Response to Rhode Island Socialists (majority) Opinion
This is a statement from Facts For Working People blog in response to the majority position of the comrades from the Rhode Island Socialists that FFWP published earlier. FFWP and the Rhode Island comrades are discussing the relationship between the class struggle and the fight against all special oppressions. FFWP thanks the Rhode Island Socialist comrades for having this open exchange of views.
 |
| United march of 40,000 chase racists and fascists out of Boston |
Lerone Bennet. Jr. The Shaping of Black
America p74
The whole system of separation and
subordination rested on official state terror. The exigencies of the situation
required men to kill some white people to keep them white and to kill many
blacks to keep them black. In the North
and South, men and women were maimed, tortured, and murdered in a comprehensive
campaign of mass conditioning. The severed heads of black and white rebels were
impaled on poles along the road as warnings to black people and white people,
and opponents of the status quo were starved to death in chains and roasted
slowly over open fires. Some rebels were
branded others were castrated. The exemplary cruelty, which was carried out as
a deliberate process of mass education, was an inherent part of the new system.
Thank you to
the Rhode Island (RI) Socialist Comrades for your comradely and diplomatic
response to our observations on your resignation statement. As we stated, we are in agreement with the
majority of your statement but we wish to explore further your thoughts
on fighting racism and all special oppressions. This is an
important discussion because in our opinion any working class person, any
working class activist, any socialist who does not actively fight racism and
sexism and all special oppressions, betrays the interests of the working class,
betrays the interests of all specially oppressed groups and strengthens the
rule of the capitalist class.
We agree
with the RI Comrades that after capitalism is overthrown there will
still have to be the fight against racism. Just as there will have to be the
fight against sexism, nationalism, religious sectarianism, tribalism,
individualism and all the destructive and divisive ideas which have been and
are part of the ideologies of class based societies. We are in agreement with
the Rhode Island comrades when they quote Huey Newton where he said, “you can have racism without
capitalism.” The Comrades refer in their statement to the “seizing of the means of production”. We
assume that the Comrades mean by this the ending of capitalism. The ending of
capitalism in our opinion cannot take place unless the mass of the working
class is united and on the offensive against this system, that is, unless there
is a fundamental change in mass consciousness.
The Comrades refer in their statement to white lynch mobs. Yes there will be white lynch mobs, and other race, religious and gender based lynch mobs organized by the various sectors of the ruling class to defend their interests. However, such a development would be taking place against the background of the mass of the working class being united and in a ferocious offensive struggle against capitalism. The class balance of forces would be very different, would be much more in favor of the working class. We believe it is not realistic to consider that in the wake of the struggle to seize the means of production----- to end capitalism, the emergence of white lynch mobs and other lynch mobs would arise as if nothing had changed.
The Comrades refer in their statement to white lynch mobs. Yes there will be white lynch mobs, and other race, religious and gender based lynch mobs organized by the various sectors of the ruling class to defend their interests. However, such a development would be taking place against the background of the mass of the working class being united and in a ferocious offensive struggle against capitalism. The class balance of forces would be very different, would be much more in favor of the working class. We believe it is not realistic to consider that in the wake of the struggle to seize the means of production----- to end capitalism, the emergence of white lynch mobs and other lynch mobs would arise as if nothing had changed.
An educator in a
system of oppression is either a revolutionary or an oppressor. Lerone
Bennett Jr.
The Comrades raise
some ideas, phrases and formulations on which we would like to comment.
Intersectionality is one such example. Class reductionism is another. These are
not ideas, words or formulations which arise out of the struggles of the
working class. This does not mean that they do not exist amongst any working
class people. Unfortunately they have penetrated and managed to influence and
confuse sections of the anti racist and ant sexist movements, many of whom are
working class. And many of these working class people, especially youth, use
them with the most sincere and best intentions. However the class origins
of these ideas, terms and formulations, are the liberal petit bourgeois in
academia and in particular the liberal petit bourgeois of
the specially oppressed minorities and the liberal petit bourgeois academia of
women. One of the main proponents of the term intersectionality, the person who
coined this term, is Kimberly Crenshaw, a Harvard lawyer who as far as we
understand specializes in the study of race and gender at this university.
It is important to
note, that Harvard is one of the major centers of bourgeois ideology
which sees all things within the framework of capitalism, sees
capitalism continuing indefinitely, sees capitalism as being permanent,
sees capitalism as being the only possible system. Harvard is a
capitalist think tank. Central to this way of thinking is that the working
class does not exist. In such institutions any role for the working class is
absent from all discussion and thought about society and what kind of society
there could be. Mention here or there of the word class is not the same
as seeing that the working class is potentially the most powerful force in
society and is the class which, if humanity and life on earth as we know it is
to have a future, will bring about that future. The dominant ideology that
comes out of places like Harvard breaks from the historical materialist view of
history on which we as Marxists base ourselves.
The historical materialist view understands that in this period of history the working class is the progressive class in society, the progressive force in society. The historical materialist view understands that only by the working class using its collective power and its collective brain and overthrowing capitalism and building a democratic socialist world, can capitalism be prevented from destroying life on earth as we know it. All struggles, including the struggles against racism and sexism have to be seen in this context. Such a view is totally foreign, does not exist, for the academia in places like Harvard and if such a view is raised every effort is made to suppress it.
The historical materialist view understands that in this period of history the working class is the progressive class in society, the progressive force in society. The historical materialist view understands that only by the working class using its collective power and its collective brain and overthrowing capitalism and building a democratic socialist world, can capitalism be prevented from destroying life on earth as we know it. All struggles, including the struggles against racism and sexism have to be seen in this context. Such a view is totally foreign, does not exist, for the academia in places like Harvard and if such a view is raised every effort is made to suppress it.
Neither of the terms intersectionality or class reductionism
or the approach that they reflect, come out of the struggle of the working
class, they are not used in the working class. We would ask comrades when you
raise the need to fight special oppression, to fight racism and sexism, in your
workplace, in your union rank and file, in your working class communities do
you use the terms intersectionality and class reductionism? We are confident
the Comrades do not use these terms. To do so would stop all discussion of the
issue before it ever started.
This terminology, these ideas, and approach reflect the interests of the academic petit bourgeois and especially the African American petit bourgeois in academia. The penetration of these ideas, this approach, and these terminologies, into the struggles against racism and sexism that are developing has damaged these struggles. They do so by, amongst other things, making it impossible to build a base amongst the working class. Of course racial, religious, gender, sexual orientation and disability are all aspects of special oppression in class society and must be fought. All people in society aren’t treated equally. For example a woman of color has special oppressions to deal with and we unconditionally recognize this. But we do not approach this in the same way as do the proponents of the approach who base themselves around the terms intersectionality and class reductionism. This approach does not recognize the class divide amongst people of color, amongst women, amongst minorities. And not only that, when the class divide, the separate class interests of the working class of the minorities and women are raised, the proponents of this approach do all they can to suppress this.
