Request for Marxist definitions of race starting to sound like a joke

Tue Apr 30 08:12:11 MDT 2002

>Great. What is the Marxist definition of race? And is this a national
>colonial question?

>You pretend. Answer the question: what is race?


>Melvin P.


<CB: Hello. Anybody home ?

<Your response doesn't seem serious, comrade. If you want to do comedy, I can

be really funny.

<Here's one for you. You know why Halle Berry won the Oscar ? She has the
same name as Hallewood.

Melvin P:
I am truly sorry that you refuse to answer the question that you raised.


Charles: You need not be sorry, because I have answered these questions
several times. I did not raise the question "what is a Marxist definition of
"race" ? You did. And I answered. The reason I say this is starting to sound
like a joke is that I have answered the question , and you keep asking the
same question.

You should in response to my answer say something like, "that doesn't answer
the question ", " or it is a wrong answer because...", not keep asking the
same question , because I am not going to keep answering it. It becomes like
someone putting me on (a joke).


raised the question of race not I. You state there is a Marxist conception of

race. I ask that you state what it is and you say this is a joke


CB: No, I answered the question, and then you repeated the question.


. Fine. I am
cracking my side. We can discontinue this part of the dialogue without being

I must note that in Detroit in the last period of our history some of us
Marxist delivered the most catastrophe defeat to the black petty bourgeois
intellectual in American history and created the condition for the
destruction of the concept of the "Talented Tenth."  This concept grew out of

the historic split in the African American Freedom Movement and was
personified in Washington and Dubois and goes back to 1895.


CB: Perhaps, but the working class aims to draw the petit bourgeoisie to its
side in its battle with the big bourgeosie, this is especially true of
progressive petit bourgeois intellectuals, and particularly the petit
bourgeoisie of racially and nationally oppressed groups, such as Black people

What are the particulars of the alleged catastrophic defeat ? What is the
content of your analysis of Washington and Dubois ?


You of course know there is no possibility of the black petty bourgeois
intellectual dominating any aspect of the social movement of the workers in
our city. This has nothing to do with color but rather class. The proletariat

is not going to play any color and race games. The white chauvinist will
continue to be crushed and fought to the death.


>CB:  On the issue at hand, you know well there are many, many Black
proletarian Marxists in our City >and throughout the world who hold the
position that there is such a thing as race in Marxist conceptions. >That is
there are Black and white Marxist workers who disagree with what you say on
this.  To suggest >that the idea that there is such a real , social fact of
race and racism is confined to petit bourgeois >Intellectuals is a
misrepresentation of the thinking of class conscious workers, in Detroit and


You will never define race and I will not compromise on the national colonial
question or represent the voice of any sector of capital.

Ideology is never confined to the primary proponents. The class basis of the
primary proponents is the meaning of the words "petite bourgeois
intellectuals." I surrender this issue of race to you and the Marxist of race
and you may have it. It is no big thing and part of a struggle that strained
the CPUSA during its entire existence. You and I surely cannot resolve a
historical question "outside its history."

The national-colonial question as applied to those peoples who evolved within
the framework of the slave holding south as slaves is a question that has
been observed over a long period of time by generations of Marxist. The
framing of the question as a national colonial question was the direct result
of the victory of the October Revolution and the evolution of the Third
Communist International. Specifically, the October 26, 1928, and October,
1930 documents were mentioned as the theoretical basis for the division
within the Marxist movement of those who support a concept of race versus
those who hold a concept of a national-colonial question. It is because of my
awareness of this historic division that the fundamental features of the
national colonial question were written in a series of articles. You
nevertheless raise an important question misunderstood by most of the
"Marxist of race."

"What is the content of your analysis of Washington and Dubois?"

I apparently was not clear, although I made an earnest attempt to place
Booker T Washington as a personality into the framework of class relations as
they evolved in the old slave holding South and the immediate adjacent areas.
The Marxist of race do not and cannot understand the various class factors
existing and operating amongst the historically evolved people of capitalist
slavery - specifically the salve and their descendant.

Although it is clear as a sunny noon day "the (class) content of . . .
analysis of Washington" it shall be repeated. My article reference was his
famous or rather infamous 1895 Atlanta speech, which is linked in history
with the defeat of Reconstruction. I already quoted rather clearly
Washington's infamous words. It was stated point blank that in history Booker
T. Washington became the personification of what is called the comprador
bourgeoisie - a fascist. His direct tie to Wall Street Imperialism is
historically documented and beyond dispute. The problem with the Marxist of
race is their contempt for class analysis when it comes to "black people."

The historic defeat was materially manifested as the physical separation of a
segment of workers in Detroit from the petty bourgeois intellectual and
poverty pimps that raised themselves as the so-called leader of the Black
masses. I am older than you but many older comrades will confirm that Detroit
was called the Petrograd of America at this time. In the theoretical realm we
reshaped the national-colonial question by disclosing its signature and
fundamental features. This constituted a fundamental defeat of the petty
bourgeois theorist of race and the battle continues because superfluous class
formations struggle for material and intellectual existence.

