FW: Mormon Racism/Genocide
MARIPOWER716 at aol.com
MARIPOWER716 at aol.com
Thu Apr 4 05:03:19 MST 2002
[ converted from html, quoted text snipped. ]
There is much confusion amongst communist. There is no such thing as races
among humanity, consequently talk about oppression based on race is nonsense.
This is not an academic discussion for communist but a question of strategy -
meaning a strategic view of capital and the fundamentality of property
relations on the one hand and a "determination of where to throw the main
blow" or in military terms, determining the line of march. This is what the
word strategy means. The concept of race is the antithesis of the "national
question," which according to Lenin is the national-colonial question.
Lenin's "Right of Nations to Self Determination," "Imperialism," "Imperialism
and the Spilt In Socialism," makes it fairly obvious that the question of
non-sovereign peoples is inexplicably fused with their economic exploitation
by capital. One of the reasons Lenin became an "ism" or Leninism is precisely
its description of the national question as a national-colonial question. You
The Leninist conception of the national-colonial question means that the word
oppression has a meaning that doesn't reduce itself to discrimination. The
various Native bands of peoples do not face discrimination as the primary
character of their historic plight, but destruction as a people at the hands
of capital. Specifically, the process of the primitive accumulation of
capital - which always involve the historical process of removing human
beings from the land and separating producers from their means of production
as the basis for capital consolidation and formation, can hardly be called
discrimination. The process is called annihilation. This is the genesis of
their plight in our country. Therefore, oppression is a body of politics that
consolidates the economic interest of a class or various classes. Economic
exploitation and political oppression is intimately connected.
One cannot help but notice that you forget that the working class is at
loggerhead with itself and not simply the various groups and sectors of
society that in the main constitute the totality of the working class or more
accurately the laboring classes. Lumping the question of homosexuality (gays)
together with the national-colonial question, as if they are basically the
same is revealing. The word "sexism" is understood to basically mean sexual
freedom for homosexuals as opposed to say the historical evolution of the
woman question. That is to say I am trying to understand your meaning and not
clear as to if you mean "reproduction rights" for instance. Sexism and the
woman question are not identical in scope.
The last fifty years of struggle by and on behalf of the African American
people, as a people is revealing. Integration has created a situation where a
black hand now sits besides a white hand in the criminal bombing of innocent
people. The struggle of the African American people as a people always
expressed profound class contradictions and is historically and currently
against violence and economic deprivation. Within this struggle the working
class segment of the African American peoples have always had a specific
economic agenda different from "Negro capital" and the various bourgeois and
petty bourgeois leaders. You must study the history of groups like the Urban
League and why they were funded by the bourgeoisie. Class is paramount.
What is the class content of the struggle for sexual freedom? There doesn't
exist a nation of homosexuals nor are homosexuals a "national group" or
advanced national group, which in our current body politic is called a
"band." Sexual freedom is important and no one should face violence or
discrimination in society, but to elevate every social issue to the same
plane is to lose perspective on the very real configuration of the working
The question of violence in society can be posed anyway one chooses. To fight
along a trajectory that equates the question of sexual freedom as basically
the same thing as the destruction of the Native bands of people is horrible
and inexcusable. The question of the economic exploitation, isolation, and
political oppression of the Native bands involves the formation of capital on
a planet wide basis and cannot be resolved within the framework of capitalist
property relations. This is not true with the issue of sexual freedom for
homosexuals. This would seem fairly obvious but apparently the ideology of
the identity movements obscure the elementary.
Proletarian males not only beat their wives (your words) but everyone else
and this can be proven. To pose the question as proletarian males (your
words) beating wives is a view of "totality" from the standpoint of the
identity movements. What a horrible stereotype. The question is an issue of
violence against women and everyone else in society. The various
organizations that fight on behalf of questions called "women issues" are
important but if ones work is to organize a new union, one would not approach
the questions from the identity of women as women but standpoint of the
economic interest of workers. If a female communist was involved in say one
of the organizations dealing with reproduction rights, her task is that of
all communist, to right for the political development of the working class.
Heck, one joins various organizations because that is the field of struggle
they wish to engage, but as communist we bring something different to the
table. Class is paramount or more fundamental.
Everyone is familiar with the case of Rodney Kings violent beating by the
police. The issue concerning King is a question of police violence and cannot
be reduced to a question of white males beating up a black male. The identity
movement ideology says the issue is a question of white males beating the
crap out of a black male and this makes the fight for the unity of the
working class - it's forward moving sections, impossible. Class is more
fundamental. The word fundamental means in the totality of a process
"something" serves as the axis in which other things revolve around.