One of the ways they do so is by using the non-class and therefore inaccurate and confusing terms intersectionality, and the accusatory, class reductionism. It has to be recognized and pointed out that in spite of the opposition of those who hold this view to talk of class, those who use the terms intersectionality and class reductionism are in reality motivated by class interests------their own. They use the terms insectionality and class reductionism as weapons to further their own class interests. This is the contradiction, or rather the dishonesty at the heart of the contradiction. These strata use the term intersectionality and the accusation of class reductionism as weapons to keep the interests of the working class of the minorities and of working class women from being taken up. Their talk of intersectionality and so-called class reductionism are in fact ways to protect and advance their own class interests. A tangled web indeed.
This terminology, these ideas, and approach reflect the interests of the academic petit bourgeois and especially the African American petit bourgeois in academia. The penetration of these ideas, this approach, and these terminologies, into the struggles against racism and sexism that are developing has damaged these struggles. They do so by, amongst other things, making it impossible to build a base amongst the working class. Of course racial, religious, gender, sexual orientation and disability are all aspects of special oppression in class society and must be fought. All people in society aren’t treated equally. For example a woman of color has special oppressions to deal with and we unconditionally recognize this. But we do not approach this in the same way as do the proponents of the approach who base themselves around the terms intersectionality and class reductionism. This approach does not recognize the class divide amongst people of color, amongst women, amongst minorities. And not only that, when the class divide, the separate class interests of the working class of the minorities and women are raised, the proponents of this approach do all they can to suppress this.
One of the ways they do so is by using the non-class and therefore inaccurate and confusing terms intersectionality, and the accusatory, class reductionism. It has to be recognized and pointed out that in spite of the opposition of those who hold this view to talk of class, those who use the terms intersectionality and class reductionism are in reality motivated by class interests------their own. They use the terms insectionality and class reductionism as weapons to further their own class interests. This is the contradiction, or rather the dishonesty at the heart of the contradiction. These strata use the term intersectionality and the accusation of class reductionism as weapons to keep the interests of the working class of the minorities and of working class women from being taken up. Their talk of intersectionality and so-called class reductionism are in fact ways to protect and advance their own class interests. A tangled web indeed.
We accept
unconditionally that there are special oppressions. We challenge and fight
racism, sexism the oppression of all minority groups and women
wherever we meet these evils, whether amongst white workers, amongst
African American workers, amongst Latino workers, amongst Asian workers,
amongst men of all backgrounds and races where they look down on women. We do
not for a moment think it’s simply a matter of us all being workers.
In our response here to the Comrades’ document we will use the terminology with which we are accustomed in the struggle in the working class movement, the terminology which comes out of the struggle of the working class movement, and which best corresponds to reality and the interests of the working class as well as the interests of all specially oppressed minorities and women.
We are not against new terminology. The material world changes and throws up new terminology and formulations. But we are vigilant in using new terminology, vigilant to determine its class origins and in which class interests it is used. Look around in today’s world. Look at the some of new terminology that the capitalist class has created to further its class interests, to lower the consciousness of the working class. Workers are no longer called workers. They are now "team members” or “associates”. This a fine-tuning of the much longer established capitalist propaganda of calling workers middle class rather than working class. Look at the term “human resource management” that is used to hide the reality of the relationship between the bosses' and the workers, that reality being the bosses trying to get as much work as possible out of workers for as little pay as possible and without the workers being aware of this. Phrases and formulations are not devoid of class content.
In our response here to the Comrades’ document we will use the terminology with which we are accustomed in the struggle in the working class movement, the terminology which comes out of the struggle of the working class movement, and which best corresponds to reality and the interests of the working class as well as the interests of all specially oppressed minorities and women.
We are not against new terminology. The material world changes and throws up new terminology and formulations. But we are vigilant in using new terminology, vigilant to determine its class origins and in which class interests it is used. Look around in today’s world. Look at the some of new terminology that the capitalist class has created to further its class interests, to lower the consciousness of the working class. Workers are no longer called workers. They are now "team members” or “associates”. This a fine-tuning of the much longer established capitalist propaganda of calling workers middle class rather than working class. Look at the term “human resource management” that is used to hide the reality of the relationship between the bosses' and the workers, that reality being the bosses trying to get as much work as possible out of workers for as little pay as possible and without the workers being aware of this. Phrases and formulations are not devoid of class content.
Intersectionality and class reductionism are not devoid of class interests. They serve specific class interests.
In writing this
response, and in our work overall, we are attempting to try and explain our
positions to and in the working class where and when we have the resources
to participate in the struggle. We consider our explanation of our position
here not only as regards to how the RI Comrades would see it, but also how it
would be understood or not understood in the workplaces, organized and
unorganized, and in the rank and file of the union movement and in the working
class communities and amongst the working class of the specially
oppressed minorities and amongst working class women. When we speak,
when we write, we judge our views and our formulations and our terms as to
how they relate to and are understood by the working class,
by the specially oppressed sections of the working class, by the more class
conscious sections of the working class, the more thinking sections of the
working class. We are not looking over our shoulders at the liberal petit
bourgeois, at the left petit bourgeois in academia, or those whose
aspirations are to enter these class layers.
In preparing to write this response we tested our ideas amongst working class people. We asked a number of African American working class women what they thought of intersectionality and of class reductionism. Not one of them had ever heard of either of these terms. We would ask the Comrades to think about this. These terms, this way of thinking cuts anti racist activists off from the working class of the minorities and from working class women and from the working class in general. The result is that good activists who want to fight racism and sexism and try to do so using this approach and these terms cannot find an echo in the working class and tend to give up fighting racism and sexism in the working class movement, in the workplaces, in the rank and file of the unions, in the working class communities. Consequently they tend to fall further under the influence and domination of the liberal petit bourgeois of academia and draw the wrong conclusion that the working class is backward. This is a serious obstacle to the struggle against racism and sexism. We ask the RI Comrades: did you test your ideas, your approach of intersectionality, of class reductionism amongst working class people of the minorities, amongst working class women amongst, amongst the rank and file of the unions, in the workplaces, amongst the working class. If so we would be interested in the response you received.
