FW: Mormon Racism/Genocide/Colonial Question part 2

MARIPOWER716 at aol.com MARIPOWER716 at aol.com
Sun Apr 7 11:33:43 MDT 2002


Part 2 of Reply

>Again, historical specificity.  This is too complicated to go into here, but
>I would strongly recommend Louis Proyect's excellent essay on "Black
>Nationalism."  Black workers, even Black Marxists, make strategic alliances
>with members of the Black bourgeoisie, while continuing to struggle with
>that same stratum when they are acting as colonial surrogates.

This specific question has been observed over a long period of time by
generations of Marxist/communist and contains junctures (boundaries) that
establish the theater of operation. The evolution of the struggle between the
various "wings" and or sectors of capital and the intersection with the
working class movement is a manifestation of the historic rise of capitalist
production relations. In its 700 or so years of existence, the emergent
capitalist mode of production has experienced profound quantitative and
qualitative enhancements. At one period of time the domination of industrial
and then financial industrial capital manifest itself in a certain identity
of interest (intersection) between its corresponding sector in the working
class.

Today the increasing domination of the world total social capital by the
speculative sector of capital has no basis for intersection with any sector
of the working class. This is explained as the dialectic of polarization. The
direct polar opposite of industrial capital was the industrial proletariat
and the Marxist of that specific timeframe hammered out a line of march to
correspond to that stage of the configuration of capitalist production
relations. Speculative capital is capital that is increasingly divorced from
engagement in the production of commodities and its direct polar opposite is
a sector of the working class increasingly divorced from engagement in the
production, and/or unable to sell its labor power for enough means to stay
above the margin. Intersection is an analysis of capital at various stages of
its growth and development as opposed to a harmonious theory of strategic
alliances.  I know of no other approach to clarify the African American
National Colonial Question except within the context of the question of
capital and labor and the historic emergence of Yankee imperialism.

Colonial means imperial capital domination of "other" nations and peoples
since the time of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Comrade Stalin of course made
outstanding contributions to the national-colonial question no matter what
tactical errors were committed. This specific question has been observed over
a long period of time by generations of Marxist/communist.

"Black workers, even Black Marxists, make strategic alliances with members of
the Black bourgeoisie, while continuing to struggle with that same stratum
when they are acting as colonial surrogates," sums up the divergence between
the radical ideologist and the Marxist.

If you had stated that "workers, even Marxists, have made strategic alliances
and errors with members of the bourgeoisie, based on intersection of interest
- given a certain historical configuration and composition of capital, while
continuing to struggle against all forms of capital," you would have avoided
ideological formulations, but still been inaccurate. Color ideology obscures
the elementary and the breach in the Marxist movement in America was a part
of the environment in which several generations of Marxist matured, detached
from the working class movement and devoid of the Marxist presentation of
this important question.

Beneath the surface of the above ideological pronouncement is nothing more
than bourgeois politics of race.  "Black workers, even Black Marxists, make
strategic alliances with members of the Black bourgeoisie, while continuing
to struggle with that same stratum when they are acting as colonial
surrogates," is simply another way of saying that on continental America
there exist a "white nation" and a "black nation" and that "Black workers . .
. make strategic alliances with members of the Black bourgeoisie."  This is
buttressed by the statement, "Race is a social construction, but social
constructions are themselves real. And there is most definitely oppression
based on race." The folly of racial theory has no bounds.

The Marxist position on the "Negro National Colonial Question" and the
national colonial question in general has historically been rejected by the
radical intelligencia and a sector of the imperial peoples in all countries
on earth, who in passionate indignation cannot even form their lips to say
the word "colonial question" in the same sentence as African American or the
so-called Negro in America, or the workers who their imperialist have beaten
down and murdered in abundance. The African American National Colonial
Question is not an exception in history but contains specific features that
establish its uniformity with all national colonial questions. Talk about
"black workers" outside of the national colonial question is a waste of time.
All racial theory is foolishness.

The minimum entry point for the presentation of Marxism and the National
Colonial Question - note the word colonial, is the October Revolution, which
changed the economic and political theater - boundary, for the resolution of
this question and outlined the quantitative task of communist in relationship
to this question.

The October Revolution put an end to the old bourgeois movement for national
emancipation, inaugurated the era of a new socialist movement of the workers
and peasants of the oppressed nationalities, directed against all oppression,
which also means national oppression-colonial oppression, against the rule of
the bourgeoisie, their "own" and foreign, and against imperialism in general.
History has repeatedly confirmed that the emancipation of the toiling masses
of the oppressed and non-sovereign peoples (this is not a category of - what
is the politically correct word? Gays or homosexual), was and is
inconceivable without a break with imperialism, without the overthrow by each
of its "own" national bourgeoisie and the assumption of power by the toiling
masses themselves.

Therefore any discussion of the African American National Colonial Question
begins by dividing history into two parts, if one is suggesting Marxism as
applied to the national-colonial question. The period prior to the October
Revolution is called the African American of Negro Bourgeois Democratic
National Movement and the post 1917 period is called the African American or
Negro National Liberation Movement.

The nature of the Negro Peoples struggle changed rapidly in the context of a
course of development of the quantitative expansion of a qualitative
configuration called capitalist commodity production. Prior to the defeat of
the slave power is one phase, the overthrow of the slave oligarchy is another
and reconstruction is another phase. From a distorted proletariat in chains
(the distortion was a capitalist type slavery) to peonage. The nature of the
struggle of the Negro people changed rapidly during Reconstruction, and the
counter-revolution accelerated this change. What began, as the struggle of a
landless peasant-like mass involving all members of southern society, with a
minute urban proletariat rapidly became a struggle of an oppressed nation
with all classes developing rapidly under the pressure of fascistic
imperialism.

The problem that Marxist suffer from historically takes the ideological form
of color psychosis which prevents them from acknowledging that the old salve
holding areas of the South served as the center of gravity holding the south
together as a region and that the North's original manufacturing capability
arose as an adjunct to commodity production in the South. That is the South
entered national development before the North, but color prevented the
revolutionaries from understanding that this separate development is why the
South emerged as an economic, social, military and political entity.

Indeed the color psychosis is so powerful that the words "separate
development" is understood by most to mean "black" people and "white" people
and not the production of a product by slaves that entered the world market
and underwent conversion into capital and served as the economic basis for a
distinct "southern development."  This distinct "southern development" was
economic, social, cultural, and political and has a world recognized ascetic,
which is why the South is "southern." In our culture the distinct national
development of the old cotton production areas of the country is identified
by a geographic term - southern, until you go south. North is called by many
of all colors "Yankee."

The old historic center of the slave oligarchy riveted the South to a
distinct line of national development on the one hand and distinct economic
and political needs on the other, which is what the Civil War was all about,
or rather the War Between the States - northern states versus southern states
and the border regions of the national colonial question.  Why on earth would
millions of free citizens allow themselves to be forever dominated by 300,000
slaveholders, after their manufacturing capacity outran the capacity of the
South to supply it with raw materials? That is, free men and women in the
North underwent economic development (revolution) that made a clash with the
slave oligarchy a historical consequence. From the struggle to preserve the
Union on the basis of two different social - not necessarily economic
formations, arose the cause of ending human slavery.

The historic result of the defeat of the slave oligarchy was the emergence of
US (Yankee) imperialism and its first significant victim was the enslavement
of the old slaveholding south to emerging Wall Street. What we are dealing
with here is a national-colonial question - the absolute Achilles heel of the
USNA multi-national state and world capitalism. Wall Street imperialism
dominated the South and the Southern politicians - the remnants of the slave
oligarchy, dominated government on behalf of Wall Street and the deal was
struck. The counter-revolution was unleashed and appeared to many as the
slaughter of a people instead of a class of producers. The economic incentive
for enslaving the entire southern workforce, with the former slaves on the
absolute bottom was completing the historical process of mobilizing the land
or rather the product of the land. The Southern "white" is always reduced to
simply a brutish executioner of the ex-slave and their enslavement to Wall
Street is missed and dismissed as irrelevant. Abstract the color factor from
the minds eye and is it not obvious that the South lay prostate and was the
first victim and source of emergence for Wall Street Imperialism - its
Achilles heel?

Under these conditions of the emergence of Wall Street Imperialism the
bourgeoisie in the old slave-holding south split in two and became the world
prototype for all national colonial class configurations. This included the
"Negro" bourgeoisie and not simply the Anglo-American merchant-like
ex-slaveholding capitalist because there is no such thing as "color
development" or race or racial development or nations based on color. The
process was accelerated for the African American people because their
fundamentality had been that of a proletariat in chains, trapped in a
laboring process wherein the commodity they produced - cotton, entered the
world market underwent conversion into capital, drove and accelerated the
world emergence of the capitalist mode of production on the basis of the new
industrial infrastructure. Marx and Engels wrote extensively on this emerging
process.

African American and Anglo American workers in the South and those who migra
te "up North" have in the main remained at the bottom of the industrial
infrastructure through all its quantitative stages of growth based on the
fundamentality of imperial colonization of the South by Wall Street and the
logic of mobilizing the land after the defeat of the slave oligarchy. What we
are dealing with is an authentic colonial question and not race. The workers
from every colonial areas of the world fill the bottom of the industrial
infrastructure when they migrant to the imperial center of their colonizer as
a historical configuration.

This is what is being stated. When the Korean worker migrates to Japan he and
she fills the bottom of the industrial infrastructure and are called national
minorities, not yellow workers. When the Algerian worker migrates to France
he and she fills the bottom of the industrial infrastructure and is called
national minorities, not brown workers. When the Polish worker migrates to
Germany he and she fills the bottom of the industrial infrastructure and is
called national minorities, not white workers. When the southern workers
migrate to the North he and she fills the bottom of the industrial
infrastructure and is called national minorities by Marxist, but given the
color factor in American history are called "country."  The dialectic of the
process is profound but simple. In the imperialist metropolis the national
minority workers face police violence, which serves as a "stop measure" to
the influx of the "colonial hoards" escaping poverty and fascist rule in
their homeland. This applies to every center of imperial rule without
exception. The politics of multi-national state rule must be understood.

A form of fascist state authority has historically existed in the old slave
producing centers of the South - the rule of the most reactionary sector of
finance capital. The next major change in the conditions of the South would
not take place until the mechanization of agriculture and this included by
definition the workers mobilizing the produce of the land, no matter what
their color. I am getting to far ahead of myself.

At the military defeat of the South and its enslavement by Wall Street
Imperialism, Booker T. Washington's famous Atlanta speech signaled the fully
matured split in the Negro Bourgeois Democratic National Movement. Booker T.
Washington's role was basically an extension of the "head Negro" in charge
but more insidious. A word from Washington was enough to financially and
politically destroy almost anyone who dared oppose him. Washington's
statement "the wisest among my race understand that the agitation of
questions of social equality is the extremist folly" was the battle cry to
the other wing of a historically evolved social capital with deep roots in
southern development. Led by J.M. Trotter and Dr. Dubois, a militant effort
emerged to resist and fight Washington's line of march.

Here the word Negro is used because what was signaled involved the old
slaveholding South as a historically evolved social and economic formation.
Using the word African American confuses matters because we are speaking of
social capital first and its personification second. Using the words Southern
Bourgeois Democratic National Movement also confused matters because the
South as such is a region of America, with historically evolved areas -
border regions, that gravitated towards the economics of the slave power and
some to the economics of Northern manufacturing. Further, revolutionaries
suffer from color ideology and cannot see the obvious historic fusion between
a Tennessee Williams and the descendant of the slave.

During this period of history (Booker T. Washington's ascendancy) throughout
the entire world the workers and peasants in the colonial areas were driven
and to a large degree led by their bourgeoisie as part of the world Bourgeois
democratic revolutions and national movements. The ideology of race regulates
the Mexican, African American or rather Negro and Native Bands of peoples
struggle to a 100% imperialist conception of the class struggle - not simply
"racist." The regulation of the colonial question to race is pure great
nation chauvinism and the obliteration of class and imperial exploitation.
Given the "color factor" in our history a fusion of white chauvinism and
great nation chauvinism obscures an understanding of the proletariat of the
South as a region and the historic center of the slave power.

The old centers of the slaveholding South, is to the North or rather the
centers of the emergence of Yankee imperialism, what Ireland is to England,
which is obvious to any Marxist worth their salt. What of the southern
Anglo-American workers who generally exist outside all the shallow concepts
of the identity movement ideologist Damn Yankees? Let us return to Mr.
Washington, whose color obscures the obvious.

Washington's earlier words are related to the articulation of a sector of
capital dependent upon the economics and politics of segregation and imperial
subjugation by Wall Street. Dubois and Trotter were not militants in the
abstract but represented a sector of capital seeking to escape the strangle
hold of Wall Street imperialism's fascist dogs. To the question "who let the
dogs out" the answer is imperialism.

Dr. Dubois, an intellectual giant by any standards articulated the program of
the talented tenth - ten percent of the Negro peoples as inherent leaders,
and in varying forms the petty bourgeois leaders maintain this policy to this
very day in their refusal to elevate class or in the context of this article,
to advance along a line of march to insure that class trump everything else.
Not the abandonment of the fight for full justice but an understanding of the
line of march based purely on class configurations that ensures Justice for
all.