Let us return to the "content" of history and reaffirmed the historic defeat
of the black petty bourgeoisie ideologist who deny class factors. Here is
what happened, although you have written not one line on the national
colonial question because you have not studied the question sufficiently to
make sense. Pardon my sharpest but you shall see why the sector of Marxist -
I always state the sector from which I evolved, will not concede one molecule
to the theorist of race and racism, especially the "black Marxist" who
repudiate class.

The nature of the struggle of the Negro People - who were going through a
process of slowly redefining himself or herself from "colored," changed
rapidly during Reconstruction, and the counterrevolution accelerated this
change. What began as the struggle of a landless peasant-like mass with a
minute urban proletariat rapidly became the struggle of an oppressed nation
with all classes developing rapidly under the pressure of fascist
imperialism. This is so because color stratification does not override the
economic logic that ties the former slaveholding area into an economic unit.
This means that the Anglo-American counterparts of the peasant-like mass

Under such circumstances the developing Negro bourgeoisie - note the words
"Negro bourgeoisie" which could not evolve in the North as such in this time
frame, split in two. That portion which sold to the people and therefore had
to rely upon the people came out in opposition to Wall Street imperialism.
That portion that sold to the imperialist and therefore had to rely on the
imperialist became the Negro Peoples comprador bourgeoisie. None other than
Woodson and Wesley noted this split in the Negro leadership and coined the
term "genuflecting Toadyism."

To this very day the base of the Negro comprador is still the clergy,
although not every clergymen is comprador in addition to social welfare
agencies, the historical educational bureaucracy, the political and
governmental bureaucracy, as well as the historical based large landowners
and financiers primarily headquarters in Atlanta.

Here is the point Mr. Theorist of race. You quote Marx use of the words
"Negro race" and evolve it into a theory of race. I state point blank the
evolution of the word Negro from its Spanish use. Marx spoke of black men and
women. I speak of a historical evolved people that arose based on the
specifics of slavery and further evolved on the basis characteristic of class
formations under capital after the time of Marx. We Marxist of the national
colonial question speak of the impact of Reconstruction and the defeat of
reconstruction. You speak of race.

Washington was a fascist supported by Yankee Imperialism in the person. What
content do you not understand? Do you deny the existence of classes?
Interestingly, before the Communist of China coined the terms comprador and
national bourgeoisie we lived this reality. The reason comprador is put in
quotes many time in my writing is to honor my history. The question is
complex but elementary.

Within that section of the Marxist movement of race the historical analogy is
between the "house nigga and the field niggas." This analogy is incorrect in
the hands of the petty bourgeois intellectual. The "house niggas" is called
"Uncle Tom," but is in actuality a description of the national bourgeoisie
and the "field niggas" are the peasant masses undergoing proletarianization.
The dialectic is remarkable.

We Marxist of the national colonial question owe our dichotomy and crisp
analysis, to the great writer of Uncle Toms Cabin. We are not racialist but
men and women of science.  Sambo killed Uncle Tom for refusing to beat a
female slave. Here is your murderous comprador bourgeoisie and he merges with
the former slaveholders under the iron grip of Wall Street. Comrade  . .
.brother, here is the content.

A moment of pause is necessary.

Charles, our is a love affair pure and simple. I am prohibited from
oscillating one molecule. The Anglo-American workers, who constitute the
largest section of the Anglo-American proletariat shall say, "that Melvin P.
is my fucking brother and did not waver one molecule. That freaking Booker T.
Washington was a rat bastard."  I shall say, "no, he was capital."

To continue: under slavery his name is Sambo and he is transformed during and
after Reconstruction in the name Booker T. Washington. What "content" don't
you understand . . . Mr. Marxist Theory of races?

Brother Charles, you should know that I got that new job and would be remised
if I did not acknowledge the profound enjoyment I receive everyday from the
book on Engel's you gave me. I want to keep the book and will pay. Look, Tina
Turner changed the game when she said "What's Love Got To Do With It."

Dr. Dubois, the intellectual giant? The national bourgeoisie. I have never
written that the bourgeoisie was not smart.

"Content" is of course a Marxist analysis of class factors.


Lets do this.

The struggle of the Negro masses after the Civil War was directed first
against slavery and then against peonage. Dammit, the new generation doesn't
know what the word peonage means. Trust me, you do not want to be a fucking
peon! The structure of our language makes it horrible.

During the period of the overthrow of the Reconstruction governments, the
struggle of the Negro masses could not be separated from the struggle of the
rest of the colonial world, but the concept of race created a breach in
theory. Dubois represented the national bourgeoisie, not the proletariat in
the heartland of the most imperial of all nations and multinational states.

Dubois and James Trotter could not accept the gauntlet handed down by Booker
T.  What part of this "content" is not understood - Mister man of race and
Marxist concept of race?

Look here man.

All forms of capital mean all forms of capital. What part of "all" is not
understood?  You ask what is the "content" of the national colonial question
under the banner of Washington and Dubois. The answer is the proletariat and
this is not a question of race or color. Comrade, brother.

Don't go there!!!

I have no problem with stating to speak for the proletariat. I also have lots
of credentials - a whole lot.

Melvin P.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list