In preparing to write this response we tested our ideas amongst working class people. We asked a number of African American working class women what they thought of intersectionality and of class reductionism. Not one of them had ever heard of either of these terms. We would ask the Comrades to think about this. These terms, this way of thinking cuts anti racist activists off from the working class of the minorities and from working class women and from the working class in general. The result is that good activists who want to fight racism and sexism and try to do so using this approach and these terms cannot find an echo in the working class and tend to give up fighting racism and sexism in the working class movement, in the workplaces, in the rank and file of the unions, in the working class communities. Consequently they tend to fall further under the influence and domination of the liberal petit bourgeois of academia and draw the wrong conclusion that the working class is backward. This is a serious obstacle to the struggle against racism and sexism. We ask the RI Comrades: did you test your ideas, your approach of intersectionality, of class reductionism amongst working class people of the minorities, amongst working class women amongst, amongst the rank and file of the unions, in the workplaces, amongst the working class. If so we would be interested in the response you received.
For the sake of this
discussion we would suggest the Comrades consider the effect if we were to coin
the terms race reductionism or gender reductionism. That is, reducing the
struggle to one of race and gender and leaving out class. This is what is done
by the people who use these terms, and approach. They seek to keep any talk of
class out of the struggle, they seek to focus only on race and gender.
Comrades can find a quote here and there where the word class appears in the
writings of the people who speak about intersectionality and class
reductionism. However the reality is that the people who organize around these
terms and this approach do not do so in a way that would end the special
oppression of racism and sexism. This is so for two reasons.
Firstly, they isolate the struggle against racism and sexism from that of the struggle of the working class as a whole. And secondly, acting in their own class interests they do not raise the need to fight to end capitalism, which as we agree, will always be a vicious racist system. The strata that use these terms, that use these formulations, use them as weapons to keep the issue of capitalism and class out of the struggles against racism and sexism. This is because their own class positions are threatened by the struggle against capitalism and the struggle for working class unity. Those who approach the fight against racism and sexism in this way hurt the struggles of working class minorities, working class women and of the working class as a whole.
Firstly, they isolate the struggle against racism and sexism from that of the struggle of the working class as a whole. And secondly, acting in their own class interests they do not raise the need to fight to end capitalism, which as we agree, will always be a vicious racist system. The strata that use these terms, that use these formulations, use them as weapons to keep the issue of capitalism and class out of the struggles against racism and sexism. This is because their own class positions are threatened by the struggle against capitalism and the struggle for working class unity. Those who approach the fight against racism and sexism in this way hurt the struggles of working class minorities, working class women and of the working class as a whole.
Take for example the
different approaches to the recent explosive rage against the predatory sexual
culture and increasing opposition to women being used as cheap labor. A central
emphasis in our work in this area is to point out the need to organize into and
build democratic fighting unions to take on these special oppressions. We have
pointed out that on average, women in union work places earn $200 a week more
in pay than women in non-union workplaces and that the gender differential in
pay is double in non-union workplaces compared to union workplaces. We also
point out where comrade Richard, one of the signatories of this statement, was
part of the leadership of his union local, the American Federation of State
Council Municipal employees local 444, and helped negotiate a contract for
the members of this local as far back as 1985 which included clauses which
provided protection for minorities and women and people of different sexual
orientation. This blue-collar local had a number of women union activists and
an openly lesbian president 35 years ago. We include the relevant clauses in
this contract as an appendage below.
Where do we see the leaders of the existing anti racist anti sexist groupings that use the terms intersectionality or class reductionism have this emphasis? They do not. Spokesperson after spokesperson who put themselves forward as leaders of these movements are all over the platforms of the women’s’ marches, are all over the TV screens but never do they raise the need to organize into unions as the way to fight their special oppression. The reason they do not is that to call on workers to organize independently in the workplace, to confront the bosses at the point of production, would be an obstacle to these leaders in their goal which is to advance in capitalist society. Their relationship with the heads of foundations, with wealthy donors, their hope of being promoted in the corporate capitalist world or bourgeois academic world would suffer if they took up the need to organize into and build democratic fighting unions.
Where do we see the leaders of the existing anti racist anti sexist groupings that use the terms intersectionality or class reductionism have this emphasis? They do not. Spokesperson after spokesperson who put themselves forward as leaders of these movements are all over the platforms of the women’s’ marches, are all over the TV screens but never do they raise the need to organize into unions as the way to fight their special oppression. The reason they do not is that to call on workers to organize independently in the workplace, to confront the bosses at the point of production, would be an obstacle to these leaders in their goal which is to advance in capitalist society. Their relationship with the heads of foundations, with wealthy donors, their hope of being promoted in the corporate capitalist world or bourgeois academic world would suffer if they took up the need to organize into and build democratic fighting unions.
So in
order to advance in the capitalist world and win acceptance from
the pro-capitalist politicians and millionaire celebrities and get
them to speak on the platforms of the rallies against racism and sexism, the
economic and class interests of the working class of the minorities, the class
interests of working class women are sacrificed. Unlike the dominant figures in
the anti racist and anti sexist struggles those of us around the FFWP
Blog have continually raised the need to organize into and build
democratic fighting unions as a central way to fight racism and sexism.
Where we are already in unions we fight to get these unions to take up these
issues. We are able to do so because we have stood against the ideas of
those who speak of intersectionality and class reductionism, ideas
that reflect the interests of the liberal petit bourgeois of the minorities and
the liberal petit bourgeois women.
Consider the
position of working class women in general, but especially women of color
and other marginalized groups with regard to unionization. Many of them are
among the lower paid and most abused sections of the working class. While
there is a lot wrong with the policies of the union leadership, the majority of
workers and even more so workers of color and women workers, understand the
advantage of getting a good union job. We presently see a growing movement
amongst women hotel workers to organize as a way to stop the sexist abuse they
suffer when they go about their cleaning work in the hotels. This is a movement
from below and is different from the effort by some union leaders to organize
more women as a way to get more dues money. In many of these top down union
bureaucracy led movements to organize workers, the union leadership make
concessions to the bosses in order to gain their acceptance of the
union, so they can get more union dues. Concessions such as no strike clauses
are made, in some cases for as long as five years. In other cases the union
leadership agrees to no wage increases or wage gains so small that they do not
make up for the union dues that the workers then have to pay. In some cases, once
an organizing drive is successful and the dues structure set, communication
with paid union officials and staffers by activists in the workplace is
extremely difficult.
Where is the need to
organize into democratic fighting unions to tackle racism and sexism in the
writings and campaigning of the leaderships of the anti racist and anti sexist
movements? It does not exist. We fight against the special oppression of
all minorities and women regardless of their class background. A minority contractor
a woman contractor, has the right not to be discriminated against in government
contracts. We defend the right of minority and bourgeois women not to
be discriminated against on the basis of their race or gender or
sexual orientation. But in doing so we refuse to leave out the
special interests of the working class of the minorities and of working class
women. We also seek to make these fights part of the fight for the
interests of the working class as a whole. We are not prepared to sacrifice the
interests of the working class of the minorities, the interests of working
class women, in order to have these struggles "led" by petit bourgeois and bourgeois types. We
believe the thinking and terminology of those who use the terms
intersectionality and class reductionism sacrifice the interests of the working
class of the minorities and women.
