benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 9, 2011 19:11:01 GMT -5
The following was discussed last night and nearly consensed upon. It was recommended that we take a couple days to think about it and make recommendations for wording changes, and then to bring it back tomorrow evening to reach consensus.
We want to be intimately involved in all social aspects of our communities.
By this, we demand participatory, direct democracy in all political and economic affairs that impact our lives. The existing political and economic relations militate against participation, and must be radically transformed. Because capitalist, competitive markets entail exploitation of labor, the private ownership of the means of production, and a division of labor that prohibits true participation, we must move beyond the global industrial-capitalist system. The process of this radical transformation requires a fundamental challenge to white supremacy, patriarchy, sexuality gender expression, and colonial/imperial relations.
We want to build communities that are ecologically and socially sustainable.
Our communities should function in ways that allow encourage full participation of all people -- not only those alive today, but those who will live in the future -- in the affairs that impact their lives. For future generations to participate to the extent we demand for ourselves, we must radically transform our modes of production and consumption, our relationships with one another, with ourselves, with nonhuman animals, and with our environment. This transformation should lead to localized production that balances autonomy, self-reliance, and interdependence.
This is not all-inclusive; it is a working document; it will be added to in the future.
Also, I don't have email addresses for the 10/31 or 11/8 (last night) meetings. Please forward them to OARadicalCaucus@gmail.com.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 10, 2011 1:10:47 GMT -5
Janise and Mike B have pointed out the problematic wording in how gender expression is mentioned. It has been suggested that a way or rewording it is to replace it with heteronormativity. That loses a lot of what gender expression captures. Because we are negatively addressing white supremacy, patriarchy and colonial/imperial relations, we may need a separate sentence or phrase to affirm new forms of gender expression. Perhaps "The process of this radical transformation requires a fundamental challenge to white supremacy, patriarchy, and colonial/imperial relations; and it requires affirming a diversity of interpersonal relationships and gender expression."
I'm not entirely satisfied with this. Janice likes "racism" more than "white supremacy," and "sexism" more than "patriarchy." I think white supremacy is a specific form of "racism" that needs special attention, and the word "racism" may affirm that race exists in biological form. I like "white supremacy" because of the explicit attention to skin privilege and the cross-class unity of whites. I like "patriarchy" because it is more far reaching than sexism - for instance, "the father" of the patriarchy is symbolically extended to colonizer-colonized, etc. But these are important distinctions. I'm just one person arguing for these words over others.
|
|
|
Post by anonanon on Nov 10, 2011 8:06:07 GMT -5
FYI Jenise is not a member of the radical caucus and is a relative of mine. I think she is wrong about changing patriarchy and white supremacy. Also, I think 'heteronormativity' is exactly the word we were looking for to replace gender expression.
|
|
hz
New Member
PR Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by hz on Nov 10, 2011 8:37:48 GMT -5
Ben,
I gave you the password to the emails on Tuesday. If you need me to PM you let me know.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 10, 2011 11:06:25 GMT -5
Thanks, Hezzie. I didn't realize those were the contacts from the meeting. I was able to merge the lists into one.
|
|
Ryan R.
New Member
Occupation Member
For a Mass Party of Labor!
Posts: 54
|
Post by Ryan R. on Nov 10, 2011 11:33:31 GMT -5
Well, it's a decent start, but it would appear that some rather serious conclusions were not derived from this basis.
You speak of the ills caused by private ownership over the means of production and of the exploitation caused by the anarchy of the market, which is all fine and well, but what alternative do you propose to forward to the worker? These statements touch vaguely on the oppressive nature of the capitalistic system, but no route beyond it is actually outlined. What is needed is a clearly defined set of concise demands which are based resolutely upon the interests of the worker, what is needed is an aspiration to workers control over the means of production and a platform which recognizes the role of the laborer in any revolutionary transformation of society along the lines of historical progress. The petty bourgeoisie are not an agent of revolution, such is a potential only present within the proletarian, and that is an understanding which will inevitably have to be reached if the prospects of this movement and of this caucus are to be maintained.
Also, I do find it rather amusing that I was assailed for proposing a basis of agreement entirely comparable to this motion over a week ago.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 10, 2011 12:03:36 GMT -5
I think the direct democratic control over all political and economic affairs pretty much covers that. More specifics will come as we get there, and we will assert the need for horizontal control from below. Sh!t, that's even something uncle Leon could get behind. We won't get complete unity on revolutionary strategy to the degree most Trots expect. Let's see how many of your principles we can find unity on, though.