The idea of "supporting members of oppressed groups in their struggle against
oppression" (your words) will run you smack dab into the bourgeoisie and fuse
you to capital. Not only fusion with capital but this is a very chauvinistic
ideology you put forward. Comrade, this proposition is imperialist ideology
hiding behind identity ideology and prevents the unity of the working class.
Exactly how does one support the "Negro People" - as if they were not
fundamentally proletarian, outside of class under present conditions? How
does one support the Mexican nationals, Native Bands and "Chicano" for
instance under our current conditions? Nationality has not disappeared but
been sublated as the question of proletarian revolution or rather social
revolution. Gays as such are not an oppressed group in society. One can face
discrimination and not be an oppressed group. Ours is concepts from the
general treasure house of Marxism.
The Palestinian Question and the issue of a non-secular state contains class
as a fundamental center of gravity. The "national question" as such stopped
its existence as such almost a century ago and is a colonial question. What
is involved is exploitation by capital and consequently requires the
overthrow of capitalist property relations under our current conditions. To
confuse this with the issue of sexual freedom is monstrous. Every issue does
not exist on the same plane in life.
The fact of the matter is that the concept of the "Negro People" as an
oppressed group needing support is dangerous. We exist at another juncture in
history. What you are basically stating is that the strategy is one of
forming an alliance. The word alliance implies the unity between different
sociological formations or classes. In other words their can be no talk of
the working class forming an alliance with itself by Marxist, because this
makes no sense.
The fight is for the material unity of the forward moving section of the
working class based on is material survival. Therefore your concept is that
of the African Americans not being proletarian but an oppressed mass. Class
is paramount. The fight within the "Negro Peoples National Movement" has been
intense for the past century and involves which class shall lead the social
movement. This is elementary. You proceed from an ideological formulation and
not the material relations of classes and end up trapped in a corner. For
communist class is always more fundamental or why be a communist?
"The Cuban, Soviet, Nicaraguan, etc., experiences
show that elimination of sexism, racism, national oppression, etc., remain
central strategic goals even after workers take power."
"Central strategic goals" = the determination of the line of march to ensure
the success of the revolution. It seems to me that the defense of the
revolution and the military fights against the inevitable imperialist
invasion is and was the central strategic goal in which everything else was
subordinated. Subordinated means subordinated. What you advocate is the
defeat of the social revolution by raising "subordinated" issues to the
primary field of conflict. This is what you state with militant conviction.
Then of course there is the question of reorganizing the economy or in the
case of the Soviets getting industry back on its feet. Comrade, your ideology
is showing and defies common sense. What you call "central strategic goals"
(your words) is simply not true and if implemented would make the victory of
fascism inevitable. Every issue does not exist on the same plane of
importance although all issues are important.
"Class TRUMPS sex EVERY time" and everything else because the proletarian in
power is the class that fights to resolve the social issues will suppressing
the power of capital and defending the revolution against reaction. The
proletariat cannot be united on the basis of identity, which is why the
slogan of the Russian Communist was for Land, Bread and Peace. These are
To make our slogan "supporting oppressed groups," "sexual freedom" or "fight
against sexism" because proletarians beat their wives is fairly childish and
a lack of communist perspective. As such it is a projection that if carried
out prevents the unity of the forward moving section of the working class
that is in motion. This is a very reactionary and dangerous ideology you put
So there is no misunderstanding allow me to state that sexual freedom, as I
understand the comrades meaning applies to members of the same gender as
opposed to the woman question, and is basic and further, no human being
should face violence. Who marries whom is none of my business and neither
that of the state authority.
Here is an example of the danger inherent in identity ideology. In the past I
did not advocate "company benefits" for gays because it was not raised as a
class question. I did not advocate for this issue and did not oppose it
either because it was a trap. The workers who elected me told me I should
have opposed the issue because the question was "company benefits" for all
couples. I explained that our proposals for the thousands of people affected
was defeated by a reactionary section of the union and company and this was
in fact true. We cannot "forget" the thousands of men and women living
together with children who cannot receive the same "company benefits" in
Michigan and other states because the state does not recognize their union.
The gay issue was won at the expense of the working class because the issue
was posed incorrectly and not understood by the advocates. The advocates were
frank and basically stated we are not taking about men and women but us. I
probably could get the exact data pinpointing what section of the company -
not necessarily the union members, now receive the company benefits. The
workers learnt a profound lesson and this had nothing to do with their
feelings about sexual freedom.
Proceeding from identity instead of class is a dangerous ideology and if
played out merges with reaction. This is becoming more obvious as the social
struggle heats up.
"Class TRUMPS sex EVERY time," which should be obvious because the majority
of the working class is probably women. The pay scale for women is not a
"gender question" but a class question involving a brutal fight the workers
must wage against capital. We must develop a higher concept of Justice for
all workers and everyone else or we cannot unite the working class in defense
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism