Maurice,
I'm sorry for appearing to categorize you incorrectly. I was trying to say that
if one looks at life through a particular lens, and we all do that, one
inevitably assumes that one's point of view is the correct one. And that this
is dangerous when one is making judgements about other people and what they
need and therefore, what we should do to help them.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Maurice Peret
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 5:20 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Beijing control over family size is attack on
women
Niriam,
Even in our urgency to evade linear or bipolar conceptions of the peoples of
the world, we should be conscious and vigilant to fall into the very trap you
so eloquently described in how we view others. For instance, you
counterbalanced my thoughts as being derived from Marxist study with what you
have read combined with your vast lived experience. You then went on to
generalize about expressions that are conspicuously Western in character. But
here you rest upon certain assumptions, in this case, about me. You could not
know that my interests and preoccupations extend beyond politics. You could not
know that I spent some time in Buddhist contemplative and mindfulness training
and practice, introduced to Zen, Toasm, comparative religion, witnessed
firsthand Tibetan Buddhist practices among the Sherpas who were our incredible
guides during my trek up to Mt Everest Basecamp twenty years ago now, and so
much more. Yet you assert with some confidence that I must fall into your
cultivated conception about where I'm coming from. I don't believe this
tendency to want to size each other up in this fashion is particularly western
or cultural, merely human and perhaps a factor of animal survival . It
nonetheless has its flaws. I submit again that assumptions like these are
formed through the influences of our corporate press and other institutions
that would tend to look upon the worker and peasant masses, our kin, as rather
backward and ignorant. I do not, by the way, exclude myself as succumbing to
the same negative and incorrect assumptions. Maurice
**************************************************
Maurice Peret
Mobile/Text: 804.928.4015
**************************************************
On Jun 29, 2021, at 16:29, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Maurice,
Yes, I can agree that from my point of view and yours and that of the
socialist party with which you identify, there are things that are good for
people regardless of whether they live here or in China or India or Peru or
Russia, etc. That view comes from a set of values that we have developed,
that we acquired from somewhere. In your case, perhaps it was reading Marxist
theory. In my case, it is from reading everything I've read over the years
and all of the people I've known and my experiences, and that includes some
superficial exposure to Marxist theory. But the basis of what you believe
and what I believe, comes from Western European thought (economics,
philosophy, plitical theory, religious values, a combination?) From what we
know and feel and have observed, we think we know what would be helpful to
people, regardless of where they live. It's difficult for me to imagine that
we're wrong. But there are people in other parts of the world or even right
here, who've grown up with totally different influences. They haven't been
influenced by western thought or religion. Of course, given the propensity of
the US for world domination, few people are left who haven't had some contact
with this country in one form or another. But all those millions in rural
China, for example, they think differently from me. So isn't it presumptuous
for any of us to assume that it is our right to intervene in their lives?
As for people here in the US who think differently from us, that's more
complicated. When I read what you and Roger write about the different
socialist parties, how they have splintered over tiny differences of
doctrine, it reminds me of all the different kinds of Christianity and of the
three different main branches of Judaeism which also have their further
little splinters. I think about how different people's experiences are in
America, depending on what region they live in. And there's the fact that
this is a multi cultural society and the idea that America would be a melting
pot was not born out by our experience. Just think, if the New Deal was the
elites' great defense against socialism, it only worked for about 35 years
and then the opposing elites began undoing it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Maurice Peret
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 3:46 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Beijing control over family size is
attack on women
Hi Miriam,
First of all, I find these exchanges most stimulating and thought provoking
but I rather less consider them as polemics so please accept my comments in
the good spirit that they are intended, just as yours are. I tend to largely
agree with you on your description of exceptionalism, the left of which in
the United States, is certainly not immune. The son of an immigrant to this
country, I grew up with a very healthy skepticism about all of this American
patriotic dribble no matter where it came from. The emotional reaction that
lots of folks feel when hearing the Star Spangled Banner or the Pledge of
Allegiance affects me much as a Ku Klux Klan rally might someone who is
non-Anglo. I once attended a union rally in Des Moines, Iowa against
Bridgestone Firestone with many Asian workers among them when a union
official characterized the company leaders as "slant-eyed" so and so. It felt
to me as much like a Klan rally as I had ever before experienced, not having
attended one other than as a counter-protester. The union ultimately had to
issue an apology after quite a lot of push-back. On the other hand, this is a
country with plenty of sophisticated people and views, yourself certainly
among them. This is where I make a conscious distinction between what folks
on this list think or in any workplace you might find anywhere where such
conversations take place and what we are force fed to believe that what is
published in the bourgeois press of any color is representative of who we are
and what we believe. American exceptionalism is clearly an imperialist design
that many, who don't bother to engage in independent thought or research of
their own, unfortunately swallow. What I find heart braking is how so many of
"us" consider the rest of "us" to be so ignorant and clueless; for that is
the crystal clear message that we are all supposed to internalize in just
about anything we might read. My experience, not unlike on this very list, is
that we are thoughtful and capable human beings that don't simply accept
everything that is fed to us from their capitalist propaganda machines. To
set the record straight, when discussing China's number of children policies,
these are not essentially cultural but political questions. This policy was
not in place in the 1950s, as was pointed out earlier. Furthermore, as an
internationalist, myself, what is good for the workers and farmers in China
or anywhere else for that matter, is good for workers and farmers here in the
good ole USA. Conversely, what is harmful to women and families in China or
anywhere else is harmful to women and families everywhere. I think you and I
share a common sensitivity to parochial, narrow nationalist attitudes from
whatever thought tradition. The struggle against these backward attitudes is
the task of the victorious internationalist proletariat. Are they up to the
task? This has been the question historically faced by revolutionists from
Lenin to Castro.