This is a
particularly good time to have this discussion as there has been a shift in
consciousness, an increase in struggle against racist and sexist abuse and
harassment and discrimination. Racial and sexual oppression are in the
mass consciousness and mobilizing millions. The challenge for socialists
is how to connect with these struggles.
What ideas do we put forward to the millions of people who are taking action against racism, racist state violence, sexism, cruel and racist immigration policies? What ideas do we put forward to the millions of women who are marching and the tens of millions who are being mobilized as never before? What ideas do we put forward in the struggles against racist oppression in the mass mobilizations across the country against racist cop violence, against the Trump encouraged racist marches and ideas and white racist gangs? What ideas do we put forward in the mobilizations around the Black Lives Matter Movement and the mobilizations such as at Charlottesville and the taking of the knee in the sport world and the movements around this? What ideas do we put forward in such events as the explosive movement that drove Trump out of Chicago and in doing so has kept him mainly confined to small cities or rural areas ever since? What ideas do we put forward in the movements against the attacks on undocumented and documented minorities? What ideas do we put forward in the electoral mobilization that defeated Moore in Alabama, a mobilization both against racism and sexism with African American women, mainly working class African American women, leading the charge? What ideas do we put forward in the near civil war in Standing Rock when Native Americans fought for their rights and environmental justice?
Being part of, connecting with and assisting these struggles is our task, and it is in this manner we have to judge our ideas and approach and formulations. We are sorry to be direct Comrades, but we do not think the approach of the RI Comrades, the approach and ideas and formulations expressed around the talk of insectionality and class reductionism are correct. We believe they weaken the struggle against racism and sexism.
What ideas do we put forward to the millions of people who are taking action against racism, racist state violence, sexism, cruel and racist immigration policies? What ideas do we put forward to the millions of women who are marching and the tens of millions who are being mobilized as never before? What ideas do we put forward in the struggles against racist oppression in the mass mobilizations across the country against racist cop violence, against the Trump encouraged racist marches and ideas and white racist gangs? What ideas do we put forward in the mobilizations around the Black Lives Matter Movement and the mobilizations such as at Charlottesville and the taking of the knee in the sport world and the movements around this? What ideas do we put forward in such events as the explosive movement that drove Trump out of Chicago and in doing so has kept him mainly confined to small cities or rural areas ever since? What ideas do we put forward in the movements against the attacks on undocumented and documented minorities? What ideas do we put forward in the electoral mobilization that defeated Moore in Alabama, a mobilization both against racism and sexism with African American women, mainly working class African American women, leading the charge? What ideas do we put forward in the near civil war in Standing Rock when Native Americans fought for their rights and environmental justice?
Being part of, connecting with and assisting these struggles is our task, and it is in this manner we have to judge our ideas and approach and formulations. We are sorry to be direct Comrades, but we do not think the approach of the RI Comrades, the approach and ideas and formulations expressed around the talk of insectionality and class reductionism are correct. We believe they weaken the struggle against racism and sexism.
We would like to
take up a point on which we feel the Rhode Island Comrades misunderstand our
view. We do not say that racism and sexism is rooted in capitalism as the
comrades seem to suggest. We say that racism and sexism are rooted in class
society, all forms of class society, slavery, feudalism, colonialism,
capitalism, and imperialism. When a minority rules a majority, lives off the
unpaid labor in one form or another of the majority, it has to divide that
majority in order to rule. Racism and sexism are some of the tools that are
used to this end. Racism and sexism are inseparable from class society. As well
as, and an inseparable part of the divide and rule policies of the ruling
minorities, the ruling classes, the ruling minorities in all these class
societies, have had to demonize those they exploit in order to “justify” their exploitation, they
have to make out that one race or one gender or one tribal grouping or one
nationality or one religion is inferior, cannot "rule themselves" etc.
In every class divided society this is obvious. In every colony that has been established by the colonial and imperialist powers these powers selected out one group of people, either by race or gender or religion or tribe or whatever, and based themselves on these in order to rule. This is why the comrades' emphasis on “Blackness” is mistaken. Racism, religious sectarianism, tribalism, gender, nationality, all these are used as weapons by ruling classes. Whichever suited the circumstance was used. British imperialism and the other imperialist powers did not invade Africa because the African People had black skin, they did so to loot the continent and in doing so they had to demonize the African people and also in many cases they turned one section of the black people of Africa against the other. Ireland was England's first colony. The Irish had the same skin color as their English oppressors, as the English colonialists and imperialists. The colonists and imperialists still needed to divide and rule, so there being no color difference they could exploit they used religion. They even went so far as to "plant" peasantry from Scotland and other parts of Europe who were mainly Protestant to use as a foothold and as a means of dividing the Irish peasantry and today the Irish working class along religious lines. Thus they imposed their rule.
In every class divided society this is obvious. In every colony that has been established by the colonial and imperialist powers these powers selected out one group of people, either by race or gender or religion or tribe or whatever, and based themselves on these in order to rule. This is why the comrades' emphasis on “Blackness” is mistaken. Racism, religious sectarianism, tribalism, gender, nationality, all these are used as weapons by ruling classes. Whichever suited the circumstance was used. British imperialism and the other imperialist powers did not invade Africa because the African People had black skin, they did so to loot the continent and in doing so they had to demonize the African people and also in many cases they turned one section of the black people of Africa against the other. Ireland was England's first colony. The Irish had the same skin color as their English oppressors, as the English colonialists and imperialists. The colonists and imperialists still needed to divide and rule, so there being no color difference they could exploit they used religion. They even went so far as to "plant" peasantry from Scotland and other parts of Europe who were mainly Protestant to use as a foothold and as a means of dividing the Irish peasantry and today the Irish working class along religious lines. Thus they imposed their rule.