I think one thing many of us have trouble with is the issue of revolutionary postmodern politics - the focus on means without end. We almost lack the vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 10, 2011 12:43:35 GMT -5
"White supremacy" and "racism" could together be included. There is no doubt that "whiteness" is unique because of the history of white dominance, but I think "racism" also addresses many of the local forms where race (of any kind), leads to privilege and/or domination. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 10, 2011 12:46:05 GMT -5
Ben, I am curious about your thoughts on the term and usage of "racism." I certainly don't want any sense of affirmation of the idea that race is biologically rooted, so if you could clarify to help me understand you, I would be most grateful. -Vincent
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 10, 2011 12:47:52 GMT -5
We might also, as I suggested for "white supremacy" and "race," augment "patriarchy" with "sexism." A compromise that deals with the specific and the general seems to make sense here.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 11, 2011 0:19:00 GMT -5
We reached consensus on these all but the blue sentence [with some stand-asides on the word "capitalism" being present, see minutes to be posted later]: We want to be intimately involved in all social aspects of our communities.By this, we demand participatory, direct democracy in all political and economic affairs that impact our lives. The existing political and economic relations militate against participation, and must be radically transformed. Because capitalist, competitive markets entail exploitation of labor, the private ownership of the means of production, and a division of labor that prohibits true participation, we must move beyond the global industrial-capitalist system. The process of this radical transformation requires a fundamental challenge to white supremacy, patriarchy, and colonial/imperial relations; and it affirms a diversity of interpersonal relationships and gender expressions.We want to build communities that are ecologically and socially sustainable.Our communities should function in ways that encourage full participation of all people -- not only those alive today, but also those who will live in the future -- in the affairs that impact their lives. For future generations to participate to the extent we demand for ourselves, we must radically transform our modes of production and consumption, our relationships with one another, with ourselves, with nonhuman animals, and with our environment. This transformation should lead to localized production that balances autonomy, self-reliance, and interdependence. The blue sentence has a couple issues: 1) There was not consensus on "white supremacy," versus either: "racism (i.e. white supremacy)" or "racism and ethnocentrism (i.e. white supremacy)" 2) There was a proposal to add "speciesism" among "white supremacy, patriarchy, and colonial/imperial relations." I blocked on the inclusion of "ethnocentrism" and Bradley blocked on not including it. There was also a lot of discussion of "speciesism" and the strategy involved in challenging it that we will need to address soon. These issue will be addressed on Tuesday at the meeting. I will provide very brief arguments in favor of using the verbiage "white supremacy" instead of the others: 1) I don't like using the term "racism" because it is potentially too broad, and the term "race" is problematic without explicitly challenging race as a biological fact. Additionally, I think the issue of whites being historically involved in a cross-class alliance is addressed by "white supremacy," where racism does not. 2) Ethnocentrism per se is not a problem for me. Institutionalized ethnocentrism in a multicultural society is a huge problem, even more so when it is enforced with violence. But our context is covered by addressing "white supremacy." There are many homogenous tribal cultures that are ethnocentric, and I have no problem with that. I consider our challenge to ethnocentrism per se as potentially negating self-determination and providing an unconscious (though problematic) form of cultural imperialism. After more conversations, I am prepared to support the inclusion of "speciesism" after we have some other points of unity addressing strategy, and ones specifically including language referencing our difficulty in providing challenges to certain issues (this is particularly in light of my concern that any food I eat requires that I make a speciesist choice that affirms arbitrary hierarchies of beings - for explication, see lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm ). Thanks to everyone for a great meeting tonight. Very inspiring to see such a big group coming together. Cheers, Ben
|
|
|
Post by anonanon on Nov 11, 2011 2:03:34 GMT -5
i posted the minutes in a new thread
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 11, 2011 11:16:20 GMT -5
This is from an unpublished manuscript of mine from 1999: As we analyze white male supremacy, and build a movement based on this analysis, we must choose our terms carefully. The terms I use have been chosen deliberately. I have shunned away from typical terms like racism and sexism for very specific reasons.
The term racism is flawed in its most common usage. Racism is the idea that a particular race is naturally superior to others, as well as actions and institutions based on this belief. "[Against] all scientific knowledge and common sense, this definition of racism clearly assumes that there are such things as biologically identifiable races," writes Chris Niles. The term racism "has spawned all kinds of wacky, misleading constructs, e.g. 'white racism,' (implying the Black people can be racist, too, thereby missing the whole point of race), 'reverse racism' (implying that Black people's nasty attitudes towards whites is socially, politically or economically equivalent to white people's nasty attitudes toward Blacks), or 'in-house racism' (implying that people who are racially assigned as black can be racist to one another.
This term has inspired the similar, anti-racism. We see in the actions of self-declared anti-racists that this use of language has surely put the blinders on. They do not perceive race as a social construct for the purposes of white male supremacy, and thus "cannot ascertain how that fiction is maintained." Following from this, "they cannot precisely determine the central role that the fiction of race plays in reinforcing entrenched, authoritarian power," and "their ability to develop effective strategies and tactics to challenge that power is seriously diminished.
I use the term white supremacy to refer to the ideology of whiteness, which assumes the superiority of those with pale skin. It also refers to the structure of American culture, that affects all cultural institutions, from the family to the economy, and political to religious institutions. The struggle against white supremacy entails the destruction of the ideology as well as the institutions dependent on it. It consists of ridding other cultural institutions of its influence. And, most of all, it encompasses the liberation of all non-whites. See racetraitor.org/antiracist.html for the abolitionist vs. anti-racist debate: We believe that the so-called white race is a uniquely destructive social construct that emerged from the material and psychological "requirements" of the international slave trade and plantation slavery, and that the "white race" is the raison d'etre for racial mythology.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 11, 2011 12:15:33 GMT -5
Still taking it all in, but a quick thought.
At this point I am unsure of what Niles means when he writes that racism emanating from non-whites is an impossibility. I think I am missing something from his logic, but I will, for our purposes right now, take him at his word.
However, what about when the "colonized" or those subject to "white supremacy" begin to utilize "race" in the same way that it has been utilized against them? Is that a possibility in Niles' interpretation?
I think many, myself included, are uncomfortable with the idea that "white supremacy" is the only manifestation of "racism;" perhaps, depending upon the usage of the concept, it may be. I do think however that in common usage, "race" and "racism" is understood as something that is not uni-directional, i.e. solely from "whites" toward "non-whites."
That being said, I think it is important to single out the nefarious examples related to the American experience, in this case, "white supremacy."
I suppose a further clarification of words and concepts would be helpful here; I think the same would apply for the discussion of "ethnonationalism" as well (as we spoke about afterward, I think that the disagreement may in part stem from different usages that are not necessarily antagonistic, as I found myself both agreeing with your usage and Bradley's...)
Best, Vincent
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 11, 2011 12:33:14 GMT -5
Perhaps I would be okay with the verbiage as:
"The process of this radical transformation requires a fundamental challenge to 'racism' (i.e. white supremacy), patriarchy, and colonial/imperial relations; and it requires affirming a diversity of interpersonal relationships and gender expression."
Putting 'racism' in quotes is a very simple but effective way of using the term with some skepticism, but without having to go into a long explanation in the document.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 11, 2011 17:30:26 GMT -5
That sounds like a good idea to me. I suppose that there could be follow up (which I think we sort of indicated) through a "zine" (never heard of that before; am I to take it as short for "magazine?" That is how I am currently understanding it) where we could go into these things in an expanded form, including the larger dialogue/conversation that has been occurring online so that people could see (if so inclined) how we arrived at our decisions and understandings. It could also be part of our sense of being a living document; as the group evolves, so does the document.
|
|
|
Post by npartyka on Nov 11, 2011 18:53:05 GMT -5
I would like to express my thinking on Ben's item 2, the proposal to put speciesism on our list of forms of oppression in the last sentence of the first paragraph. This problem is perhaps somewhat esoteric, but the rest of you will be the judge of that. Also, please forgive what may appear to be overly formal language. Unfortunately I suppose this is just how I talk.
After thinking it over I have come to a considered position on this. Let me say right at the beginning that I would not exercise a block about this. If opposing this alleged form of oppression is a point of unity for the rest of the caucus I am ok with that. I am supportive of the rest of our points of unity and would not leave the group over this. This aside I think there are some points worth taking note of in deciding whether this is a point of unity for us.
In the first place I think it entails a untenable corollary. In the last analysis it would result in those of us in the caucus who eat meat to be in violation of our stated points of unity when we do so. If speciesism is a form of oppression of a similar form to those already enumerated we are committed to opposing it, which in this case would demand conversion to veganism.
The problem here is that one of the premises required for this argument to work is something like the following, All animals, human and non-human, are equal in moral status or worth, in both its amount and origin. It is precisely this claim that justifies the assertion that speciesism is a form of oppression similar to racism or sexism. The reason that the hierarchy in the cases of racism and sexism is that there are no morally salient differences between the groups on top of and on the bottom of the hierarchy. Unequal treatment of certain minorities is in some cases seen as necessary when there are morally salient differences between those on top and bottom of the hierarchy, e.g. parent-child relationships. So the argument goes for speciesism goes, Because there are no morally salient differences between human and non-human animals the inequality of treatment embodied in our relationships with non-human animals it is arbitrary and hence to be opposed. Whether or not specisism is a consequence of capitalism is interesting, but immaterial. If it is a form of oppression with a form similar to other we oppose we ought to oppose it as well. And opposing this specific instance of oppression can only manifest in foregoing the consumption of the products of non-human animals.
The problem for speciesism is that it is not a case of unjustified or arbitrary hierarchy precisely because there are morally salient differences between human and non-human animals. These differences do in no way justify cruelty, but they are not unimportant. The cognitive and intellectual powers of humans make them unique. Let us note that morality is a uniquely human activity. Non-human animals do not practice morality. I do not to seem like I deny non-human animals agency, I do not. But living under a system of morality and having a personality are not the same. Non-human animals are not pure bundle of instincts, but they do not organize systems of morality.
Consider the following thought example, You are walking along a forest path an happen on a small pond where a dog and a human are drowning and you may only save one. I would contend that it is a moral failing to save the dog over the human, even if that human is a stranger and the dog your own pet. The anti-speciesist would have us hold that you are equally morally praiseworthy no matter whether one saves the human or the dog. This is again because the anti-speciesist would have us claim that the human and the dog are equal from a moral point of view.
The claim that non-human animals have an equal moral status to humans is to my mind a rather substantial commitment for us to take on as a caucus. Without this claim however, speciesism lacks a successful argument that it is similar in the right way to the other forms of oppression we list. I wont deny that speciesism may be a problem, but it is not a problem for the radical caucus. I would like to hear again the argument for why speceisism is a consequence of the capitalism form of the economy like unemployment is. I cannot construct one on my own that i think is sufficient it merit it being on our list. To return to my original statement of the worry, I think taking on this claim that human and non-human animals have an identical moral status ultimately forces those of us who will continue to eat meat to contradict our stated points of unity when we do so.
|
|
|
Post by anonanon on Nov 11, 2011 20:05:19 GMT -5
I've been a little conflicted on this but for now I come down on the side of including speciesism because 'a fundamental challenge to...speciesism" does not entail we all become vegans and sweep the ground in front of us as we walk. It requires that we challenge the ideology and practice of speciesism, in society and in ourselves, by my reading. Maybe the person who is proposing inclusion would respond that I am not sincere if I don't attain some level of improved actions, like a slaveowner who came to oppose slavery in thought but still kept slaves out of supposed 'necessity' or weakness, maybe she would be right. When it comes to how a person who rejected speciesism were to feed themselves Ben's points are valid - choosing to kill 'pests' rather than mammals is a speciesist move. It does seem to me this is unresolveable in practice. Maybe this is a distinction between challenging 'capitalism' which I do think can be replaced in a very real way and challenging 'speciesism'. If you wanted to attack my argument this would be the weakest point on which to do so - does this entail that we can satisfy our obligation by only challenging the other systems of oppression in thought but not practice? I don't think its sufficient say for everyone to subscribe to a labor theory of value and leave the system unchanged. I think the distinction is real so I am happy to include the item while personally interpreting it as trying to challenge my mindset and see how my practices evolve from that but not being paralyzed by my ultimate inability to prevent the death of every living thing when I need to make decisions for my survival.
This is pretty much stream of thought and I admit I have not done much thinking on animal liberation and the one essay by Singer I've read. So maybe worthless. O well.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 11, 2011 20:39:28 GMT -5
Awesome thoughts all around.
Unlike npartyka, I cannot so confidently make the argument of the morally salient differences between humans and other animals. Nearly all of them we come to are nearly impossible to unproblematically operationalize. I am not even confident in making the assertion that other animals (or even mountains) lack the capability to reason, or that they lack a practical ethics.
I absolutely agree that we apply problematic hierarchies of species - not that they are arbitrary, but perhaps inconsistent, hypocritical, and frequently thoughtless and unfounded. I just don't think that it can be otherwise. We are animals. Our lives require the deaths of other lives. The only people who I think have even approached the challenging of speciesism are the Jains, but even they practice a certain stewardship, which entails a certain patriarchal speciesism.
