis: There are several ways of looking at this question. People like
> Michael Lerner, from Tikkun magazine, are endeavoring to legitimize the
> poliitics of communitarianism into the left. One weekend he'll spend at
> the White House shmoozing with Hillary Clinton and the next weekend he'll
> be on a panel discussion somewhere with someone like Cornel West, trying
> to promote the concept of "community".
> 

Of course, there have always been people who use "community" to retreat
>from class. Objectively, "community" , like "fraternity" in Marx's time,
hides irreconcilable class divisions. You only have to look at the self
appointed "community representatives" sitting on police liason committees
and the like to convinve yourself of this.

I think Marxists need to avoid either extreme of either throwing themselves
uncritically into the community or writing off its potential. Most community
campaigns, precisely because the "community" is where workers are weakest
and middle class forces are strongest, follow a trajectory where initial
militancy gets diverted into a horrible sectional, compromise. This can
to some extent be overcome, or at least minimised, by conscious socialist
intervention. There is an inherent tendency for "community" campaigns
to become a campaign for "our" community against "theirs" - for instance,
recently near me some Labour MP's have campaigned to keep "our" hospital
open by shutting "theirs" , which dovetails with the interests of the 
usually middle class leadership of these campaigns.

But of course, there are some massive exceptions to these tendencies -
in increasing order of significance : the British Anti Poll Tax movement, 
the LA riots in the US, the township uprisings in South Africa. In these,
you can see the other side to community struggle. Because it is not
possible to go on strike with a minority of workers, but it is possible
for a minority to go and sign a petition, not pay a tax, lob a brick,
or burn down a shop, the "community" can be more volatile than the workplace.
Precisely because of this volatility, socialists should always take part in,
help organise, push forward community campaigns ( which necessarily means
arguing for a united front style strategy, against the middle class
leadership ) , but never base themselves on them.


I would however argue that what makes the crucial difference in each case
is the state of play in the workplace.

The anti poll tax movement succeeded in the context of a burst of wage
militancy amongst British workers. The British ruling class dumped Thatcher
and the Poll Tax because they were fighting on too many fronts at the same
time, and realised they had to  back off. [ This contrasts considerably with
their response to the inner city riots of the early and mid 1980's ].

The increasing ability of South African workers to organise and strike
finally convinced South African capitalism that it had to come to terms
with the Liberation movement - otherwise there was a serious risk that the
political demands would come together with the economic and result in a
movement which really did  threaten capitalism itself.

In contrast, there have been no significant concessions as a result of 
the LA riots, more the opposite, an intensified offensive. ( Correct
me here if I am wrong ).

I would argue that this correlation between reforms granted to the
"community" and fear of workers in the workplace holds, in general,
because the state can always crush community resistance in the end,
if it does not fear a response from workers where they are strongest,
ie at work.


Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------




































----- End Included Message -----



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