Jim: Thanks for your response which turns this exchange into a quite interesting debate. While I belive that we do come from the same political and philosophical camp, we also differ on at least two points -- which I elaborate below. First, I think you misinterpret my position on the role of the government and related institutions vis a vis institutionalised racial/ethnic seggregation (or apartheid - let's call a spade a spade). It is my impression that you tend to view the behaviour of these institutions in a "psychologistic" (pardon the lack of a better terminology) fashion -- that is, behaviour resulting from "psychological" processes taking place within the actors' minds: tastes, preferences, reasons, calculations, emotions, etc. Moreover, you seem to attribute such an understanding to my arguments. That can be illustrated by your argument where you cite Plessy v. Fergusson to contradict my position that the courts were not as benign on race relations as my postings seem to imply. That indeed would be the case, if I argued that the Plessy decision was motivated primarily by the Supremes' personal tastes, convictions and kindred psychological states. The point is, however, that this is NOT the interpretation I assume and, I belive, I stated that in my previous postings (granted, you can also find imprecise, or over-blown, over-generalized statements in my postings, but this is more like a live debate than presenting carefully formulated position papers, therefore iterations of statements, queries, and clarifications are a part of normal dialectical process known as debating). My own interpretation implies "situational logic" -- that treats behaviour as resulting from another behaviour (rather than psychological processes within the actors' minds) or more generally, "situations." The Plessy case you cite is a perfect example to support that. As you know, Plessy came as a reaction to seggregation laws enacted in Louisiana & other Southern states -- that required the provision of separate facilities for Blacks. To my knowledge, these laws received considerable popular support in the South, but were opposed by business, especially the railroad industry --because law-mandated seggregation imposed on them the additional burden of providing extra "separate but equal" cars when trains were passing through the affected territories. The case would have never reached the Supreme Court, if the railroads had not supported the plaintiff. That, I guess, falls in line with the "price logic" outlined by Milton Friedman, but there is more into it. The High Cout had a choice of siding either with Plessy & the railroad industry that supported him, or with the racist sentiments that were running high during the Reconstruction era. The court chose the latter against the logic of capitalist "efficiency" -- which, BTW, supports my position expressed in my previous posting that business can't always have what it wants in courts. I am not an expert on the US history, but it looks to me that the political turf battles between the parties and branches of the government that developed during the Reconstruction period prevailed this time over the logic of capitalist accumulation. This is precisely what I call "situationism." The key players make their decisions on the "here and now" considerations in reaction to what the other players did or might do -- high or low motives are ascribed to their actions later, when the dust settles. The abolition of slavery by Lincoln can be viewed in a psychologistic fashion, as an expression of his abhorrence to this peculiar institution (which, to my knowledge, can be documented), but that looks pretty much like ex post facto rationalisation. A situationist interpretion would cite the expediency for the war effort as the main reason. In the same vein, the US war on Nazi Germany was hardly an exprerssion of moral opposition to the Holocaust, or even Naziism -- as many key figures in American oligarchy wholeheartedly supported Hitler (Henry Ford reportedly sent him a birthday present every year) -- it was a strategic move in imperial politics of world domination. The gambit paid off, and bourgeois historians could take a high moral ground and ascribe lofty motives (which, curiously, did not prevent the US from refusing to accept Jewish refugees during the war) for the US entry to WWII. >From that standpoint, it matters little whether the opposition to slavery that came from the federal government (sometimes the congress, sometimes the executive, sometimes both) was motivated by "good intentions" -- a more realistic view is that it probably was not. What matters, from my standpoint, is that -- whatever its motives -- this oppostion had a peculiar effect on the American society, especially in the South: by destroying the formal institutions of racism, it drove racism "underground" to semi-formal and informal instituions, like churches, clubs, associations -- where it survived alive and well to this day (with a little help from opportunistic politicians, to be sure). To my knowledge, the "civic associations" like the Ku-Klux-klan were formed during the Reconstruction era -- precisely in reaction to the passage of the 14th amendment and federal efforts to give Southern Blacks full citizen rights. In that context, the racist sentiments in the