On 6/29/21, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Maurice,
I don't even know how to even think about such a position. Since almost
everyone in America ended up wittingly or unwittingly collaborating
with German Fascists during the second world war. I don't think that
ignoring historical realities or cultural differences is the same as
taking an internationalist approach. One can have a view of the
world, like, for example, the Roman Catholic Church, and believe that
one's view is international. After all, doesn't the Church believe
that it's beliefs and value system applies internationally? So if One
applies one's economic and political view in the same manner, to
everyone, is that international? I can already hear Roger telling me
that Marxist theory is science. But social science is not equivalent to the
physical sciences.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Maurice Peret
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 2:17 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Beijing control over family size is
attack on women
Perhaps, Miriam, you missed or chose to ignore my point. Members of
the SWP are not "American leftists" by any definition. In fact, a
consistent reading of The Militant reveals that much of its fire is
targeted at the so called left, which includes those who loosely proclaim
themselves "Socialists,"
outfits such as the Democratic Socialists of America who draw their
legacy from the traitors and outright collaborators with the German
and other European fascists.
That's where reform gets you. The Militant takes a decidedly
internationalist worldview on any subject it covers. I don't, by the
way, necessarily agree with or completely accept all of the editorial
perspectives published in the Militant but by in large, it is a
refreshing departure from the tired old liberal and progressive gang.
On 6/29/21, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Perhaps not. But I think that The Militant just doesn't get China.
But most American leftists don't. The next article that I came upon
coincidentally, and posted to the list, I think, verifies my point
of view.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 1:47 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Beijing control over family size is
attack on women
The Militant has pretty much always been against the one child
policy, but I don't think they had it back in the fifties.
___
Irvin D. Yalom “Truth," Nietzsche continued, "is arrived at through
disbelief and skepticism, not through a childlike wishing something
were so! Your patient's wish to be in God's hands is not truth. It
is simply a child's wish—and nothing more! It is a wish not to die,
a wish for the eveastingly bloated nipple we have labeled 'God'!
Evolutionary theory scientifically demonstrates God's
redundancy—though Darwin himself had not the courage to follow his
evidence to its true conclusion. Surely, you must realize that we
created God, and that all of us together now have killed him.” ―
Irvin D. Yalom, When Nietzsche Wept On 6/29/2021 1:17 PM, Miriam Vieni
wrote:
Very interesting. I remember when the anti Communist propaganda
focused on the one child policy and forced abortions in China back
in the 50's and early 60's. I wonder what The Militant was saying then?
The fact is that China functions with very different values than
American leftists, whatever American leftists think, or thought in
the past. It is a very old civilization with a huge population and
ever since the Communists have taken power, the goal has been to
have a planned economy so that starvation would be eliminated.
Personal freedom and Democracy were never the plan. Neither was
conquering other countries. China has always concentrated on itself.
If you visit China, and I have, the social atmosphere is totally
different than it is in the west. It is also obvious that the
Chinese are extremely competent at whatever it is they choose to do.
