Why Are Only a Few Countries Required To Be Multicultural

[godfry n. glad]

Forgive me, but I view you both as relatively sophisticated in your analysis of the political economy. I view Perkins' work as being a fairly important aspect of what I perceive the US general public needing to know.

Those wonderous development programs are being sold to the US public as "international assistance", rather like an updated "Marshall Plan" for South America and Asia. Most members of the US general public have no idea how these WTO, World Bank and IMF strategies work. I think it was an excellent step in terms of educating "the average American".

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Forgive me, but I view you both as relatively sophisticated in your analysis of the political economy. I view Perkins' work as being a fairly important aspect of what I perceive the US general public needing to know.

Those wonderous development programs are being sold to the US public as "international assistance", rather like an updated "Marshall Plan" for South America and Asia. Most members of the US general public have no idea how these WTO, World Bank and IMF strategies work. I think it was an excellent step in terms of educating "the average American".

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that Perkins' book fills the valuable niche of books that will get people pissed off. And right now, being pissed off at the system is one of the most valuable and life-affirming things possible. John Pilger fills that same niche for me. His book The New Rulers of the World made me want to start the anarchist revolution by myself...until I was reminded by a friend of mine that a one-man revolution wasn't going to end well. Damn V for Vendetta for making it look so easy!

However, I think that offering constructive solutions is overrated. There's a post up at a blog called Stop Me Before I Vote Again which brilliantly summarizes my feelings:

The main thing, though, is to stop being constructive. Don't waste a moment thinking about what “policies” might be better than the ones we have. The fact is that the institutions we have absolutely guarantee insane policies, and unless the balance of power between the elites and the rest of us is changed, then those institutions will continue to manufacture insanity day in and day out.

And there is, needless to say, no institutional way to change the balance of power. The institutions exist to maintain the balance of power – or, more accurately, to tip the balance of power ever more toward the elites. Changing the balance of power requires interfering with the institutions, and impairing or impeding their operation.

In short: stop traffic.

Reformism is a tempting trap, but the point about there being no institutional way to change the balance of power holds across all governments, even the social democratic governments of Western Europe. That's why I view books like Perkins' as valuable but naïve in its belief for the capacity for and efficacy of gradual change. I might be wrong though. After all, I have not seen the system from the inside, and Perkins has. However, I don't think gradual change has ever accomplished much without the threat of revolutionary action hovering in the background.

[Corona688]

About Canada being multicultural... we kind of have room for it. People don't have to mix if they really don't want to; if one can put up with a certain measure of hardship, there's almost always somewhere else to go. Travelling in rural areas will find little pockets of all sorts of things.

[Caligulette]

That is a good one, though his proposed solutions are piffle. Good to have a lot of what was suspected/rumoured confirmed. (By "good", I mean "to know", not "that it happened".)

[Stormlight]

lol, well im not racist its just that i think if too many different cultures come into our countries we wont have any place to call home anymore! i am okay with non whites here but maybe like 20% only, USA is already only 2/3 white and going down fast!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stormlight

LUXEMBOURG FOR LUXEMBOURGERS! WHY DO I STILL HAVE TO PRESS 1 FOR LËTZEBUERGESCH?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Press 1!!!??

Lëtzebuergesch got the 1?

I figured it'd be down there with Andorran and San Marinan....y'know, where you have to use the * and # keys.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

*Yoink* Stolen and added to the quote generator.

[Stormlight]

Sorry about the above. I just wanted to save our little bigot some time by preemptively posting his next message.

Like here: GameSpot Forums - Off-Topic Discussion - Why Are Only White Countries Required To Be Multicultural?

[ceptimus]

[ShottleBop]

"Latin America for Latinos?" To give only a few counterexamples: Peru elected a President who was the son of Japanese immigrants. In Uruguay and Argentina whites are the ethnic majority. In Southern South America (the "Southern Cone"):

The main language spoken is Spanish (castellano) due to the Spanish colonization from the 16th to the 19th century; if one includes Brazil, Portuguese places a close second.

Autochthonous languages, spoken by some Amerindian groups include Mapudungun (also known as Mapuche) and Guarani.

Italian (mostly its Northern dialects, such as Venetian) is spoken in rural communities across Argentina and Southern Brazil. German in some dialects is mostly spoken in Southern Brazil, Southern Argentina and in some communities in Southern Chile.

Furthermore English is spoken in the Falkland Islands, a disputed territory between the U.K. (inhabited by British subjects) and Argentina. Welsh is spoken by descendants of immigrants in the Patagonia region of Argentina. Japanese has speakers in communities of Southeastern Brazil and Korean in the main cities. Portuñol, Portunhol in Portuguese, is a pidgin language of Brazilian Portuguese and Spanish that is spoken in the border with Brazil.

[Caligulette]

I forgive your viewing me as sophisticated. You have not seen me eat yet.

Yes, the book does contain some very important information (even as Shock Doctrine does). However, the solutions are both naive and unworkable. They are (in both cases) a patchwork which will, under even the slightest economic strain, fall apart. Information is important- what is done with it might be even more so.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

I forgive your viewing me as sophisticated. You have not seen me eat yet.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

I forgive your viewing me as sophisticated. You have not seen me eat yet.

Yes, the book does contain some very important information (even as Shock Doctrine does). However, the solutions are both naive and unworkable. They are (in both cases) a patchwork which will, under even the slightest economic strain, fall apart. Information is important- what is done with it might be even more so.

Your eating is now part of your political economic analysis? That's...interesting. Idiosyncratic, but interesting.

So, I'm curious. What do constitute non-naive and workable solutions?

[Stormlight]

[Caligulette]

Overthrowing the capitalist governments and forming socialist ones in preparation for the ultimate withering of the state. In a nutshell.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Overthrowing the capitalist governments and forming socialist ones in preparation for the ultimate withering of the state. In a nutshell.

That's pretty vague, actually, and, if realized, I'd be concerned that the outcome could very well be worse than what we have presently. Instead, I think that history shows that after the initial convulsions of revolution and the rise of new governmental mechanisms, reaction sets in in a big way. How do you prevent such from happening?

I am not convinced that socialistic government would be an improvement, nor am I convinced that it would a be a step to "the ultimate withering of the state."

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Overthrowing the capitalist governments and forming socialist ones in preparation for the ultimate withering of the state. In a nutshell.

ah, right...socialism should make it better, with its proven track record.

(explains things though...and the irony amuses me)

[Caligulette]

Mr Zeke, your lack of historical knowledge once again rears its ugly head.

The first five years after the Russian Revolution of October (as opposed o the Feb one) were not exactly paradisical, to be sure, but considering that there was a world war going on, and civil wars (funded in large part by the imperialist forces of Europe and even the States), a lot was accomplished. Had Lenin not fallen ill, and more importantly, Stalin (who was never much of a socialist) not seized power, things would have been different. There was a rather large Left Opposition (including Trotsky) within the Bolsheviki. Nothing quite like reactionary counter-revolutionary skullduggery and a dash of anti-semitism (along with assassinations and imprisonment/exile) to put the kibosh on a budding society.

As to how to prevent reactionism from happening- I do not think it can be avoided, but I do think it can be contained. A lot of that has to do with the level of political awareness of the general population. One has to recognize reactionary/counter-revolutionary elements in order to act against them. We have, unfortunately, a tremendous number of examples of these things, as well as some harsh historical examples about where the policies of a Stalin will lead. Knowing is important in combating.

As far as the withering of the state- I do think socialism (Marxist socialism) would lead to that. It is a process which involves educating people and putting the means of production into the hands of the producers- which would give them the means to control their own economic futures (as well as day-to-day safety), and so their political futures. It would not be a top-down democracy, it would be an actual governance by the workers. As people gain skills, education, and the awareness of the interconectedness of the global resources and community responsibility, the need for the state would be less and less. Ultimately, it would not be needed.

It is likely that there would be, if a bureauocracy develops, a push back from certain reactionary elements, this is where education, especially a knowledge of history (world history, not country-o-centric) is crucial.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

As to how to prevent reactionism from happening- I do not think it can be avoided, but I do think it can be contained. A lot of that has to do with the level of political awareness of the general population. One has to recognize reactionary/counter-revolutionary elements in order to act against them. We have, unfortunately, a tremendous number of examples of these things, as well as some harsh historical examples about where the policies of a Stalin will lead. Knowing is important in combating.

I'm in general agreement here, but I think we need to recognize that sources like Perkins are important in developing that political awareness. We just need to be aware of not dismissing it as General Smedley Butler's War Is A Racket! (1935), and his claims of an attempt to perpetrate a coup against the Roosevelt government by plutocratic industrialists, has been.

[Qingdai]

The analysis in my family's circle of friends was that Russia was too politically and technologically backwards to be able to sustain a revolution. They did not have the infrastructure needed to keep Stalin in check. I agree that it's hard to go from being an uneducated serf in a monarchy to an educated worker in some sort of consensus driven society.
The same could be said for China and the Maoist revolution.
I suppose when the economy all goes to shit, we'll find out more.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

The analysis in my family's circle of friends was that Russia was too politically and technologically backwards to be able to sustain a revolution. They did not have the infrastructure needed to keep Stalin in check. I agree that it's hard to go from being an uneducated serf in a monarchy to an educated worker in some sort of consensus driven society.