I'm glad we're addressing this, but hope it doesn't turn divisive. I've hardly ever seen these discussions in a broader group like ours turn out well. Almost always, people get feelings hurt at the very least, and sometimes people get spiteful and aggressive. I do know of two people that were offended at having confined animals compared to chattel slaves. We need to be very gentle in these discussions.
|
|
|
Post by npartyka on Nov 12, 2011 12:12:59 GMT -5
I agree with Ben's point about operationalization. The cognitive differences between human and non-human animals are of degree not kind. Thus no matter where we draw the line problematic cases will arise. My point was more to emphasize the fact that the differences which do exist between human beings and non-human animals makes a large difference from the moral point of view. Human beings are the only species capable of organizing and revising autonomous life plans. Humans beings are autonomous the Kantian sense, while other animals are not. This does not deny that they have and exercise some reason, but it does deny them moral autonomy. In Kantian jargon, they are not capable of giving themselves the moral law. This kind of hierarchy cannot justify cruel treatment. But it can justify some unequal treatment.
I think the anti-speciesist raises important issues. But within the realm of moral theory, not political theory. From a political point of view it seems the anti-speciesist is most concerned about the abuses of the factory farming system. This is a rather significant problem. But this problem is a result of the capitalist form of the economy, and it is not about the claim that animals have equal moral status. The common capacity for suffering definitely justifies the claim that animal's interests need to be considered by humans when engaging in moral reasoning. But this is only an argument for abolishing factory farming and excessive cruelty. This political argument in no wise depends on the moral claim that animals have an equal moral status. I certainly would want us as a caucus to oppose factory farming, but to do so does no entail us having to take on board a claim about the equal moral status of non-human animals.
Within the realm of moral theory my considered position is that animal's have moral status, but only as a result of human's including them in our practice. Someone at the last meeting expressed this idea. The treatment of animals by humans says more about human's moral relations to other humans than about animals. The claim that humans have moral status flows from innate features of human beings. All humans are thought to possess some dignity or moral worth only in virtue of the fact that they are human. A similar claim would have to also be true for all animals. this is a harder claim to justify. In virtue of what innate features do all animals possess moral status in a sui generis manner; that is if there were no humans animals would nonetheless be moral beings with moral status. This latter counter-factual claim seems wildly implausible to me. So, if animals have moral status is because we humans give it to them. And indeed this is what the argument from the common capacity for suffering does. It says that in virtue of animals having a capacity similar to humans their interests in not suffering become morally relevant to human beings. I am not vegitarian or vegan because I have never seen an successful argument that the act of consuming meat is in itself a moral wrong. If such an argument can be made I am anxious to hear it, and would be grateful to that person for convincing me. Most often it seems the arguments that motivate a concern for speciesism concern the undue cruelty of factory farming methods or the inherent moral wrongness of killing another life-form. The former, as I mentioned, can be addressed by purely economic considerations. The latter poses a different challenge in that it would entail starving ourselves to death in order to act morally. We kill literally everything we eat be it plant, animal, or micro-organism. Thus, if killing any life-form if morally wrong we can either act morally and starve, or act immorally and live. It is clear I think that almost everyone recognizes that killing is in some cases necessary, even if it is to be avoided if at all possible. Without successful arguments to the contrary I do not see moral wrongness in human being's raising animals for the purposes of utilizing the use-values inherent in them. This of course should be done in a way the respects the moral interests that animals do have. But these interests (at least based on the weight of the arguments at hand) do not rule out killing and eating animals.
I would like to say again that I have no intention of being obdurate about this. If the rest of the caucus decides that this moral claim about animals having equal moral status is a point of unity then so be it. I think this claim is significantly under-motivated by argument. That to me is a reason for us as a caucus not to endorse it. However, if others do not perceive this there is little I can do about that. I stand in solidarity with the rest of our points of unity, and will continue to participate in the caucus. I simply will choose not to take part in any actions that pertain to opposing (the moral problem of) speciesism. I do not deny that speciesism is a problem. I deny that it is a political problem like racism or sexism because it is not a case of unjustified hierarchy. Animal's interests are due moral consideration, but not as much as human's interests; that is our all things considered interests, not necessarily what we think or say our interests are. Taking actions that may be considered anti-speciesist will in some cases be in the best interests of human beings.
Perhaps it is just me, and if so, then so be it. But I think solving the problems of humans oppressing other humans takes priority over (alleged) problems of humans systematically oppressing (as distinct from simply being cruel to) animals. Moreover, I am of the opinion that many of the problems with the way human beings treat animals will be addressed by the radical transformation of our mode of production.
I hope that have not offended anyone or hurt their feelings. This was never my intent. I have only tried to examine the arguments surrounding this issue with the objective eye of the philosopher (I am a doctoral student in philosophy) so that we can as a caucus be clear about what the inclusion of speciesm entails for us. I want to continue to have this conversation of the plane of dispassionate exchange of reasons. I trust that my thoughts are taken in that vein, as dispassionate examinations of how claims support each other in forming arguments.
|
|