Prosecutor fired for going to "white preservationist"conference

[isomin at gmu.edu]

My purpose was not to defend Helms (of whom I'm hardly a fan), but to note that, at least after the 1960s, he was more moderate than the KKK. If he was just lying about his newfound moderation, that doesn't affect my main point (some people who claim to be noncommunist Marxists might potentially be communists lying about their true affiliation).

Ilya Somin
Assistant Professor of Law
George Mason University School of Law
3301 Fairfax Dr.
Arlington, VA 22201
ph: 703-993-8069
fax: 703-993-8202
e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barksdale, Yvette" <7barksda at jmls.edu>
Date: Monday, March 6, 2006 9:06 pm
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Prosecutor fired for going to "white	preservationist"conference

> Ilya writes: 
> 
> "To draw parallels in the field of white supremacy, the former are
> roughly analogous to Jesse Helms (post-Civil Rights movement, when he
> rejected antiblack violence and at least theoretically accepted the
> equality of nonwhites under the law), while the latter are roughly
> analogous to the KKK."
> 
> Hi Ilya: 
> 
> You had me persuaded there until your Jesse Helms analogy. From the
> perspective of most people of color, the difference between early and
> late Jesse Helms, is the  difference between the snake you see and the
> snake you don't  see. (or put another way - overt vs. covert racism)
> 
> yb
> 
> 
> ***/////////////////////////////////////////***
> 
> Professor Yvette M. Barksdale
> The John Marshall Law School
> 315 S. Plymouth Ct. 
> Chicago, IL 60604
> (312) 427-2737 (phone)
> (312) 427-9974 (fax)
> 
> ***/////////////////////////////////////////***
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: isomin at gmu.edu [mailto:isomin at gmu.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 7:58 PM
> To: Barksdale, Yvette
> Cc: Jeff Renz; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: RE: RE: Prosecutor fired for going to "white
> preservationist"conference
> 
> As I tried to explain in an earlier post, there is a distinction 
> betweenCommunism and Marxism. The former is just one of several  
> variants of
> the latter. Communism arose in opposition to more moderate visions of
> Marxism, notably that of the German Social Democrats, who had accepted
> parliamentary democracy, endorsed freedom of speech and religion,
> rejected violent revolution, and were even willing to countenance
> limited private property rights. The Communists, led by Lenin, 
> differedwith the SPD on all these points and these differences 
> have divided
> communists from many other types of Marxists (as well as many
> non-Marxist socialists) ever since.
> 
> I think there are some government positions from which it might be
> legitimate to fire even noncommunist Marxists. However, the issues
> raised by noncommunist Marxist officeholders are very different from
> those raised by communists. To draw parallels in the field of white
> supremacy, the former are roughly analogous to Jesse Helms (post-Civil
> Rights movement, when he rejected antiblack violence and at least
> theoretically accepted the equality of nonwhites under the law), while
> the latter are roughly analogous to the KKK. 
> 
> Ilya Somin
> Assistant Professor of Law
> George Mason University School of Law
> 3301 Fairfax Dr.
> Arlington, VA 22201
> ph: 703-993-8069
> fax: 703-993-8202
> e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
> Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barksdale, Yvette" <7barksda at jmls.edu>
> Date: Monday, March 6, 2006 8:34 pm
> Subject: RE: RE: Prosecutor fired for going to "white
> preservationist"conference
> 
> > Well - perhaps this is the difference. You are defining 
> communism as
> > Leninist statist ideology, whereas I am defining it broadly as
> > Marxist-based economic  ideology. 
> > 
> > The Leninist ideology was opposed to individual rights in 
> general, 
> > whichwould include opposition to the very concept of an 
> individual 
> > right to a
> > fair trial, as opposed to  the state's unilateral right to 
> decide 
> > guiltor innocence. 
> > 
> > Yb
> > 
> > (And sorry for the cross posts - I resent my original response 
> to the
> > list. The listserv had rejected it because the string of attached
> > previous posts made the size too large.)  
> > 
> >
>