Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 06:46:23 +0100
From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
Subject: M-I: Re: Affirmative Action


Jon F puts the case for affirmative action very well:

>   Division of the working class? What kind of unity is it if the majority's
>interests are ignored to preserve the protected status of a few? We will only
>have real working-class unity when a significant section of the white male
>contingent break with the old policy of exclusion and discrimination.
>
>  I find a straightforward defense of affirmative action is the best way
>to deflect the diversion into personalities put forward by white male workers
>looking to discredit the concept. Hell, most of them have never heard a
>vigorous
>defense of the idea.
>
>The point to make is,  that far from women and minority workers seeking
> special treatment, it is the privileged white male worker who seeks
>protection
>for his position. When you see how some of these men get hired, it makes
>all the
>talk about "qualifications" a big joke.
>
>  If a revolutionary process is to succeed, it must be understood that
>battles for women's emancipation, affirmative action, national rights for
>minorities etc, will go on before during and after the abolition of
>capitalism. These struggles are part of the class war, not separate and
>distinct from it. A great radicalizing factor in the years ahead will be
>the growing consensus in capital's inner circles that further progress
>for working class women and nationalities must be stopped.
>
>  I work with the same predominantly white male section of the work force
>that you do in construction. I don't write them off as hopeless
>reactionaries. I
>was encouraged by my little experiment in labor solidarity with El Salvador's
>unions. But I think we should recognize that its going to take some whacks on
>the head before they wake up and shake off their prejudices.


But please let's not forget the *dialectic* aspect of all this that
*inevitably* makes every democratic issue of this kind so contradictory.

Take the miners in Britain at the start of the industrial revolution. Male
workers were replaced by female and child workers purely because they were
cheaper and more docile.

Foreign and immigrant labour (or the equivalent) often has the same
"advantages" from the capitalist's point of view.

The defence of a particular group of workers and its interests is rarely
*pure* in democratic terms, since any advantages the workers may have won
for themselves in their battles with the bosses will in the nature of
things represent an unequal "privilege" in relation to other groups of
workers with less clout in relation to their particular capitalist.

All these things are part and parcel of the limitations of *economism* and
the *syndicalist* perspective.

There is no way justice and equality can be obtained by remaining within
this perspective, because it's completely corrupted by the contradictions
tearing bourgeois society to pieces. Just look at the miserable fate that
has overtaken even the *huge* bourgeois advances for the workers
represented by the welfare state in a number of advanced imperialist
countries! No partial improvements within the bourgeois framework will ever
be permanent or secure.

I think it's obvious that Lou G's defence of traditional white male
workplace privileges is completely stuck within the *syndicalist* barriers
of bourgeois perspectives, whereas Jon F's defence of affirmative action
skates over the contradictory aspects of fighting for limited rights in
bourgeois society a trifle too easily.

The *transitional* perspective on democratic rights -- that is, as
something that cannot be fully won under capitalism, but which can provide
a beacon for mobilization against oppression that with revolutionary
leadership can be turned against the root cause of all the thousands of
different forms of oppression in bourgeois society -- is the only way to
overcome the one-sidedness of arguments for or against things like
affirmative action.

United we stand, divided we fall. And *we* are the whole worldwide working
class, men, women and children of every colour and nationality.

And unity of aspiration (to use posh language) is the only thing that will
give us the strength to get on to our feet and take arms and pull down our
oppressors.

Cheers,

Hugh




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