We have absolute
agreement with the comrades when they point to the extreme exploitation of
African Americans. However the Comrades write, “the suffering of blackness is without comparison”. We do not in any
way diminish the savage treatment of the African American people but we think
it would be important for the RI Comrades to consider the genocide of the
Native American people before making this statement. With respect, we believe
that the Comrades position here reflects the pressure that emanates from the
approach of the strata that organize around the intersectionality and class
reductionism way of thinking and see oppression as a question of "blackness". We suggest
that focusing on "blackness" reflects
the pressures of the African American petit bourgeois. The black petit
bourgeois and the black bourgeois in the US do not want to take up other
causes, which might distract from their own struggle to get a bigger share of
the capitalist pie. Perhaps the pressure of these strata is why there is no
mention of the genocide of the Native American people, no mention of the
special oppression of the Latino American people, the Asian American people,
the Inuit people. The focus on “Blackness”
excludes these people. This reminds us of where sections of the black petit
bourgeois and black bourgeois attacked Martin Luther King for opposing the
Vietnam War. They did not want to take up the cause of the Vietnamese people
because they saw that to do so would undermine their own struggle to be
accepted into the higher echelons of the overwhelmingly white US
bourgeois.
It is interesting to
see which quotes of African American leaders the RI Comrades select and how the
comrades see these quotes and what phase of the political evolution
of these African American leaders is selected. Malcolm X said: "You can't have capitalism without
racism. You can't operate a capitalist system unless you are vulturistic; you
have to have someone else's blood to suck to be a capitalist". Can you
imagine the left academia, the liberal petit bourgeois and bourgeois of the
minorities, the people who organize around intersectionality and who throw out
the accusations of class reductionism saying this? Never in a million years.
They would not last long in their positions at Harvard; they would not get
promoted in the capitalist corporations with this kind of talk. Malcolm X's
statement that you cannot have capitalism without racism means that you
cannot end racism without ending capitalism. It does not mean that racism will
automatically be ended if capitalism is ended but it does say explicitly that
as long as you have capitalism you will have racism. Why is this statement by
Malcolm X so little used? Because the present leaders of the anti racist
movements support capitalism and seek a better place for themselves within
capitalism so they cannot condemn it. It is for the same reason that
these strata never quote Malcolm X when he said that African Americans needed
to "consider socialist solutions to
their problems". This would not go down well in the struggle of these
people to advance in the corporate, the capitalist world.
Martin Luther King
said in a speech in 1966: "You
can't talk about solving the economic problems of the Negro without talking
about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first
saying profit must be taken out of the slums. You're really tampering and
getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folks then. You're
messing with the captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in
difficult water because it really means that we are saying that there is something wrong with capitalism. There must
be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move towards
Democratic Socialism”.
This position of Martin Luther King is never mentioned by the African American petit bourgeois or the African American bourgeois today, whether they are in bourgeois academia, or on the corporate boards, or in Congress or in the White House. The so-called black leadership and black academia today conspire to censor these ideas of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King from public debate and from the struggles that are taking place. And they do so for their own class reasons. We note a recent paper by an African American academic about what he calls the “whitewashing” of Martin Luther King. There is not a mention of Martin Luther King’s talk of capitalism and socialism, his move to try and build a poor peoples’ movement in this paper. This academic, like the intersectionality and class reductionist folk censor these ideas, this evolution of Martin Luther King. There are different kinds of "whitewashing
This position of Martin Luther King is never mentioned by the African American petit bourgeois or the African American bourgeois today, whether they are in bourgeois academia, or on the corporate boards, or in Congress or in the White House. The so-called black leadership and black academia today conspire to censor these ideas of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King from public debate and from the struggles that are taking place. And they do so for their own class reasons. We note a recent paper by an African American academic about what he calls the “whitewashing” of Martin Luther King. There is not a mention of Martin Luther King’s talk of capitalism and socialism, his move to try and build a poor peoples’ movement in this paper. This academic, like the intersectionality and class reductionist folk censor these ideas, this evolution of Martin Luther King. There are different kinds of "whitewashing
Both Malcolm X and
Martin Luther King were not only moving towards anti capitalist and socialist
conclusions when they were assassinated. They were also moving towards building
united movements against racism and capitalism. Malcolm X, was moving
away from his segregationist position to speak of uniting all the oppressed, he
was starting to speak at meetings organized by socialist groups, he was
supporting union struggles and going on picket lines of unions such as 1199 in
New York City. Speaking at Columbia University 2-18-65 Malcolm X said:
"It is incorrect to classify the revolt of the Negro as simply a racial conflict of black against white, or as purely an American problem, we are today seeing a global rebellion of the oppressed against the oppressor, the exploited against the exploiter”. No mention of the centrality of “blackness”.
Such talk was threatening to US capitalism. Martin Luther King was assassinated when he was moving to organize all poor people together in his poor peoples’ campaign and on his poor peoples’ march on Washington and when he was marching with striking workers, janitors, members of The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees union in Memphis. US imperialism saw these leaders were becoming a real threat when they began to oppose capitalism and when they began to organize to unite all the oppressed, all working people. These leaders were head and shoulders above the leaders of the anti racist and anti sexist movements of today. The intersectional and class reductionist folks censor the reality of the evolution of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. It is the task of socialists to stand up to these people and explain the class interests that these intersectional and class reductionist strata represent and how they damage the struggles against racism and sexism and damage the interests of the working class as a whole.
"It is incorrect to classify the revolt of the Negro as simply a racial conflict of black against white, or as purely an American problem, we are today seeing a global rebellion of the oppressed against the oppressor, the exploited against the exploiter”. No mention of the centrality of “blackness”.
Such talk was threatening to US capitalism. Martin Luther King was assassinated when he was moving to organize all poor people together in his poor peoples’ campaign and on his poor peoples’ march on Washington and when he was marching with striking workers, janitors, members of The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees union in Memphis. US imperialism saw these leaders were becoming a real threat when they began to oppose capitalism and when they began to organize to unite all the oppressed, all working people. These leaders were head and shoulders above the leaders of the anti racist and anti sexist movements of today. The intersectional and class reductionist folks censor the reality of the evolution of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. It is the task of socialists to stand up to these people and explain the class interests that these intersectional and class reductionist strata represent and how they damage the struggles against racism and sexism and damage the interests of the working class as a whole.
A righteous
explosion of rage arose among African Americans in the major US cities in
the late 1960's, especially after the US capitalist class assassinated
Martin Luther King. Urban centers were set ablaze. The dominant US
bourgeois concluded they had to make changes in their form of rule.
They assassinated what were from their point of view the most dangerous African
American leaders, the ones who were talking of capitalism and socialism, the
ones who were talking of uniting all the oppressed, the one who were marching
on union picket lines, the ones they could not buy off. As they applied the
weapons or repression and assassination on the one hand they simultaneously
opened the doors to, and encouraged, the rise of an African American petit
bourgeois and bourgeois. The Black churches were drawn in as part of
this. It is the interests of these strata that are reflected in the
intersectionality and class reductionism talk of today.
