[Marxism] Hate crimes legislation

[Jeff]

At 18:12 03/11/08 -0500, you wrote:
>
>This "winding up in league with the right-wing" is a red-herring.
>There are lot of areas in which Marxist positions can be similar to
>right-wing positions, but for completely different reasons.
Absolutely. But the question is whether you then go into ACTION along with those rightists! Whether you build a SEPARATE movement which, as you say, has a level of similarity. Or whether you JOIN with them in a campaign.

There is an electoral campaign in California in which Thorstad JOINS with the right-wing vote. A vote whose only purpose is to take away an existing right.

Then there is a proposed legislation for Wyoming (one of only 5 US states which does not have hate-crimes legislation). If it had been a ballot issue, then Thorstad would also have joined the "no" campaign. That is clear from what he said.

If he had written a post about a "better" way of advancing gay rights or fighting racist violence, then I would have likely agreed with him. And we'd be fighting together behind a common banner. But by going out of his way to take a position on a yes-no issue which appears to place him in the wrong camp, he is doing a real disservice. 

>A good Marxist case can be made for opposing purely race-based
>affirmative action, to take another example
And perhaps you can remember where focusing not on the problem of racism, but on their opposition to the liberal solution to racism, brought the RCP. Around 1980 they found themselves on the side of the racists who were mounting a violent campaign against school desegregation in Boston. An embarrassing position which I believe they later recanted (but after the damage was done).

It wasn't my intention to oversimplify issues by pointing out "similarities" in anyone's position to the right wing. I was asking what they would do in PRACTICE that does not play into the hands of the right! I don't think that has been answered in Thorstad's case. At all.

- Jeff


>
>
>Just a reminder. We don't put subscriber's names in the subject--
Sorry! I didn't know that.