Reply to Stan

Wed Apr 10 10:17:17 MDT 2002

I state > Race is not a social construction, but rather an ideological
category of
the rising bourgeoisie.<

You state: <Race <began> as an ideological construction, and has evolved into
a real
<social construction.>

I state: >The word "racism" is a bourgeois
ideological conception used to obscure the social process in America.<

You state: <Only when it is defined by the bourgeoisie as an individual, or
pathology.  Defined as an institutional phenomenon, it has real content.>

I state: >Race theories are matters of convenience for imperialism.<

You state: <No one has argued to the contrary.>

I state: >In North America there exist national-colonial questions.
> Is Puerto Rico a national question? Of course not. What is involved is a
> national-colonial question.<

You state: <Which is precisely my implicit argument in my reference to LP's
essay <on Black Nationalism, and my explicit argument on numerous occasions
on this
<list (though I have just rejoined the list after a hiatus).>

I state:  >One may call
> this "racism" if that is ones inclination, but one is involved is military
> defeat and imperial domination.

You state: <And this domination is perpetuated through racist ideology that
supports <and reproduces the institutions of that national oppression.  The
<against this colonization is developed in a historical process, through a
<ripening process as it were, and has to include a period of direct struggle
<against the denial (by white workers) of "racism" underwriting these
<institutions, and as well the conscientization of Black workers that it is,
<indeed, a national-colonial struggle.>


Reply: You morality, intention and Marxist mantel are without question.
Without question any ideological body of "knowledge" that divides the working
class must be defeated. The strategic question is how to affect this defeat.
"A period of direct struggle against the denial (by white workers) of
"racism" underwriting these institutions," cannot be won on the basis of
fighting ideologically. The development of a class program sets the
foundation for the defeat of harmful ideology that splits the working class.

There is confusion concerning the national-colonial question in our country.
The national-colonial question as it embraces the black worker is not rooted
in "race," racial antagonism," white supremacy or white chauvinism or black
people. The national-colonial question is rooted in the military and
political defeat of human beings - the slave power, their corresponding
institutions of social wealth and social life; the enslavement of the
slaveholding South by Wall Street imperialism. The slaveholding South was
converted into a colony of Wall Street imperialism as the material result of
their defeat during the War Between the States. Color psychoses blinds the

What complicates a clear view of the historical process is the evolution of
white supremacy and white chauvinism and theories of race as ideological
forms of social evolution. The slave was declared free and freed by the
Northern Alliance and their army was an army of liberation for the
proletarian in chains. In our history, what evolved due to this fact was a
political spilt in the indigenousness working class in the slaveholding area,
with one sector seeking aid from the Northern political structures and
another sector hating the Northern political structures for the very real war
terror, although in real life we know that this split was not pure.  "Blacks"
in the South tended to call for help from the Northern Yankees, who in fact
freed them. Many of the "whites" tended to hate the North armies and
political structures that burned their land and destroyed their livelihood
and the body of politics called state rights was born from the political
contradiction. Race destroys any possibility of understanding this political
dynamic and why the slaveholding South emerged as USNA imperialism most
important colonial possession. The domination of the South is based on
military and economic factors. It is not a coincidence that large military
bases are strategically located in the South as is the most fascist
militarist lap dogs for Yankee imperialism.

"And this domination is perpetuated through racist ideology that supports and
reproduces the institutions of that national oppression," does not
acknowledge the extremely important role of national chauvinism in the
ideological sphere and falls short in describing the institutional basis that
traps the national-minority workers at the bottom of the social ladder in the
Imperial centers. Here what is being referenced is the Anglo-American
Southern workers who comes North and must of necessity occupy the bottom of
the social ladder along with the Negro Southern worker.

Several things are involved that perpetuate this status. One of the important
institutional frameworks is wedded to immigration. Workers who immigrate to
America "achieve" a social status in accordance with the economic
relationship America has with the country of their origin. The status of the
Nigerian or Jamaican is somewhat different that the status of the Southern
"black" and "white" workers. The historic policy of importing European
industrial workers impacts the institutional relationship.

The current economic relationship that America has with China, sets the basis
for the social status of the Chinese in America and the same holds true for
the Japanese in America in respects to commercial relationships.  The
ideological form of superstructure relationships is simply that - an
ideological form. What holds the black worker to the bottom of the social
ladder is a historic relationship that took shape and grew up I the old slave
holding South and not the ideological rationale. The is an interactivity
between ideology (thought) and materiality (institutional frameworks rooted
in economic relations) because thought  is material in the final instance.
What is fundamental?