This is an interpretation of Russian history frequently advanced during the Cold War, but subsequent research has cast serious doubt on its validity. Obviously, there is no data on what degree of political and technological sophistication is necessary for a proletarian revolution to succeed. But if you examine Russia's economic situation from 1861 forward, you'll find that it enjoyed healthy economic growth, and frequently outpaced other European powers in growth in industrial output. Had Stolypin at Witte's reforms not been interrupted by WW I, Russia could have developed into a major world economic power. Levels of foreign investment capital were high, and the state-directed campaign of railroad building supported the strong growth of heavy industry. (And, somewhat ironically, a small but highly concentrated population of urban workers.)

The political side is harder to predict. The Duma reforms following the 1905 revolution led to the establishment of civil liberties and some level of political pluralism. There was, no doubt, political repression, but the average Russian probably enjoyed more political freedoms in 1911 than at any point in history.

It's very difficult to explain the "failure" of the Bolshevik agenda using only structural factors. If we define this failure as the rise of Stalin and his oppressive rule, I find it more plausible that the Bolsheviks were simply uncautious administrators. They allowed Stalin to accumulate an enormous amount of organizational power by shaping the bureaucracy. In doing so he created an elite powerbase to rival that of Trotsky. Stalin (with Kamenev and Zinoviev) easily outmaneuvered Trotsky.

Re: going from and uneducated serf to a revolutionary worker. There is a really excellent memoir on exactly this. It's called A Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia: The Autobiography of Semën Kanatchikov, translated by Reginald Zelnik. Fascinating reading.

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Nothing quite like reactionary counter-revolutionary skullduggery and a dash of anti-semitism (along with assassinations and imprisonment/exile) to put the kibosh on a budding society.

Before we speculate too much on the form of said budding society had Stalin not come to power, let's first consider how many of the 'revolutionary' gains were made thanks to NEP.

[Caligulette]

I do agree that he is important in developing the awareness of what. Of what to do, not so much. That is my quibble. The knowing being important for combatting stands, of course. Really, Perkins provided some concrete knowledge of how these things work. Knowing what is being done does two things in this case- one, it shows that the capitalist system is predatory; and two, it names some - big - names. These are very important lessons. It also is important that it comes from someone who actually did it- that it was, indeed, a confession.

It is a start. But where to go from there? In that area, Perkins is still deeply steeped in the land of revisionism.

He is also, for what it's worth, still friends with many of the people he worked with. One could ask (as one did when he visited my bookstore on tour (not me)) "How could you still associate with these people, knowing what you know about what they are still doing?" That he does speaks to where his interests still lie. He wants a more gentle capitalism, but what he fails to realise is this: Capitalism does not play gently.

Yes, his contribution to knowledge is valuable. No, his suggestions of what to do anout the situation are not.

[Caligulette]

Let's also consider that the NEP was in no way meant as a permanent state. Consider the conditions under which the NEP were implemented- civil war in the country, outside of the country recovering (to varying degrees) from WWI, etc. NEP did not happen in a vacuum.

It's very difficult to explain the "failure" of the Bolshevik agenda using only structural factors. If we define this failure as the rise of Stalin and his oppressive rule, I find it more plausible that the Bolsheviks were simply uncautious administrators. They allowed Stalin to accumulate an enormous amount of organizational power by shaping the bureaucracy. In doing so he created an elite powerbase to rival that of Trotsky. Stalin (with Kamenev and Zinoviev) easily outmaneuvered Trotsky.

I would not say "easily", but I would otherwise agree with certain caveats ("certain Bolsheviks", rather than the more sweeping "Bolsheviks", etc). Don't forget, though, that as soon as they realised Trotsky had been correct, Stalin did away with the Zinoviev elements.

He (Stalin) also played up Trotsky's Jewish heritage (though it had been at least a generation since there was active practice in his family) by referring to him as "Bronstein", which, while his real name, was not the name he went by in either public or private life. Add to this the cartoons of the stereotypical Jew distributed by his press, and one can see how Stalin used the more racist elements of the society to build a force against Trotsky.

Qingdai does have a point about the backwardness of the Russian peasantry, to be sure. Literacy rates in general before the Oct Rev were at about 25%, and they had been living in what could be easily considered a feudal manner until very recently- certainly within living memory of most adults at the time. While 1911 might have seemed comparatively free, people were still being exiled for belonging to illegal political parties, and there were still pogroms to be had.

