Request for Marxist/rewrite

MARIPOWER716 at aol.com MARIPOWER716 at aol.com
Tue Apr 30 16:35:43 MDT 2002



>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).

>^^^^^^^^You 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

^^^^^^^^

>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 bourgeoisie, 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?

^^^^^^

>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
elsewhere.


Reply

"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."

Fine, define it and stop this childishness. You act as if there is something
sacred in "black."

Ideology is never confined to the primary proponents. The class basis of the
primary proponents and the content of their assertion is the meaning of the
words "petite bourgeois intellectuals."  You speak of Black people. I speak
of classes, the structure of state power, the multinational state and the
evolution of the fascist dictatorship that overthrew the Reconstruction
government. This is the highest level of development of Marxism in America
and if it falls short, that is my historical limitation and I condemn the
weakness of my flesh.

Black people as such are not nationally oppressed because of the colonial
question, not race and the small issue of their exploitation, as a component
of capital is the bone that sticks in the throat of the petty bourgeois
theorist.  National colonial oppression accurately describes the profits
carved out of the backs of the colonial workers and the national minorities
that immigrate to the imperial center.

You and the Marxist of race avoid the unpleasant question of colonialism and
the exploitation of the African American peoples - as a people, who are
fundamentally proletariat. You have chosen to join a certain side in a
historical dispute that strained the CPUSA during its entire existence. You
and I surely cannot resolve a historical question "outside its history."

You cannot even say the word colonial in the same sentence as African
American because it begs the question, what constitutes the colonial
relationship? While avoiding this unpleasant question directly, you reply
"race."  "Marx said the word race so there must be a comprehensive theory of
race" and you do not grasp what you quoted from Marx. Quote the entire
paragraphs Mr. Man of race.

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 of the radical black petty bourgeoisie - the political
middle, 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
existed.

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 and
Booker T. Washington's Atlanta Speech. That portion that sold to the
imperialist and therefore had to rely on the imperialist became the Negro
Peoples comprador bourgeoisie - Booker T. Washington. 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 - a historical financial
center in the slave holding South's immediate border region.

Here is the point or "content" 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 but simply.

We Marxist of the national colonial question disagree with you "Marxist of
race theory" and owe our dichotomy and crisp analysis, to the great writer of
Uncle Toms Cabin. We are not racialist but men and women of science.  In
"Uncle Tom's Cabin" the slave Sambo killed Uncle Tom for refusing to beat a
female slave. Here is the dichotomy, comrade of race. Here is your murderous
comprador bourgeoisie in his genesis - Sambo, and he merges with the former
slaveholders under the iron grip of Wall Street. Comrade  . . .brother, here
is the "content."  Let me clarify this point. The class composition of the
Negro masses cannot be understood on the basis of the dichotomy between the
"house niggas" and the "field nigga." What is hidden behind the word "race"
is a lack of understanding of the Marxist standpoint of class. Actually,
brother Malcolm X popularized the concept "house nigga and field nigga" and
our beloved Malcolm was the most militant representative of the historic
Negro National bourgeoisie. I am of the proletariat and speak of class.

A moment of pause is necessary.

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 brother and did not waver one molecule. That
freaking Booker T. Washington was a rat bastard."  I shall say, "no, he was
capital and Sambo and then a rat bastard."

To continue: under slavery this rat fascist bastard is named 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?

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

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

"Race?"

Lets do this. . . cause I am blowing revolutionary communism and you talking
about how a nigga look - with your race theory. Dig history captain.

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 peon!

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 and ideology. Dubois represented the militant Negro 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?

Dig history.

Harry Haywood characterized Washington as; "The voice of the embryonic middle
class." (End quote Negro Liberation, International Publishers, New York,
1948) William Z. Foster paints Washington as a "bourgeois nationalist."
Foster and other Communist Party theoreticians correctly characterize Dubois
as a Negro bourgeois leader - pointing out that in respect to building up
Negro businesses Dubois and his followers outdid Washington in many respects.
Foster makes an attempt to explain the obvious difference between the two
leaders.

In William Z. Foster's "Negro People in American History" his analysis is
this : "the main point of divergence between the movement however - and this
was decisive, was where Washington preached humility and submission for the
Negro people, Dubois and his followers advocated a course of militant
struggle."

Foster description of the split in the Negro bourgeoisie insult the
intelligence of even the most naive Marxist who does not cling to race. The
difference between a Congolese Lumumba and Mobuto was hardly their likes and
dislikes. (My age is telling on me here.)  The maturing of a modern nation
under the pressure of finance capital inevitably brings out two wings of the
national bourgeoisie. In homage to the Chinese communist or rather the
communist of China, we call this the comprador and national bourgeoisie for
short speak. What part of this "content" do you not understand?

Washington was the leader of a maturing comprador bourgeoisie - the fucking
Sambo class . . . man! Here is what really rubs me. Anytime a Marxist raise
the colonial question from the standpoint of the proletariat, a legion of
petty bourgeois radical's starts screaming "racism" and "you are belittling
the role of white supremacy and white chauvinism in American history."  Fine.
Bring out the class factor and shut me up and down.

Comrade, you have not written one single word - none, on this question but
demand to know the "content" of the historical split in the colonial
bourgeoisie and refuse to articulate the class basis of a mutherfuckers
"genuflecting Toadyism."

"Oh no Melvin, if we say something about the fascist amongst us the racist
will be strengthened."  Talk about clueless. You have no conception of where
your politics come from and why I easily recognize it as a rehashing of the
"anti-monopoly" strategy. Do you understand the "content" of the historic
split in the Negro bourgeoisie and why this is a point of delineation in the
social movement?

Let's not do this Charles. You come forth with classlessness and shall be
defeated, because everyone knows there are classes in society. You do however
allow me to present the Marxist conception of the colonial question.

Present your conception and stop being the devil's advocate. You cried over
the bourgeois revolutions without presenting one ounce of rebuttal that takes
into account the mode of production and historical period delineation.   No
one questions your morality and compassion for the oppressed. Marx is major
league shit. I was born I the minor league. (That's some egotistical
assertion characteristics of a descendant of slaves. In contemporary music it
is called the bravado of rap.)  Niggas I know who I am. Proletarian. And it
ain't no fun. Unless you looking at the Irish. Hey. . .that's a joke.


All forms of capital mean all forms of capital. What part of "all" and
"content" is not understood?


Melvin P.

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



More information about the Marxism mailing list