White chauvinism is an important form of Great Nation Chauvinism. What ties
many of the Southern Black workers to Yankee Imperialism is national
chauvinism. What ties many of the Southern white workers to Yankee
Imperialism is national chauvinism. "God Bless America" is merely one
expression of this chauvinism and it is this Great Nation chauvinism that is
the sharpest edge in USNA imperialist assault on the world's peoples.

What these "Southern" workers have faced is colonial institutions and
colonial entrapment, not an abstract national oppression of black people. You
say, "racism" and I say, " white chauvinism" and many comrades think the same
thing is said using different words. You say "national oppression" and I say
"national-colonial oppression" and many comrades think the same thing is said
using different words. Actually, my point of reference is Marxism and the
national-colonial question as articulated by Lenin and Stalin in its
theoretical outlines. Our national revolution occurred centuries ago and
there is no such thing as a black national question, which is the
presentation of the radicals from the last period. Let there be no
misunderstanding, because many of these radicals place themselves in harms
way for justice and laid their life on the line. I do not question a comrades
fighting capacity, morality, ethics or engagement of evil. This engagement
began with the question of why class trumps everything else and why the
ideology of the identity movement is harmful.

You state that "<Race <began> as an ideological construction, and has evolved
into a rea social construction."

 This is not accurate. Race has not evolved into a social construction
because an ideological form cannot evolve into a material category as such.
As a distorted form of the underlying fundamental social relations, ideology
tends to appear to take on a life of its own in the thinking of human beings.
"A distorted form of expression of the underlying fundamental social
relations" is not the underlying social relations.

However, no ideology can forever remain in force when that which is
fundamental to its existence undergoes qualitative reconfiguration, which
compels reconfiguration of the ideological form. The material category can be
explained anyway one chooses. The ruling ideas are always that of the ruling

The material violence experienced by the toilers of the old slaveholding
areas is not an ideological category, but violence. The explanation and
ideological rationale use to organize people on the basis of a material
category are not the same. "<Race <began> as an ideological construction, and
"remains an ideological construction." The difference between lynching a
Negro (I love this word because it makes everyone clear) and lynching an
Anglo-American is no difference, except to the ideologist.

> Strategy is the identification of overarching
> objectives required to win, and it is composed of many and varied and
>often changing campaigns,
> On what basis does "overarching objectives" arise, that express the
> material interest of classes and strata?

<You've missed my point in the critique--which is that your definition and
<conceptualization of "strategy" is flawed.  That critique was not directed
<at the <basis> of one's objectives, but at the notion that a strategy--any
<strategy--necessarily becomes focused on a "main blow."  In a game of chess,
<which is based on maneuver, the objective is clear, but there are no main
<blows.  The same applies in a game of positions--Go, for example.  It also
<applies to combat... and to politics.  That's why I say the "line of march"
<analogy points directly to some of the errors committed in the past.

I believe I understood your point of view. You must explain this alleged flaw
in proletarian strategy on the basis of what was presented. "Line of march"
is an accurate description and the language of the proletarian communist. Why
is the line of march putting forth the proposition that a "class program is
in contradistinction to everything else" wrong? The answer is that,
advocating a class program in contradistinction to everything is not wrong.
Advocating a class program as the basis of the unity of communist is never

I state: >The emerging qualitative separation between the people and the
state structure is the revolutionary process containing stages and

You state: <This is an analytical, not dialectical, figure of speech.
equilibrium would be more apt.>

I don't claim to be smart or for that matter educated and have no conception
of the meaning of "Punctuated equilibrium would be more apt."

The inevitable revolutionary process, wherein the state apparatus begins the
process of turning against itself - polarization and splintering, is the ABC
of the revolutionary process and explained as it unfolds in its first stages.
The applied dialectic of the leap is spoken of in the concrete and applied
dialectics concerning the polarization of the armed bodies of men in the
state apparatus because this is a general formulation standard in Marxism.

Where does my politics violate the dialectics of the development of the class
struggle and the urgent task of consolidating a line of march that will allow
the communist to begin the fight to win over the vanguard of the proletariat?
Race theory and combating male supremacy ideology and racism and homo-being
scare of people with different sexual expressions is offered as a line of
march. Not one word about the working class as a class. Comrade, we shall
fight together to hammer out a general line of march based on a class

"The emerging qualitative separation between the people and the state
structure is the
revolutionary process containing stages and boundaries" is an exact and
precise description of the process as it exist today in every country.