The Comrades quote
the Black Panthers. But not where where the Panthers said they fought
white capitalism not with black capitalism but with socialism. Again a
statement never used by the present leaderships of the anti racist
movement. The RI Comrades quote Huey Newton as saying: "Never convinced that destroying
capitalism would automatically destroy racism, I felt however, that we
could not destroy racism without wiping out its economic foundation."
Precisely. We agree one hundred percent with this statement of Huey Newton. We
would ask the RI Comrades to contrast this to the statements of the leaders of
the anti racist movements today. There is no comparison. And again we
believe the reason for this is that these movements are dominated by middle
class types who reflect the interests of that strata, and these interests are a
bigger share of the capitalist pie for them.
We would like to try and summarize our views.
We would like to try and summarize our views.
You cannot have
capitalism without racism and sexism.
You cannot end capitalism without a united working class movement.
You cannot build a united working class movement without fighting racism and sexism.
The class struggle and the struggle against racism and sexism to be successful have to be indissolubly linked together.
You cannot end capitalism without a united working class movement.
You cannot build a united working class movement without fighting racism and sexism.
The class struggle and the struggle against racism and sexism to be successful have to be indissolubly linked together.
A concrete example
for the RI Comrades consideration. Some years ago a County board of supervisors
was outsourcing janitorial work. Private for profit contractors, including
minority contractors, lined up to compete for the public spending. Under
the usual pressure from the local union movement, the contract went to a “minority” janitorial outfit that was
union but was not owned by an African American. A non unionized African
American contractor appealed to the board saying that he could get “them” cheaper, "them" meaning "workers"
cheaper, in this case this also meant African American workers. What would
be the position of the Comrades in such a situation? How would your talk of “Blackness” allow you to intervene in
this situation?
Statistics show that being union means higher wages and better benefits. There is a higher percentage of black workers in unions than white. Most of the workers in this particular community where this contract was handed out were black. Having a union job would have meant higher living standards, better wages, and health benefits for in this case mainly black families. The black contractor had no solidarity with the mainly black workers. In fact he promised the bosses’ politicians that he could get them cheaper. His class interests were paramount. To hell with the interests of the mainly black workers he would have been hiring. He had no thought of “Blackness” in his approach. His interest was profit. How do we intervene in this with “blackness” as our guide? On the side of the black contractor or on the side of the black worker?
Statistics show that being union means higher wages and better benefits. There is a higher percentage of black workers in unions than white. Most of the workers in this particular community where this contract was handed out were black. Having a union job would have meant higher living standards, better wages, and health benefits for in this case mainly black families. The black contractor had no solidarity with the mainly black workers. In fact he promised the bosses’ politicians that he could get them cheaper. His class interests were paramount. To hell with the interests of the mainly black workers he would have been hiring. He had no thought of “Blackness” in his approach. His interest was profit. How do we intervene in this with “blackness” as our guide? On the side of the black contractor or on the side of the black worker?
The Comrades quote
George Jackson where he spoke of the “black
colony” in the US. Over the past 100 years US capitalism has spread
its productive forces to just about every corner of the US. In doing so it has
integrated the working class to an extent never before experienced. There is
not a black colony in the US. African Americans are a specially oppressed
section of the working class. We would suggest the Comrades try to intervene
amongst the black working class with this analysis that they are a black
colony.
We would like to comment on the Comrades use of the term “the symbolic economy of humanity”. However, with respect, we do not know what it means. We would also like to mention that many of the sources the Comrades use such as the Black Panthers, were weak to say the least on issues such as the special oppression of women and people with different sexual orientations. We are more than willing to learn from groups such as the Black Panthers but we must also see their weaknesses and mistakes just as we see our own weaknesses and mistakes. The Comrades also comment on what we say, that the terms intersectionality, class reductionism, the approach from which these flow, reflects the interests of the petit bourgeois liberals and left academia and protest that they, the RI Comrades, “do not belong to either of these camps”. We agree that Comrades are not part of either of these groups but this does not mean that these camps cannot influence the Comrades.
We would like to comment on the Comrades use of the term “the symbolic economy of humanity”. However, with respect, we do not know what it means. We would also like to mention that many of the sources the Comrades use such as the Black Panthers, were weak to say the least on issues such as the special oppression of women and people with different sexual orientations. We are more than willing to learn from groups such as the Black Panthers but we must also see their weaknesses and mistakes just as we see our own weaknesses and mistakes. The Comrades also comment on what we say, that the terms intersectionality, class reductionism, the approach from which these flow, reflects the interests of the petit bourgeois liberals and left academia and protest that they, the RI Comrades, “do not belong to either of these camps”. We agree that Comrades are not part of either of these groups but this does not mean that these camps cannot influence the Comrades.
On the Rhode
Island Comrades Face Book page there is a post dealing with a number of
points concerning racism. The first on the list is that no Irish were ever
slaves. The signatories of this statement have had many struggles and broken
many friendships with white Americans, mainly Irish Americans who claim that
the Irish were slaves just like African Americans were slaves and look at how
the Irish got over it so what are African Americans on about. The origins of
this argument are racist and this argument serves the US ruling class in their
special oppression of African Americans and in their dividing of the US working
class. There is no comparison with how African Americans were treated and how
the Irish were treated. African Americans worked for over three centuries
without pay. African Americans were put down by mass slaughter and lynching
when they rebelled or showed the slightest sign of discontent with their lot.
African American families were broken up and their children sold off. After the
end of slavery there was the murderous Jim Crow. African Americans were still
being lynched up to the 1960’s. This was not the experience of Irish Americans.
The experience of African Americans in the US was qualitatively different,
qualitatively more brutal than that of Irish Americans.
There is dispute over whether any Irish were ever slaves or were they all indentured servants. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of the Irish who ended up in the US and the Caribbean in the early centuries of colonization, who came or who were forced to come, did so as indentured servants. That is, they had a contract which gave a fixed time at which their being tied to the plantation owners, the colonists would end. While nothing like as brutal as the lot of African American slaves this was still a life of extreme exploitation and brutality. That this is so is seen by the many occasions when white indentured servants joined together in revolt along with African Americans held in slavery. In the plantations of the Caribbean they ran away together. This became such a regular and threatening development that the colonists passed laws to prevent inter racial relationships and carried out a ferocious campaign of terror to crush this tendency towards unity and part of this was driving into the heads of the white indentured servants that they would be killed, would be crushed if they threw in their lot with the African American slaves. To try and see everything in terms of race is incorrect. When it suited the white racist ruling classes they were on the odd occasion prepared to allow black people to own African slaves. This happened in the Caribbean, Haiti, and Jamaica and in some Southern states like Louisiana. There were also occasions when African Americans were used in the US military to suppress the Native American people. In parts of Africa tribal differences were used to divide and rule. Trying to reduce everything to one of “blackness” is a mistake.