A moment of departure is necessary to put forth the historic Marxist
conclusions concerning the state structure of the nation riveting the South
as a region into a more than less historically homogenous area. Theories of
race are useless. The color psychosis blinds the revolutionaries and compels
them to advance along a line of march that merges with and will ensure the
victory of fascism. The key to grasping the question in its totality in the
ideological sphere, resides in defeating the conception of the "philosophic
other," not the color (race) question.

The "philosophic other" in this instance is not the black workers. Repeat:
the "philosophic other" in this instance is not the black workers, but the
southern Anglo-American workers who generally exist outside all the shallow
concepts of the identity movement ideologist and is historically portrayed as
a backwards ignorant brute. Why is this? What accounts for this
"brutishness?"  Marxist can never avoid the difficult questions and seek to
conquer our history not matter how emotionally discomforting and painful.
This question of the Anglo-American southern worker in the historical center
of the old slave power is one of the keys to the social transformation of
America and must be confronted as Marxist and not sentiment radicals in need
of sensitivity sessions.

Anyone familiar with the advance and victory of German fascism can see
parallels with the South as a region and the centers of the old slave power.
What is not understood and obscured from view by theories of race and the
color psychosis is the fact that German fascism was modeled in all its
essential features - including its ideological form, based on the state
structure of the South. This is not a metaphor. Hitler or rather fascism in
power faithfully copied the "black codes" of the South. As a theoretical
question the issue is rather simply. Perhaps two months ago a comrade wrote
that fascism is imperialism turned inwards -  using George Seldes famous
quote. This is correct.

To understand the rise of fascism as the historical form of state rule in the
South and the emergence of the southern Anglo-American worker as the
"executioners archetype" one must take into account that even during the
period of radical Reconstruction, segregation remained a way of life that had
evolved on the basis of a highly militarized state structure under slavery.
Confusion about the role of Anglo-American leaders is common and what is
understood as a "historical racial antagonism"  - an impossible concept for
any Marxist, is the structure of state rule as it evolved on the basis of a
commodity producing society revolving on the basis of a proletariat in
chains. The absolute crystallization of fascist state rule as the state form
of rule took place as the result of the overthrow of the Reconstruction
government. On this question our beloved Dr. Dubois - an intellectual giant
by any standard, does us a disservice by calling his book "Black
Reconstruction," which perhaps expressed the ideological boundary of his day.


Reconstruction was not black but an economic and social revolutionary process
aimed at radical land distribution and political freedom. At no time could
the violent state authority totally separate the Anglo-American toilers from
their Negro brothers and violence was melted out to all. The violence took on
the aspect of the slaughter of a people because of their class position in a
system of production. Racial theory will led to a line of march wherein the
fascist offensive, historically based in the South and to this very day
stabilized by the politician representative from the South, cannot be blunted
and shattered. The following Marxist description of state rule in the old
centers of the slaveholding south is submitted for your examination and
inspection.

A political force, constructed and funded by finance capital, which overthrow
a legal bourgeois democratic government and substitutes as a state form the
open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic
elements of finance capital is the historic definition of fascism. Herein lie
the deep brooding character of Southern literature and the horrible conflict
of love and hate that has elevated the Southern writer to world fame. Herein
lies the material basis - driven by economic factors, which hurled the
Southern Anglo-American worker/citizen on the world state as the archetype of
murder, violence and abuse. Curiously, no one mistakes Hitler's S.S. troops
and the brown shirts for the German workers class. Just as German workers
were slaughtered and jailed for non-conformity with the ideology and dictates
of the fascist state structure, so was the population of the South.

In ending this departure to point out the proto-type of every fascist
movement on earth, birthed with the rise of modern financial imperial capital
and its first victim in the modern era, allow me to ask the following
question: when ones speaks of the "black workers" who are you referring to?
Racial theory and color ideology is very dangerous because it repudiates the
standpoint of Marx and Lenin on the proletarian revolution ad the
national-colonial question. Anyone who has crossed the Mason Dixon line
cannot but see and feel that one has entered another country, or rather
nation. It is not my intention to let out all the air in ones balloon, but
the workers of the South - Anglo and Negro, have more in common with one
another, than the black worker of the North and the black worker of the
South.

Melvin P.

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list