Considering the raw materials of the society, I still think it's amazing that the Revolution was as succesfull as it had been. Had the general populace been more literate, more knowledgable about the idea of their having rights (and responsibilities), we would have seen a very different outcome. If they'd had the experiance to recognize Stalin for being Stalin (if you will), I doubt he would have got as far as he did. Had Germany actually followed through in 1923 with their own revolution, it would have deprived Stalin of his Socialism In One Country out, and have likely been a step in the direction of a Permanent Revolution, as advocated by Trotsky.

This would have had very very different implications for China as well, as it is doubtful that Trotsky (or anyone in that vein) would have advised Mao to turn over the command of the revolution to the Kuo Min Tang, which led directly and immediately to the massacre of the cream of the revolutionary crop - meaning, the Bolshevics in China. Mao, like Stalin, was not so much interested in the dictatorship of the proletariat as they were in being dictators over the proletariat.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Let's also consider that the NEP was in no way meant as a permanent state. Consider the conditions under which the NEP were implemented- civil war in the country, outside of the country recovering (to varying degrees) from WWI, etc. NEP did not happen in a vacuum.

Yes, that's true, but neither was NEP envisioned as a short-term program. Lenin himself described it as a long-term policy, and the end result of sustained NEP could have looked just as different from the Bolshevik idea of socialism as Stalin's socialism-in-one-country.

I would not say "easily", but I would otherwise agree with certain caveats ("certain Bolsheviks", rather than the more sweeping "Bolsheviks", etc). Don't forget, though, that as soon as they realised Trotsky had been correct, Stalin did away with the Zinoviev elements.

That's true, I used "easily" a bit flippantly there. Stalin would have disposed of Zinoviev no matter what.

He (Stalin) also played up Trotsky's Jewish heritage (though it had been at least a generation since there was active practice in his family) by referring to him as "Bronstein", which, while his real name, was not the name he went by in either public or private life. Add to this the cartoons of the stereotypical Jew distributed by his press, and one can see how Stalin used the more racist elements of the society to build a force against Trotsky.

Yes, he did.

Qingdai does have a point about the backwardness of the Russian peasantry, to be sure. Literacy rates in general before the Oct Rev were at about 25%, and they had been living in what could be easily considered a feudal manner until very recently- certainly within living memory of most adults at the time. While 1911 might have seemed comparatively free, people were still being exiled for belonging to illegal political parties, and there were still pogroms to be had.

I never denied that the Russian peasantry remained mired in illiteracy, I just don't think it mattered that much. The Russian state, like the pre-collectivization revolution, existed primarily in the cities. My point was that if you consider Russia by prevailing standards of the day rather than anachronistic ones, it was not as terribly backwards as Cold War historians would say it was. In any case, the great mass of the Russian peasantry had fairly little say in the Tsarist state, the February Revolution, or the October Revolution. Those were primarily urban phenomena the success of failure or which existed largely independently of the political consciousness of the peasantry. The peasantry existed to feed the revolution (such as the NEP era campaign against illiteracy); revolutionary consciousness would come with education. Indeed, as far as we can tell (the data is hard to manage) public enthusiasm for the revolution was very high during the NEP period, and even into the first five year plan. At least until collectivization.

Considering the raw materials of the society, I still think it's amazing that the Revolution was as succesfull as it had been. Had the general populace been more literate, more knowledgable about the idea of their having rights (and responsibilities), we would have seen a very different outcome. If they'd had the experiance to recognize Stalin for being Stalin (if you will), I doubt he would have got as far as he did. Had Germany actually followed through in 1923 with their own revolution, it would have deprived Stalin of his Socialism In One Country out, and have likely been a step in the direction of a Permanent Revolution, as advocated by Trotsky.

This would have had very very different implications for China as well, as it is doubtful that Trotsky (or anyone in that vein) would have advised Mao to turn over the command of the revolution to the Kuo Min Tang, which led directly and immediately to the massacre of the cream of the revolutionary crop - meaning, the Bolshevics in China. Mao, like Stalin, was not so much interested in the dictatorship of the proletariat as they were in being dictators over the proletariat.

You ascribe more agency to the public than I do. I can't see how the general population could have moved against Stalin while Lenin was still alive - the vanguard of the revolution would have crushed them, or they would have crushed the vanguard. Stalin's rise to power occured in elite circles, and there was little a poorly armed public could do about it. The Communist Party was not intended to be a mass party at the outset, so there was little that the general public could do from within existing political structures either.