US may not be as intensive on the individual level as those expressed by, say, Le Pen and his cronies -- but on the societal level they are much deeply entrenched in the society and its institutions than is racism in Western European countries. I also gather that your opposition to my argument comes from what sociologist Gerhard Lenski identified as one of the key differences between the Right and the Left: the position on the relationship between the people and the social order. According to Lenski, the Right assumes that the people are intrinsically evil, competitive and selfish, and it is only the social order and its institutions that move them on a "higher moral level" than transcends the innate evil and selfishness. The Left, by contrast, believes that the poeple are intrinsically good, cooperative and altruistic, but that innate qualities are subverted by the social order and its institutions. Since judgng from the closing remarks in your last posting, you seem to interpret my argument as coinciding with the Rightist position as described above, you try to refute it. As I stated earlier, I tend to interpret behaviour in situationist terms, therefore my position falls outside the Righ-Left dichotomy as described by Lenski. Specifically, I am not arguing that the American people are inherently racists & evil (must be their genetic makeup, as most white Americans are descendants of convicts, fugitive criminals, and other social misfits kicked out from Europe :)). What I am arguing is that because of specific historical circumstances, especially the destruction of formal racist instituions by the feds without destroying the informal and semi-formal institutions, like church, clubs or associations (which in Europe often fell victims of the war waged by the state against the church or later the nascent working class movement) -- these institutions became a safe haven for racism and bigotry. Again, I am not arguing that all American people are that way, or blaming those who are that way, or even suggesting that this situation cannot be changed. What I am arguing is that the problem and its seriousness (as I see them, of course) must be recognised and acknowledged, before it can be effectively dealt with -- just like in the AA's 12-step program: continuing denial precludes the effective application of the program. It is my impression that most activist and intellectuals on the Left tend to believe that the political plight we are now experiencing is a sole result of politcal machinations of the elite, corruption on the top, and the subversion of the political process - but one day the people will rise and revolt against all that corruption and welfare lines (as Tracy Chapman signs). What I am saying is "it ain't so easy" -- before we see a progressive government or even a set of policies installed, leat alone a revolution, we are likely to experience a set of racial/ethnic tensions, riots and even pogroms. In fact, this was precisely what happen with the opposition to the arbitrariness of Reconstruction politics, any effort to unite poor Blacks and poor Whites quickly fell apart, as the Whites fell for the racist propaganda of the Democrat party. In your posting you mention the weakness of the Left and class based politics in this country -- and there is a good reason for that weakness. While the direct cause of that weakness is the class war waged by the oligarchy, it is also true that oligarchies evrywehere (especially in Europe) waged a war against the working class. However, the American oligarchy was more successful in that class war than their Europeans counterpart. Of course, as you mention, there are many reasons behind that (frontier mentality, expansionism etc.) but the survival of race and ethnic divisions, and racism and bigotry, was one of such key factors. Since that factor is still present, it is likely to exert similar influence in the recent class war. I think it was Steven Biko (or Nelson Mandela?) who said that the mind of the oppressed is the most potent weapon of the oppressor. That apt observation ceratinly applies here with a full force. Finally, I tend to be swayed by your arguments that comparing the US to Fascim can be a rather ineffective heuristic strategy because most people will perceive it as hyperbolism. While I still think that there are substantial similarities, among them the reliance on bureaucratic authoritarian mechanism to control the society and labor in particular, focusing on those similiarities may not be the best publicity or organising strategy. BTW, the Istook effort to "defund" 501(c)(3)'s brings the memories of the Italian and German fascists to "switch off" civic organisations of the Left, not only unions, but mutual associations, self-help groups, community clubs etc. What Istook and his GOP-ster cronies try to do in Congress, their fascist backers in the field try to accomplish by the same means as the nazi thugs did in Italy & Germany -- assault, assasination, bombing, burning. The analogy between Kristallnacht (or Staat Pogrom Nacht --as I am told the German Left prefers to call it) and the burning of Black churches in the South or bombing abortion clinics -- is difficult to escape, even though it might be rather uncomfortable for the Whites. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
