Roger, One of my reasons for thinking that, was that Militant article which was
making value judgements about China's policy regarding childbirth. It's not
that I, personally, don't agree with how the author of the article feels about
governments attempting to control women's bodies. It's that if he's writing
from the point of view of a socialist party about what the government of
another country chooses to do about childbirth, to me, that's foreign
interference, something the US government is doing or trying to do all of the
time.
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 10:17 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Beijing control over family size is attack on
women
I think, Miriam, that one of your assumptions is that internationalism means
intervention in other countries. That is incorrect. It means solidarity with
the people's struggles in other countries. It may mean rendering aid if we have
the aid to give, but it should be the aid that the people in the other
countries want and ask for. It is they who are in the midst of their struggle
and they know what they need. It would not be internationalist to decide for
them what they need and to force it on them. That would be more like how the
imperialists operate.
___
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 5:54 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
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-siz
e
-
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
********************