Date: 	Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:54:43 -1000
From: Stephen E Philion <philion-AT-hawaii.edu>
Subject: M-I: Re: Doug's comments, part 1.



I'm gonna respond to Doug's comments in two parts.  I don't know how to
copy from one post to another, or else I could respond in one post.

Doug asks me why I "oppose workers to Blacks/Gays/Women?  Most of B/G/W
are workers .  How can you think about class w/o thinking about the people
who make it up?  People are positioned withing the working class by
Race/Class/Gender/Sexuality..whatever.  WHy follow the pomo in treating
working and constituencies of NSMs as separate.


***My first response is one of surprise because I think this is exactly
the point that my paper makes.  As a matter of fact, it is one of its
leitmotifs.  I'm not sure what you're responding to actually.  You cut out
what I said after I told Adam that I tend to go with his second option.
When I then referred to a workers' movement, I certainly meant a trade
union based one, but there is nothing in that statement that implies
opposing class to race.  If anything it is the underorganization of women
and ethnic/racial minorities in the trade unions that accounts for the
weakness of the US trade union movement today (and in the past for that
matter).  I do stand by my contention that organising the way most social
movements do, in the US at least, that is, without prioritizing working
class women/racial/ethnic 'minorities'/sexual 'minorities'... is destined
to failure.  This brings me to Doug's second point, which I'll address in
part two.
Steve

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Stephen E Philion wrote:
> > > > The practical debate in the course of whatever campaign
> > it might be quite often revolves around the question :
> > "unity amongst whom ?". Do we FIRST unify all blacks/women/
> > gays across class lines and THEN unite with the workers movement,
> > or do we FIRST try and unite the workers movement on class
> > lines and THEN seek to draw in all blacks/women/gays ?
> > 
> 
> I have usually thought more along the lines of the second.  However, I'm
> sure such a movement could not draw in "all" blacks/women/gays...though I
> suspect you don't mean that.  I tend to think that we could prioritize a
> workers' movement and simultaneously involve ourselves in social
> movements.  The opportunities for alliances are numerous and the
> precedents are too many.
> 

steve



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