Comments on: Multi-Racial Organization http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2007/01/24/multi-racial-organization/ by Michael Staudenmaier Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:43:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Mike http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2007/01/24/multi-racial-organization/#comment-57 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:48:23 +0000 http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2007/01/24/multi-racial-organization/#comment-57 The Third World Caucus split was complicated, and I won’t be able to do it justice in this brief comment, but I’ll try to summarize the main points. First, the handful of third world members of STO wanted to formally establish their autonomy within the organization to deal with issues that affected the communities from which they came (eg. the black/New Afrikan community, or the Puerto Rican community). In principle this was unobjectionable to all members, but the question of how extensive this autonomy should be was a sore spot. In part the difficulty was how to square the group’s commitment to internal democracy with its respect for the autonomy of third world members. Another aspect was the question of STO’s ability to work organizationally with revolutionary nationalist groups and how to proceed if the third world membership came to different conclusions from the groups with which STO had placed itself in solidarity. This dispute was exacerbated by concerns about racist behavior on the part of some white members of the group. It also coincided somewhat with a disagreement over the immediate prospects for workplace organizing. In addition to losing all members of color, STO lost almost all of its remaining factory workers in this split. In all, probably a third of the group left as a result of the split. The Third World Caucus split was complicated, and I won’t be able to do it justice in this brief comment, but I’ll try to summarize the main points. First, the handful of third world members of STO wanted to formally establish their autonomy within the organization to deal with issues that affected the communities from which they came (eg. the black/New Afrikan community, or the Puerto Rican community). In principle this was unobjectionable to all members, but the question of how extensive this autonomy should be was a sore spot. In part the difficulty was how to square the group’s commitment to internal democracy with its respect for the autonomy of third world members. Another aspect was the question of STO’s ability to work organizationally with revolutionary nationalist groups and how to proceed if the third world membership came to different conclusions from the groups with which STO had placed itself in solidarity.

This dispute was exacerbated by concerns about racist behavior on the part of some white members of the group. It also coincided somewhat with a disagreement over the immediate prospects for workplace organizing. In addition to losing all members of color, STO lost almost all of its remaining factory workers in this split. In all, probably a third of the group left as a result of the split.

]]> by: robert smith http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2007/01/24/multi-racial-organization/#comment-56 Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:08:22 +0000 http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2007/01/24/multi-racial-organization/#comment-56 third world caucus specfics what was split about? third world caucus specfics what was split about?

]]>