There is dispute over whether any Irish were ever slaves or were they all indentured servants. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of the Irish who ended up in the US and the Caribbean in the early centuries of colonization, who came or who were forced to come, did so as indentured servants. That is, they had a contract which gave a fixed time at which their being tied to the plantation owners, the colonists would end. While nothing like as brutal as the lot of African American slaves this was still a life of extreme exploitation and brutality. That this is so is seen by the many occasions when white indentured servants joined together in revolt along with African Americans held in slavery. In the plantations of the Caribbean they ran away together. This became such a regular and threatening development that the colonists passed laws to prevent inter racial relationships and carried out a ferocious campaign of terror to crush this tendency towards unity and part of this was driving into the heads of the white indentured servants that they would be killed, would be crushed if they threw in their lot with the African American slaves. To try and see everything in terms of race is incorrect. When it suited the white racist ruling classes they were on the odd occasion prepared to allow black people to own African slaves. This happened in the Caribbean, Haiti, and Jamaica and in some Southern states like Louisiana. There were also occasions when African Americans were used in the US military to suppress the Native American people. In parts of Africa tribal differences were used to divide and rule. Trying to reduce everything to one of “blackness” is a mistake.
 |
| British 19th century images of Irish peasantry |
The issue of the
Irish who had the same skin color as their oppressors is a problem for the
ideas expressed by those who try to reduce the issue of racism in the US
to one of "blackness". Comrades
make use of the writings of numerous authors concerning racism. With respect we
would suggest the Comrades look at the works of Theodore Allen,
specifically his two volume set "The
Invention of the White Race". The first volume is almost exclusively
about Ireland and how British colonialism treated the Catholic population there
and shows how some of the laws that were used against Catholics there were
later used against African Americans in the US. This writer also shows how the
term "white" as a racial
definition never appeared in the colonies until after Bacon's Rebellion, a movement that ended up being a multi racial rebellion against the
plantation owning ruling class. The Many Headed Hydra is also another excellent
source which deals with this issue, shows how the struggle for dominance through
the ages by the various ruling classes consciously and deliberately created
divisions, racial, gender, national, tribal, religion etc. Lerone Bennett makes this evident here:
“….before Jim Crow,
before the invention of the Negro or the white man or the words and concepts
that describe them, the Colonial population consisted largely of a great mass
of white and black bondsmen, who occupied roughly the same economic category and
were treated with equal contempt by the lords of the plantation and
legislatures. Curiously unconcerned about their color, these people worked
together and relaxed together. They had
essentially the same interests, the same aspirations and the same grievances.
They conspired together, and waged a common struggle against their common
enemy-------the big planter apparatus and a social system that legalized terror
against black and white bondsmen………….the available evidence, slight though it
is, suggests that there were widening bonds of solidarity between the first
generation of blacks and whites. And the
same evidence indicates that it proved very difficult indeed to teach white
people to worship their skin.” Lerone
Bennett Jr. The Shaping of Black America p62
It is usually
the case that in the struggle to rise of an oppressed minority, an
oppressed race or an oppressed gender, the more privileged elements of
that race or gender or nationality try to hide the class differences that exist
among them. Just as the Irish American section of the capitalist class and
Irish American institutions try to suppress all memory of the socialists and
trade union leaders James Connolly and James Larkin both of whom were active in
the US workers movement for a time. Larkin was jailed in the US for his
union work. Connolly was murdered by British imperialism when he led the trade
union based Irish Citizens Army in the 1916 uprising in Dublin. Instead the
Irish American elites, the Catholic hierarchy, the pro capitalist Irish
American union leaders celebrate the so-called Saint Patrick by dyeing the
Chicago River green.
These elements will do anything to keep the class struggle and socialism out of Irish American culture. Irish Americans would not be too welcome in the US ruling class if they celebrated the revolutionary socialist James Connolly; the English ruling class considered them a “savage race”.
These elements will do anything to keep the class struggle and socialism out of Irish American culture. Irish Americans would not be too welcome in the US ruling class if they celebrated the revolutionary socialist James Connolly; the English ruling class considered them a “savage race”.
African Americans
would not be too welcome in the US ruling class if they pointed to the anti
capitalist evolution of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, to their evolution to
where they sought to unite all the oppressed, all the poor, if they followed
the example of these two leaders and took up the class interests of the
African American working class and the working class of all
minorities and women. This phenomenon is seen amongst all oppressed nationalities
and races and peoples. The radical history of European Jews
is not taught in Israeli schools or in the Jewish
Diaspora. Zionism and the Jewish elite and the leaders of the Jewish
religious sects suppress the history of the mass Jewish socialist party, the
Bund.
Another reason the
petit bourgeois and bourgeois strata of the minorities and of women oppose all
talk of class, and one which they share with the predominantly
white male racist ruling class, is that they either instinctively or
consciously fear the working class, especially a working class united across
race, gender and national lines. These elements are united in their
fear that the working class will put forward their own class demands
and fight for their own class interests. So class must be kept out of the
struggles. Look at where leaving the issue of class out of the struggle
against racism gets that struggle. It gets Obama, the conscious bourgeois
Harvard educated lawyer in the White House where he pursued US imperialist
policies. Where he used working class taxes to bail out Wall Street and
the capitalist corporations and capitalist system in the
crash of 2008. Where he carried on with US imperialism's wars and escalated the
drone attacks on civilians in the Middle East. Where he carried on with large-scale
expulsion of undocumented workers. Why not one of the women leaders of the
Flint workers who were poisoned by the city's water supply to run for
President? This would never be considered by the intsectionality and class
reductionist strata.
Leaving aside class
is now resulting in talk of the multi millionaire capitalist celebrity Oprah
Winfrey being a candidate for the Presidency. It gets multi millionaire
Hollywood women and men celebrities in their black dresses and tuxedos which
cost tens of thousands of dollars most likely made in sweat shops, in former
colonial countries, protesting sexual harassment when the majority of these
kept their mouths shut about the Weinsteins and the rest for decades, all to
further their own careers and class interests. And of course, they will never
mention the need for working class women of all races and gender to
organize into democratic fighting unions as this would interfere with their
incomes and with their control over what movies they produced and how much money
they would make out of these movies etc. Look at the attitude of
African American billionaire Michael Jordan. When workers from the sweatshops
in the former colonial countries toured the US to educate people about the low
wages they were paid and brutal, violent conditions they worked under in the
sweatshops in these countries making shoes bearing his name, he refused to meet
them.
