International Socialist Review Issue 33, JanuaryFebruary 2004
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Reading the ISR in prison
DEAR ISR,
I am currently serving in a maximum security unit. Your "education for socialists" was brought to my attention by a comrade who also subscribes to the ISR. My reason for this correspondence is I have put together a group to study and discuss revolution, the government, self-determination and imperialism. Your literature has been our main topic of discussion.
I would greatly like to subscribe to your newsletters and the ISR. I was told that for the less fortunate, you might be able to help.
Name withheld
The editors respond:
We are happy to fulfill your request. Since our inception, the ISR has provided subscriptions free to prisoners upon request, and we hope to continue the practice. Our ability to do so does depend on the support of our other subscribers, so we encourage them to donate generously to the ISR.
The more things change
Dear ISR:
While I agree with most of what Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor wrote in her article, "Civil rights and civil wrongs: Racism in America today" (ISR 32), I must take issue with her interpretation of survey data suggesting that white attitudes about race have become more liberal as a result of the civil rights movement.
What has changed is not the degree of racism within the white population, but rather the manner in which that racism is expressed. Prior to the civil rights movement, the open expression of racist attitudes was socially acceptable and therefore commonplace. While unambiguous, in-your-face expressions of racism still exist, they have largely been supplanted (particularly in the public realm) by a more subtle, but no less pernicious, form of bigotry sociologists sometimes call "color-blind racism."
Color-blind racism relies on a peculiar kind of cognitive dissonance. As sociologist Jennifer L. Pierce has written, "(white) Americans proclaim the virtues of a color-blind society at the same time as they do everything possible to be self-conscious about race and racial matters." While staunchly denying that they are racists, the vast majority of white Americans "choose to live in predominantly white neighborhoods, work in racially segregated occupations, and, if given the opportunity, hire white employees rather than African Americans."
Taylors own article aptly demonstrates this point. While only 1 percent of white Americans admit they would move if an African American moved in next door, the fact is that rates of residential segregation in the U.S. have increased, not decreased, since the 1970s. While 92 percent of white Americans claim that they believe that white and Black children should attend school together, the fact is that schools today are more segregated than ever and are becoming increasingly so. Clearly, the vast majority of white Americans, regardless of what they might say on a given survey, believe that "good neighborhoods" are white neighborhoods, and that "good schools" are white schools. Even more telling is the fact that a majority of white Americans still see affirmative action as a form of "reverse racism" that advances the fortunes of "unqualified" minorities at the expense of more deserving whites.
The bottom line is that while the civil rights movement may have won significant gains for African Americans, white Americans as a whole are as racist today as they ever were.
Dennis Fritz
Austin, Texas
KeeangaYamahtta Taylor responds:
Mr. Fritz ends his letter with the statement, "white Americans as a whole are as racist today as they ever were," thereby refuting the avalanche of statistics provided in the article detailing the lasting and transformative impact the civil rights movement had on the consciousness not only of those directly involved in the movement but on millions of others. It is precisely for this reason that most whites came to support affirmative action in the early seventies. Even in a poll taken as late as 1995, a majority53 percentof white males (the group that is supposed to be most doggedly against affirmative action) said they supported affirmative action.
Moreover, Mr. Fritzs explanation that all whites just hide being racist today when they were outspoken racists before doesnt make any sense. What changed? Why is it no longer acceptable to be openly racist? The movement had an enormous impact which explains why it is no longer socially acceptable to be an open racist. This isnt to say that there are no racist white people in this country. Nor is it to deny that probably most ordinary white people buy into any number of racist ideas about Blacks, just as ordinary Blacks may buy into any number of racist ideas about Arabs or Latinos. But these are questions of consciousnesswhich changes depending on the level of struggle in the society aimed at combating societys "ruling ideas."
Mr. Fritz also blames white workers for neighborhood and school segregation. He even blames white workers for hiring white employees rather than Blacks. But there is an important distinction to be made between the false consciousness of white (and non-white) workersin terms of their acceptance of racist ideas sometimes or in some cases most timesand having the social power to actually carry out the acts of discrimination.
White workers arent the cause of segregation. It was the federal governments so-called fair housing act that codified housing discrimination in the 1940swhich continues to influence housing patterns today. Moreover, its not white workers, but banks and lending institutions that refuse Blacks loans and mortgages at higher rates, which then impacts where one is able to live. It was the federal government for years that refused to forcibly integrate schools. The civil rights movement forced the government to change its stated policy, but it has been the federal courts that have refusedfor the last 30 yearsto put any teeth into forcing states and cities to comply with the demands of integration.
So whats your alternative?
Dear ISR:
I am a faithful reader of the ISR and I believe the editors do an outstanding job of highlighting the injustice and criminality of the capitalist system. However, I feel the magazine fails to promote a practical vision of what a socialist system might become. This is critical because history has not been kind to many so-called socialist governments and the failure of the Left to establish socialism as a viable alternative has kept socialism, at least in the United States, so far outside the political mainstream as to be virtually invisible. Instead of focusing so much of the venality of the Bush administrations foreign and economic policies, why not publish articles that outline how the change from corporate capitalism to democratic socialism might actually occur? We need specific ideas and programs rather than the usual calls to "organize."