I say: >The scandalous, widespread corruption, murder and brutality by the
police is widening and accelerating this process.<

You say: <The reality is that this brutality is now visited on mostly
oppressed nationalities, and most white Americans still very much admire and
respect the police.>

I disagree. Here is what was stated:

"Society being torn from its foundation - polarized, has a consequence. The
beginning of alienation between the state superstructure and the broad mass
of people indicates the beginning of a social awakening, the beginning of a
social response to the economic revolution. The economic revolution =
spontaneous development of the productive forces = a qualitative
reconfiguration of the productive process demanding a corresponding
reconfiguration of all that is dependent upon the productive forces = an
epoch of social revolution.

"So long as there is no qualitative separation between the people and the
state structure no serious revolutionary movement is possible. The emerging
qualitative separation between the people and the state structure is the
revolutionary process containing stages and boundaries. The emerging disjoint
between the people and the state structures start with a significant number
of people moving from a social stratum that is protected by the police to
social strata controlled by the police. The continuing impoverishment of a
large number of people compels the police to move from protection to control.
This in turn makes it possible for the people to change their attitude toward
and relationship to the police and state structures. The scandalous,
widespread corruption, murder and brutality by the police is widening and
accelerating this process." (end of quote).

The above statement is applicable to basically every country on earth because
it is the applied dialectic of polarization and a principle of the
revolutionary process in every country. "The beginning of alienation between
the state superstructure and the broad mass of people,"  "The emerging
qualitative separation between the people and the state structure is the
revolutionary process," "The emerging disjoint between the people and the
state structures start with," and "The continuing impoverishment of a large
number of people compels the police to move from protection to control" is
the applied dialectic of a process called the revolutionary process. Talking
about "white people" is hardly credible or a theoretical presentation. Why is
this outline of the revolutionary process wrong?

This violence is now visited mostly on the lowest and most destitute sectors
of the working class. Our passion from the period of the last reform movement
cannot be allowed to cloud our analysis and prevent us from sublating as
communist. I never forget that it was the Anglo-American people that
liberated my great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents.

I say: >This is the process wherein class emerges as a recognizable
> societal force. The forward moving section of the class is called the
> vanguard of the proletariat and requires a line of march to consolidate
>its activity and enhance its fighting capacity.

You say: <That consolidation and enhancement will be stifled by a "line of
especially if it is embarked upon prematurely.  Better to build organization
for its characteristics (speaking now about strategy), those characteristics
being the ability to observe events effectively, orient accurately (hence
the need for sound theory rooted in concrete understanding), decide quickly,
and act decisively.  The "line of march" school of strategy is a dangerous
anachronism, based on a poor understanding of strategy, that inhibits
<tactical agility.

No. You speak of tactical agility from the standpoint and as justification
for the elevation of the identity movement into a strategic projection.
Nothing you write as a reply has anything to do with classes. Class
organizations is the business of the day. That is the only line of march
available with probability of victory. The working class cannot liberate
itself on the basis of fighting to "free" its various components. This is
what you propose by fighting the conception that class trumps everything.

>>I don't know who I am debating here, so let me introduce myself.  I'm Stan.
>I am 50 years old.  I have spent virtually my whole life living in the
>American South, my family hailing from Arkansas, and now I live in North
>Carolina.  I am working on a construction job tomorrow morning, and that's
>why I have to go to bed.  My family is multi-racial, as they say, my
>children very "Afro-centric", as they say, and I spent 24 years in the
>military, even teaching Military Science once at West Point.  I've spent a
>fair amount of time in other countries, especially under-developed ones, and
>I learned Spanish as well as a spot of Haitian Creole.  I count myself a
>Leninist, and I work with both revolutionary and reformist organizations,
>the latter depending on the circumstances and the issue.  I am also a very
>strong supporter of Black Workers for Justice, and they are very clear on
>the national-colonial struggle.  My military career was a very checkered
>thing, heavy on special operations, and very few people have accused me of
>being sensitive. (-:



Your sense of justice for all is deep and profound. I do not question this on
any level. I am part of a group of communist without organizational
affiliations. Much of what is written under the name Melvin P. is an effort
among a small group of communist who has spent a considerable amount of years
learning how to say the same thing and "sound" identical.  The proletariat
has to hear the same thing the same way because we already know we are not
smart. That is why we work ourselves to death to send out kids to school.
Class trumps everything else. We have had enough of the racial crap and
"white people" this and that and "black people" this and that. Class trumps
everything else.

Who am I? A communist who refuse to repudiate the history of our working
class movement and became somewhat clear in the course of a couple of decade.
There are classes comrade.

"Rally Comrades for the last fight we face,
The International shall be the human race."

Melvin P.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list