But from the minute you step off the plane, you know that you are
in a controlled environment.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 10:41 AM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Beijing control over family size is
attack on women
Beijing control over family size is attack on women
https://themilitant.com/2021/06/26/beijing-control-over-family-size
-
i
s-attack-on-women/
BY SETH GALINSKY
Vol. 85/No. 26
July 5, 2021
Worried that its population is aging and there won’t be enough
young workers to exploit to maximize state profits, the Chinese
government announced last month that it was raising the limit on
the number of children a family is allowed to three and began a
propaganda campaign to encourage more childbirth. Now Beijing
officials are considering dropping all restrictions on larger families.
The Chinese rulers fear that having a shrinking and aging
population is a barrier to challenging Washington for greater
economic and political influence.
Government interference in the personal decisions of when, if and
how many children a woman has is reactionary. These decisions
should be in her hands alone in conjunction with her family. To
make that possible it is necessary to fight for access to family
planning, including aid in conceiving a child if needed and the
right to safe and secure abortion.
At the beginning of the 1970s the Maoist regime in Beijing
pressured women to have fewer children. In 1979 government
bureaucrats imposed a general cap of one child per woman. Those who
violated the law had to pay huge fines or were forced to have abortions.
At the end of 2015, with Chinese women averaging only 1.05
children, the second lowest in the world, Beijing raised the cap to
two. That did little to increase the birthrate. In China, just like
in the U.S., the U.K., France and other countries, birthrates have
been declining for years.
The decline in workers’ real wages, the rise in the cost of living
and lack of child care, a result of the bosses foisting the
capitalist crisis on the backs of working people, are also key to
the decline in family formation worldwide. Even in the United
States, the strongest imperialist power, many young workers today
can’t earn enough to live on their own, so they put off having children.
An affordable family is even harder to establish in China with low
wages, sky-high rents and mortgages, and meager pensions. Child
care as well as nursing homes and other facilities for seniors are
further out of reach for working people there than in the U.S. And
it’s women who face the biggest burden, with the responsibility for
children and the elderly falling almost entirely on the family.
When Xinhua News in China published the results of a poll that
asked
22,000 people, “Are you ready for the three-child policy?” Twenty
thousand chose, “I won’t consider it at all.” The poll was quickly
deleted from the agency’s website.
Working-age couples in China often have to take care of “two sets
of parents who don’t have much income for savings or pension plans
if any, plus any kids they already have,” reports Al Jazeera.
While the rulers in Beijing are trying to get women from the
majority Han population to have more babies, they subject women
among the mostly Muslim Uighur people in the Northwest to strict
birth control policies.
Long discriminated against and persecuted by Beijing, Uighurs often
face forced sterilization and abortions, reports The Associated Press.
This goes hand in hand with Beijing’s systematic detention of
hundreds of thousands of Uighurs in forced labor camps.
Front Page Articles
Back Warrior Met miners out on strike in Alabama!
Workers need to fight for jobs, wages to match all price hikes
‘Workers in US, Puerto Rico face the same enemy’
Join the Socialist Workers Party campaign! Help spread the word
‘New York Times,’ liberal press act as propaganda agents for Hamas
Feature Articles Caravans demand: ‘End US embargo against Cuba!’
Also In This Issue
South Carolina pushes for execution by firing squad Beijing control
over family size is attack on women Strikers at ATI steel hold
rallies, expanded pickets, win more support Int’l Active Workers
Conference in Ohio July 22-24 Locked-out refinery workers reject
Marathon ‘final’ offer Anti-labor outfit demands workers quit their
unions ‘Domestic terrorism’ plan is threat to workers’ rights
Independent truckers in Puerto Rico on strike for rate raise Join
Socialist Workers Party campaign!
Campaign to expand reach of 'Militant, 'books, fund On the Picket
Line Ukraine miners strike, demand back pay, safe work conditions
British Columbia hotels carry out mass firings, layoffs, lockouts
Books of the Month Capital rules through its two parties: Democrats
and Republicans 25, 50 and 75 years ago © Copyright 2021 The
Militant
- 306 W. 37th Street, 13th floor - New York, NY 10018 -
themilitant@xxxxxxx Cookies This site uses cookies to improve your
experience. Learn more.
Okay, thanks
--
Precisely at the point when you begin to develop a conscience, you
must find yourself at war with your society.
-James Baldwin
Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be
changed until it is faced.
-James Baldwin
********************
Maurice Peret
MOBILE/TEXT: 804.928.4015
********************
--
Precisely at the point when you begin to develop a conscience, you must find
yourself at war with your society.
-James Baldwin
Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until
it is faced.
-James Baldwin
********************
Maurice Peret
MOBILE/TEXT: 804.928.4015
********************