On 8/21/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/21/06, Yoshie answered:
> What I mean is that religious activists are active in and through
> their own congregation, denomination, etc. and have bases of social
> and political action. Not so with rootless Marxists in the USA -- we
> have no mass Marxist institution comparable to the Presbyterian Church
> USA that binds as as Marxists and gives us local, national, and
> international bases of social and political action.
I think that's more a matter of the weakness of the Marxists than the
strength of the religious.
Then, we have to think about why Marxists are weak. "The Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.) has approximately 2.4 million members, 11,100
congregations and 14,000 ordained and active ministers"
(at <http://www.pcusa.org/navigation/whoweare.htm>). What does it
take for Marxists to get to the PCUSA's level of organization (which
isn't the largest denomination in the USA, as you point out)?
Yoshie:
> There clearly are mass organizations and movements based on Islam in
> the Middle East -- Hizballah and Hamas being two most prominent
> examples of them. I can't think of any secular Marxist organization
> or movement in the Middle East of equivalent stature.
I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on the size or strength
of these organizations. It's also a mistake to put too much weight on
their ideologies (Shi'a and Sunni Islam, respectively). What's
important is what they do _in practice_. (I share Hobbes' and Marx's
contempt for "mere words.") Now they are fighting against Israeli
colonialism and expansionism. But what are they doing to increase and
improve the independent organization of workers, women, ethnic
minorities within their spheres, etc.?
I've read with interest how the multinational empire's double
imposition of neoliberal reforms and disarmament of Hizballah on
Lebanon has led to Hizballah's alliance with trade unionists in
resisting it.
<blockquote>Flexing its muscles further, Hizballah began mobilizing
its constituency, together with like-minded activists within the
country's trade unions, to protest the government's austerity
proposals. On May 10, an anti-government demonstration hit the streets
of Beirut, with Hizballah's al-Manar media outlets claiming that at
least half a million protesters were in attendance. The march was a
thinly veiled demonstration of the party's influence in anticipation
of the new Security Council resolution. It also fell on the eve of
renewed discussions within the framework of the national dialogue on
the future of Lebanon's "defense strategy" -- code for the question of
whether Hizballah will disarm or integrate into Lebanon's regular
armed forces. Earlier, Nasrallah had implied a threat to block any
future privatization plans, arguing that this issue should also be
part of the national dialogue and, hence, become tied to Hizballah's
arms. (Reinoud Leenders, "How UN Pressure on Hizballah Impedes
Lebanese Reform," 23 May 2006
<http://www.merip.org/mero/mero052306.html>)</blockquote>
At present, more often than not, those who attack Hizballah, etc. for
geopolitical reasons also have neoliberal economic reasons to remake
the Middle East. So, chances are good that those who resist either or
both have many opportunities to work together.
Yoshie, now:
> Yes, but any time any movement tries to expropriate a large part of
> the foreign and domestic ruling class assets, it will always face
> capital flight, brain drains, civil wars, imperialist invasions,
> covert actions, etc. So, if such conditions inevitably give rise to
> corporatism, then, corporatism may be the short-term destiny of any
> social revolution. The question is if the revolution can overcome its
> short-term destiny once it consolidates itself, having overcome civil
> wars, etc., notwithstanding being still threatened by the
> multinational empire.
Sure, non-progressive, non-socialist type organizations are needed in
the face of imperialism and the like, but again we must ask: what is
the organization doing to the increase and improve the independent
organization of workers, women, ethnic minorities within their
spheres, etc.?
In the end, though, it has to be workers, women, ethnic minorities,
etc. themselves who press for room for their own self organization,
push for their demands, etc. And that's supposing that critical
masses of workers, women, ethnic minorities, etc. themselves -- not
just small segments of them -- already have the desire to do so, which
may not be the case at present in Iran, though Iran, it seems to me,
sees more strikes, demonstrations, etc. than many other Middle Eastern
countries.
Yoshie:
> That's pretty unusual. Mike Friedman, on the Marxism listserv,
> humorously referred to himself as a "piss-poor" Jew. That seems to me
> to be the norm. Most Jewish leftists don't seem to gravitate toward
> religious or secular ethnic Jewish organizations. That has an impact
> on the public perception of Jewish political opinion, which tends to
> be misunderstood and seen as far to the right of what it is, due to
> the propaganda promulgated by the major Jewish organizations' leaders,
> none of whom is a leftist.
the state and the political establishment (including AIPAC) encourage
all of the positive publicity for the "major" Jewish organization
leaders and their organizations. It's an alliance.
BTW, Sholem is part of national and international organizations of
similarly-minded Jews.
How big is Sholem?
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
