Posted by Comrade Jen on May 26, 1997 at 14:37:52:
In Reply to: Re: nonviolence posted by jacobin on April 27, 1997 at 02:41:36:
i think this jacobin character has some good points about the definition of peace, issues of liberation and such. but i think he has some more education to undergo about *justice*, which of course, as dr. king said, true peace cannot exist without. in t he building of a just society, all people must be accounted for and all must take part in building their new reality in order to prevent the reincarnation of the former system. under mao and fidel, the skeleton of the capitalist system-- rule by the few, decision making permitted-- with military or other oppressive backup-- by the few-- has been maintained, only a new flesh of "communism" draped over it. a ruling class has been maintained, only traded to new partners but not dissolved as a social instit ution!
when i get into discussions about why i call myself a democratic revolutionary socialist i constantly get asked how i think we could ever achieve a revolution in this so-called post-cold war era. i agree with jacobin in that we can't achieve it solely through non-violence-- to a point. i strongly feel that if there is to be a revolution in the future, either near or far, particularly within our country, it cannot and will not happen as it did under che, under lenin, under anyone else who has ev er tried to achieve revolution before. che himself-- and this argument can be found in his collected works, published by pathfinder books and available in the earlham lilly library-- said that revolutions need to be tailored to the culture at hand in ord er to be successful, and that this isn't to say that there isn't anything valuable to learn from what others have done but that the tactics of a revolution that occurred against a monarch in the early 1900's in the frozen wastelands of russia by industria l workers cannot be used successfully in a reality in which the dictator is a government 90 miles across water, on jungle turf and by campesinos.
this nation was started as a democratic state in a precapitalist, slave labor based society. most peopl e then were farmers or petty bourgeois shopkeepers. people then believed in certain inalienable rights that nobody could infringe upon and founded the country on the belief in these rights. we are a nation that has only experienced three wars (unless yo u want to count inner city violence and other forms of violence in our country as a war,... more on that later) on its soil-- world war two in hawaii and the civil and revolutionary wars on the east coast. we are a culture that for the most part has been removed from the reality of what most people would call war-- the kind of grand-scale brutality that most people think of when they think of war-- nepalm, mass bombings from aircraft, tanks... so, in one way, we can think of ourselves as a country remov ed from war-- a civil, peaceful, safe country.
or so the media would like us to think, perhaps. or maybe not. the media does a good job of manipulating the reality of another war here on our soil that is kept "well-contained". this war exists between the wealthy, white, heterosexual "godfearing" bourgeoisie and the popular class of workers, the urban underclass, the homeless, people of color, the gay-les-bi-transgendered population, women of all shapes, sizes and colors, people of various spiritual p ersuasions. this conflict is what manning marable referred to in his talk earlier this spring (for those earlham students who may have actually attended) as the fight between the haves and have-nots. this war is evident when we look at gang violence, ha te crimes, domestic violence, unemployment, scabbing, etc. funny how most of the above are instances of violence that can happen between members of the have-not grouping. these are forms of violence that are repeatedly fueled, neglected, or even started by the haves. why? to keep us apart, to maintain their hegemony and control, to keep us from organizing and seeing that they need us to keep society going-- BUT WE DON'T NEED THEM.
what we need to do is-- by all means necessary-- look at the entire context in which these forms of violence are occurring and what people's motives are. why are the kids in gangs? is it because they're just bad? or is it possibly because, as the news hints, their family structures are indeed in disarray? well, why i s that? why aren't the parents home? BECAUSE THEY'RE AT WORK TRYING TO MAKE A DECENT BUCK TO GET FOOD FOR THEIR KID AND THEMSELVES IF AT ALL POSSIBLE!!! and who's at fault for the graveyard shifts, the downsizing and outsourcing and poor paychecks, the lack of benefits and the physical hazards and harassment in the workplace?? THE BOSS!!! why are so many people homeless or unable to live in a decent house?? because they have no paycheck-- because in kapitalism, a certain pool of workers needs to sta y out of work in order to frighten the workers who *do* have jobs to cling to whatever they dish out. the more workers that have no jobs, though, the more money from income that can be cycled away from paychecks and upkeep of the means of production and the more that can be channeled to the boss's pocket-- profits. hence stock market boom everytime the unemployment rate goes up. and why bother to house a worker in the pool established to scare other workers into behaving? what does society need him fo r except to maintain a fearsome reality for the rest?
and why the hell should we protect women, children, people of color and the gay-les-bi-trans population? they're supposed to stay submissive and obedient too and obey our god cuz only our god as w e understand and interpret this god is the right god, goddammit!!
i could go on and on, and of course as a bi woman who has only exited the legal definition of child in the past year, i would love to tackle the dynamics of the forms of oppression listed above. in any event though, you get the picture, i hope. the point is that these forms of oppression are used to keep us divided, hateful, and in control. that way, corporations can have more of a vote in the elections, not us, they can decide what wi ll happen with our communities, not us, and countries like nicaragua and vietnam and others of the third world won't be able to shake off the imperialist rule of the bourgeois governments of our country or any other's.
more in a moment.
Post a response to this opinion :