On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Gernot Kohler wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote:
>
> .......>
> > So, to me, as an unregenerate Marxian, Global Apartheid applies
> > even more to the segregation of the classes than to the segregation of the
> > races. Either way, the house of earth is a house divided against itself,
> > and in the long run it will not stand.
> >
>
> The five people who have been using the concept of "global apartheid"
> are not trying to compete with class analysis; it's just a slightly
> different packaging of class analysis. When you talk to the media,
> "global apartheid" may be a useful sound-byte to get your point across in
> 30 seconds or less. Also, it provides a publicly acceptable rationale for
> the creation of a global, multi-racial, democratic political alliance for
> the purpose of global resistance (my take on "world party"). Like the
> concept of "exploitation", "global apartheid" does not only have some
> descriptive value; it is also a negative norm. How do you define the goal
> of global class struggle? There are many ways of defining that goal. One
> possible formulation would be "abolish global apartheid", which is a bit
> more specific than, but consistent with, "global resistance".
>
> --GK
>
> (I will be out of town on vacation for a while, hoping to reconnect later.)
>
Dear Gernot and List,
I agree with the "useful sound-byte" point, anything to get the
world's ear, and so forth. But if the end result is to exacerbate race
war instead of class war, it could be a disastrous ploy.
Warren