Finally, we would
like to make this point. The present degree of influence of the petit bourgeois
and the bourgeois over the movements against racism and sexism would not be
possible without the role of the trade union leaders and their refusal to
lead. These people sit on top of and control an organization, the
American Federation of Labor – Congress of Industrial Organizations of fourteen
million people, men, women, people of all races, of all sexual
orientations. These fourteen million people have a much greater potential power
in society than their numbers would suggest as they are in many of the most
strategic sectors of the economy, utilities, transport, shipping, health,
major public agencies etc. These leaders should be taking the lead in
the struggle against racism and sexism. They should be mobilizing their members
in these struggles. But they do not.
Consider the women’s marches against Trump. These union leaders did not call meetings in the workplaces and union halls in advance of these marches and mobilize their members to come to these marches, to build for these marches and to participate in them with their union banners and their own class demands; equal pay for equal work, health care free for all at the point of use, workplace on site childcare, women to have control over their own bodies etc. Why did these leaders not mobilize on this basis? Because these leaders believe that the present capitalist system is the only one that is possible. In this belief they are in agreement with the leadership of the intersectionality, the class reductionist folk. Both believe that capitalism is the only system. Both believe that the working class cannot build a new society. In addition for the trade union hierarchy, any serious mobilization of their members would threaten their own privileged positions, big salaries, secure jobs, meetings with the capitalist CEO's and politicians, playing golf with the capitalist bosses and politicians, dining and socializing with them.
Consider the women’s marches against Trump. These union leaders did not call meetings in the workplaces and union halls in advance of these marches and mobilize their members to come to these marches, to build for these marches and to participate in them with their union banners and their own class demands; equal pay for equal work, health care free for all at the point of use, workplace on site childcare, women to have control over their own bodies etc. Why did these leaders not mobilize on this basis? Because these leaders believe that the present capitalist system is the only one that is possible. In this belief they are in agreement with the leadership of the intersectionality, the class reductionist folk. Both believe that capitalism is the only system. Both believe that the working class cannot build a new society. In addition for the trade union hierarchy, any serious mobilization of their members would threaten their own privileged positions, big salaries, secure jobs, meetings with the capitalist CEO's and politicians, playing golf with the capitalist bosses and politicians, dining and socializing with them.
There is also the
reality that many of these union leaderships themselves and also sections of
the members of the most skilled unions are themselves racist and sexist. All
you have to do is think back to the visit of the leaders of the construction
unions to the White House to meet the racist, sexual predator corrupt
capitalist, anti-union Trump. They were photographed sitting laughing and
sharing drinks. Imagine the effect of that on their women and minority members,
on women and all minorities and specially oppressed groups, in fact on most
workers. These leaders give no lead. They consciously prevent the organizations
they control from participating as organizations in the movements against
racism and sexism.
This is a major reason why the movements of struggle fall into the hands of the liberal petit bourgeois and bourgeois elements. The fight against racism, sexism all special oppressions must be taken up in the workplaces, in the ranks of the trade unions. An opposition to the pro capitalist privileged layer of present union leaders must be organized in the workplaces and in the rank and file of the unions. This privileged pro capitalist union bureaucracy must be removed. The various left groups that exist must get over their sectarianism, their ultra leftism, their opportunism and help build an opposition amongst the rank and files of the trade unions, in the workplaces and the working class to this end. Until such a mass opposition movement develops in the working class, and an organized opposition movement is built, the pro capitalist union leaders will continue in their role of holding down the working class and this in turn will allow the ideas of the capitalist class and the liberal petit bourgeois to have the influence they do and so cut across a successful struggle against racism, sexism and exploitation.
This is a major reason why the movements of struggle fall into the hands of the liberal petit bourgeois and bourgeois elements. The fight against racism, sexism all special oppressions must be taken up in the workplaces, in the ranks of the trade unions. An opposition to the pro capitalist privileged layer of present union leaders must be organized in the workplaces and in the rank and file of the unions. This privileged pro capitalist union bureaucracy must be removed. The various left groups that exist must get over their sectarianism, their ultra leftism, their opportunism and help build an opposition amongst the rank and files of the trade unions, in the workplaces and the working class to this end. Until such a mass opposition movement develops in the working class, and an organized opposition movement is built, the pro capitalist union leaders will continue in their role of holding down the working class and this in turn will allow the ideas of the capitalist class and the liberal petit bourgeois to have the influence they do and so cut across a successful struggle against racism, sexism and exploitation.
In closing we would
like to say this. The RI Comrades state that FFWP’s previous observations on
your resignation statement is “immersed
in a logic of class reduction”. Then the Comrades at the end of their
statement pose this question: “Is
anti-blackness the driving impetus behind class reductivism”. We choose to
consider these statements as incautious remarks. But if they are not then the
Comrades are saying that FFWP is to use your term “ant- black”. It would be good if the Comrades would clarify their
position. This is how this term is used by the petit bourgeois to suppress
any discussion of class much like the Zionists use the accusation of
anti-Semitism to suppress any discussion about their racist policies and brutal
treatment of Palestinians.
We thank the Rhode
Island Socialist Comrades for exchanging their views with us, and doing so in a
comradely non-sectarian manner. We hope we have responded in a similar manner.
We look forward to further discussion on this and other matters and to working
together in a non sectarian way in the struggle against capitalism
and all its evils; racism, sexism, oppression, exploitation, the destruction of
the environment, climate change, mass poverty, and the threat of nuclear war. We
look forward to working together for a democratic socialist world where the
collective power and the collective brain of the working class will give a
future to life on Earth.
Richard Mellor, the founder of this blog was a 30 year member of Afscme Local 444. He was a member of the local's negotiating team in 1985 that negotiated the following language:
Three clauses from the Afscme Local 444 contract of 1985. American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees.
Three clauses from the Afscme Local 444 contract of 1985. American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees.
Article 4. No Discrimination/Harassment.
4.1.1. There shall be
no discrimination of any kind by the union or the district (management) against
any employee, to the extent the applicable law prohibits such discrimination, harassment,
or disparate treatment, because of race, religion, color, creed, age, marital
status, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation,
physical or mental disability.
4.2. Harassment,
Disparate Treatment and Inappropriate Behavior
4.2.1 In addition to
behavior violative of Section 4.1.1 above the following behavior will not be
permitted, tolerated or condoned:
Abusive, threatening
or intimidating behavior, gestures or language.
Some related material
Jeffrey
B Perry The Developing Conjuncture PDF
Video:
Invention of the White Race Jeffrey B Perry
Marxism and the Oppression of Women Recommended by Sara Mayo
Caliban and the Witch. Recommended by Felicity Dowling
Marxism and the Oppression of Women Recommended by Sara Mayo
Caliban and the Witch. Recommended by Felicity Dowling
No comments:
Post a Comment