I consider myself well-read, for a layman, in many of the core socialist ideas, but I still have a problem defending and promoting socialism to friends and colleagues, all of whom have been raised in a culture that has demonized socialism for over a century. Most people dont even know what socialism really means, and the ISR is missing an opportunity to help create a modern definition of it. The language of Karl Marx is too dense for most people; we need a socialism for the 21st century written in the language of the 21st century. The rapacious greed of corporate capitalism is bringing us ever closer to the brink of disaster, and people must realize that our society and environment cannot sustain another hundred years of exploitation. The time is right for another socialist revival, but it wont happen unless a socialist vision is presented in a way that people other than intellectuals can grasp. The ISR should change its focus to embrace this challenge. We already know how bad capitalism is! Now help us define the alternative.
Chuck Augello
Hillsborough, NJ
The ISR is too one-sided
Dear ISR:
Im glad you are accepting letters now, the ISR needs such critique. I am considering allowing my subscription to lapse, so this is a constructive attempt to aim to the otherwise.
Your September/October issue (ISR 31) contains examples of my main problem with the ISR; it is not a problem of your political content but instead your form; being either inaccurate or emphatically one-sided. In your first article, you incorrectly talk about the Democratic candidates and their position on the war: "No democratic candidate favors withdrawing from Iraq." Kucinich has emphatically demanded a full withdrawal since the beginning of his campaign. The ISR should issue a correction of this error in your next print.
On the second point, on page 25 in an article by Nicole Colson ("Occupation and resistance in Iraq"), the ISR demonstrates typical one-sidedness. The soldiers are "brutal" in various ways, Washington is the new "oppressor," etc. Meanwhile, you make no attempt whatever to balance such statements with "positive" things that both Washington and the soldiers have done. Look, soldiers are working people, and though they are in the worst political position a human can be inwarthey show time and again moments of the greatness and strength inside all working people, partly by building constructive relationships and serving important roles for some of the locals.
Generally, you sometimes paint black and white all those in power as patently evil conspiracists plotting to usurp the working class; brash generalizations that Bush would make, but in reverse. Thus, you are sometimes lacking in real depth of analysis and political maturity. I hope you find this critique useful!
Brian Basgen
from the Internet
The editors respond:
The ISR editorial that Mr. Basgen quotes should have made a distinction between Kucinichs position on the occupation and the other Democratic contenders who support the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. Kucinich proposes a new UN resolution that stipulates "the UN will agree to create a peacekeeping force from its member nations, which will replace the U.S. troops in Iraq." While he favors the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he does not oppose the occupation of Iraq by UN member-nation troops. Mr. Basgen, therefore, is not entirely accurate when he says that Mr. Kucinich favors a "full withdrawal" from Iraq. Even here there is some ambiguity in Kucinichs position, since the U.S. is a member of the UN Security Council, and so would presumably provide at least some troops even to a UN-controlled occupation of Iraq.
As a magazine that welcomes clarifying disagreement, we hope that Mr. Basgen decides not to let his subscription lapse. As for our "one-sidedness," we agree with Trotsky when he wrote that making an accurate assessment of events does not come from standing on the wall between besiegers and besieged. Too often this false objectivity betrays a partisanship for the status quo.
"The serious and critical reader," concludes Trotsky, "will not want a treacherous impartiality, which offers him a cup of conciliation with a well-settled poison of reactionary hate at the bottom, but a scientific conscientiousness, which for its sympathies and antipathies open and undisguisedseeks support in an honest study of the facts, a determination of their real connections, an exposure of the causal laws of their movement."
We therefore defend our "one-sidedness"for workers, against corporations; for national liberation, against colonial oppression; for racial equality, against bigotry. The corporate media has all the resources to spin their one-sided, psuedo-objective news; our analysis needs to be expressed as sharply and as clearly as possible. Our coverage of the occupation, for example, aims to get at the essence of what we consider it to be about. Whatever the varying sentiments of individual troops, this is a military occupation to seize control of a strategic region and its oilnot a goodwill mission.
Of third-party campaigns
Dear ISR:
Keith Rosenthals excellent article about Howard Dean (ISR 32) mentions Anthony Pollinas third-party run for governor in the state of Vermont. Readers of the ISR might also be interested in the recent campaign of Linda Averill for city council in Seattle. She ran on an anti-capitalist platform as the Freedom Socialist Party candidate. Linda received over 11,000 votes, which represents 10 percent of all votes cast. Her campaign demonstrated that voters are not only eager to vote for third party candidates, but also for ones with openly socialist politics.
Dave Schmauch
NYC
More analysis of Democrats policies
Dear ISR:
I think the most helpful aspects of the ISR are the historical articles. I would suggest more coverage given to U.S. presidential electionswith analysis on the different perspectives of the Democratic candidates and how they differ, if at all, from the Republicans. I think one of the main obstacles in progressive movements is the belief that the Democrats are inherently liberal. Some analysis of their policies would help to debunk this. I received a lot of helpful insight into the Clinton administration in your pages. Also, I think the magazine could use a redesign to make it more visually appealing.
Said Sayrafiezadeh
from the Internet
<
Reprint John Reed
Dear ISR:
Could the ISR reprint John Reeds powerful speech to the Baku Congress of the Peoples of the East, as the ISR has pointed out before this is entirely relevant to today. In it, he says:"Uncle Sam is not one ever to give anybody something for nothing. He comes along with a sack stuffed with straw in one hand and a whip in the other. Whoever takes Uncle Sams promises at their face value will find himself obliged to pay for them with blood and sweat."
For the complete text of John Reeds anti-imperialist speech to the Baku Congress of the Peoples of the East, go to http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/baku/ch04a.htm.
Desmond
Atlanta