Meerov wrote:
We wanted to make leaflets in Uzbek, Tajik and Kyrgyz, for them, but we could not.
Mike Harman
To know that you need to do that, you'd need to know their first language, and therefore be interested in that information at the moment. If you just say "I don't care what your first language is" then you're ignoring an actual accessibility issue. Similarly booking a second floor meeting space with no lift when someone planning to attend is in a wheelchair would be a sure sign that you "don't care" that they're in a wheelchair.
I have already explained in detail that for me there is no fundamental importance of race or nationality of a worker or a like-minded person, and it is even indecent to be interested in this, since I am interested in him as a person, as well as I am interested in the degree of his involvement in social-revolutionary work. His language is important when and if it becomes a problem for class agitation. His skin color or hair color is important only when and if he was attacked. These issues are secondary, auxiliary, and their solution should be subordinated to the main goal - unity in the struggle of classes and the libertarian movement unity.
Mike Harman
Yes this is the 'I have a black friend' defence for racism, but the opposite of this is not, "I don't care if you're black or not".
The opposite of this is exactly "I don't care if you're black or not".
Barack Obama is a bastard, but not because he is black, Trump a bastard, not because he is white. Hitler was a bastard, not because he was German.
Furthermore, I'm not going to be nervous about "privileges", because I'm not exploiting anyone. Also I consider this topic of privileges to be completely artificial and false. I also think that this idea is a form of bourgeois chauvinism that is actually used (I don't know, consciously or not) to separate workers of different races.
The world of capitalism creates thousands of pay (and other) hierarchies. You prefer to talk about some privileges and forget about others.
Maybe in your country the average white worker has some privileges over the average black worker. But similarly, a black worker who lives in the capital or has a good job has privileges over a black man who lives in a poor neighborhood.
Similarly, almoust all 40 million American blacks have enormous privileges compared to almost the entire population of Africa and most of the population of Asia, because even an American poor black worker lives better than an Indian or African or russian (white) worker.
So What? Do you want to make an American black worker think all the time about his privileges in front of Africans or just another black who gets paid less because he lives in the suburbs in USA?
The world of capitalism creates thousands of pay (and other) hierarchies. This is not the fault of white workers, nor the fault of black US workers: Both do not control the business and state. I do not believe that white workers must apologize, I do not believe that a poor black American needs to apologize to African or russian.
Racism is when you talk about race all the time, instead of talking about class. We are all equal to each other if we are oppressed by bosses.
Otherwise, following your logic, you should be talking about thousands of forms of privilege inside black workers class in the US and the world. What for? We can't fix it as long as capitalism exists.
For the purposes of scientific analysis of society?... OK, this may be important. In order to clarify the question of who is to blame or responsible for whom? It is a racial schism. Neither white workers nor black workers in control of business and government, and cannot be responsible for the policies of corporations.
You referred to an article that talks about privilege. This article is hypocritical. Why doesn't the author talk about the privilege and difference in salary and position between a black doctor and a black unemployed man, a black worker from a rich military factory, and a black worker on a poor farm?
It ends with the words: "Perhaps the worst part, though, is when these words are placed in the mouths of people of color. In Remember the Titans, Denzel Washington’s character begins the difficult process of integrating his football team: “Listen up, I don’t care if you’re black, green, blue, white, or orange, I want all of my defensive players on this side, all players going out for offense over here.” There’s something lovely and seductive about the belief that, in 1971 Virginia, black equals green equals blue equals white. But naïve rhetoric aside, a good coach in a Nixon-era American high school would care about the racial background of his players; he’d have to. Especially if he were black."
But what's the connection between what we're discussing here and some bourgeois Manager coach making a lot of money? Fuck him. His players have nothing to do with it, and they are not to blame for the fact that they are white or black.
jef costello
I mentioned having met antifa members earlier and described, them, you completely ignored this, as you have everything else, so let me ask you this:
Why do you think antifa is a youth street gang? Have you met any members? Have you had any discussions with them? Have you any idea what they believe?
I ask because you have characterised anti-fascism and antifa and said that you will not discuss any other interpretation of them because it is incorrect, so, in the simplest terms possible:
why do you believe antifa is this way?
Please don't talk about Stalin or Spain, these are interesting topics, but they are not what we are talking about.
Well, first of all, I will talk about what I think it is necessary to talk about. In particular, I will talk about Stalin and Spain, following Gilles Dove, for example if i like
Yes, I met a lot with representatives of the antipha movement in Russia, at a time when It was strong and included, perhaps, several thousand people (at least it held marches with the participation of 1-2 thousand people only in Moscow), I also met with alot of representatives of this movement in Germany, as well as with representatives of various antipha initiatives from different countries. Also, I am familiar with some American anarchists (my friend was one of the organizers and participants of the Class Struggle Camp during Occupy Wall Street and I even participated in the discussion of the program of this group) and I know a lot about some people. In addition, I follow the publications and news from the United States and participated in the discussion of this topic in various forums.
Now I have the following opinion: "Usually, when people talk about anti-fascism, they mean the unification of the left liberals, totalitarian groups (Stalinists, Maoists, etc.), the social-democrats... and some part of the anarchists. The main goal of this movement is the protection of bourgeois Republic and tolerance.... Such a movement is a common political bourgeois trash with elements of totalitarian influence."
So what do you want to say now? Are you saying that the majority of antifa are supporters of class struggle and revolutionary non - party Councils? I have hardly met such people among antifa for many years, maybe I know a few anarchists who participated in antifa in the past and thought this way, but such people are very few. But okay, let's say I'm wrong. Please introduce me to the great organization of antifa, which stands on class positions, protects non-party self-management of workers and deny bourgeois democracy entirely, and they not a Leninist. I once thought it was a Redneck-revolt, but now people write that it is not.