Slavery, neco-con socialist and haters - 1

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Sat Sep 6 09:32:35 MDT 2003


Marxists in the America Union have debated the economic essence of plantation
slavery and the meaning of the "original (initial) exploitation" or so-called
primitive accumulation of capital throughout our history. I have been a part
of this debate for at least thirty years. A fundamentally correct analysis
never changes, but rather shifts and expands with time.

One sector of those who see primitive accumulation in today's world are
basically right-wing socialist, advocating that socialist lead a movement for
capitalist development in the less developed areas of the world today - in 2003.
"Carry forth the bourgeois revolution in property relations" - called capitalist
development, is the cry of this sector of socialist and that of the fascistic
bourgeoisie in real time politics. This sector generally becomes "neo-cons"
or Neo-conservatives, because they are conservative champions of the bourgeois
order parading as progressives.

There is a sector of socialism that screams "Stalinist" falsification and
"Stalinist murderer" towards anyone that says the social position of the African
American people is not a question of race and the historical evolution of
plantation slavery expresses itself as a modern national colonial question with
all it's ramification for proletarian revolution and modern communism.

A more "enlightened" section of socialism - and absolutely tied to the
so-called liberal sector of Wall Street Imperialism in history, screams there is no
national-colonial question in America in respects to the plantation South and
the African American people face the lingering vestiges of feudalism and race
hate. Anyone that takes the position of Karl Marx himself is condemned as
ultra-leftist and "Trotskyite."

In my opinion these three currents are ever present in any discussion of
American history. The framework of the historical discussion of plantation slavery
in America was recast during the 1920s in the shape of the Third
International and the 1928 and 1930 documents on what at the time was called the "Negro
Question" and "Negro Liberation."  Facts are stubborn things that no one can
explain away and life asserts itself despite ideological proclamations.

Exactly what was it that the African American people were to be liberated
from? Here is the heart of the question that all the screamers of race theory and
advocators of carrying forth the bourgeois property revolution cannot escape.
The answer is so simple and the imperial chauvinist resists this simplicity
like the vampire resists the cross. The African American people are to be
liberated not from an abstract imperial relation but from domination by an
oppressor people. The oppressor people are the Anglo-American people and this is so
obvious as to be confusing to the screamers and haters. It is not enough to be
liberated from the bourgeois property relation.

"You have oppressed me in history - burnt and bombed my churches, public and
private institutions, lynched, murdered me and mine and once owned me as your
personal property. Then as a people - the Anglo-American people, blocked with
the imperial bourgeoisie to impose Jim Crow on me for generations and I do not
need your permission to be liberated from you. Today you criminalize me and
are my jailer. What you do not understand is the profound dialectic of being in
jail. Every day you voluntarily jail yourself, whereas my jailing is not
voluntary. The uncomfortable feeling and itch at the nap of your neck is a growing
awareness of your self imposed incarceration.:-)"

The National and Colonial Question in America has very little to do with
Lenin, Stalin, or Marx and Engels for that matter. America basically evolved in
history as a Southern country and remained so up until the results of the Civil
War. What this means is that America was governed as a specific social,
economic and political entity by the Southern ruling class - slave oligarchy, rooted
in plantation slavery. No amount of political and ideological huckstering
overturns this basis fact of life.

"But more is involved" screams the ideologists and haters. An examination of
their proclamations for the past eighty years lack this elementary truth
concerning the American Union. Needless to say, "more is always involved" in any
social question. How one can overlook an elementary fact is a statement of ones
politics, ideology and belief system. "But you use Stalinist logic" screams
the ideologist. Well, this has nothing to do with Stalin or Mr. Trotsky for that
matter. It is a simple question of jobs and housing discrimination,
second-class citizenship, criminalization, horrible schools, and soil alkalized by
blood - oppression, or what was called being "bueked" by another generation and
"being beat down" by the generation of my children.

Here I speak of the Southern plantation belt white population and not the
black. The difference in the actual conditions of the black autoworkers and black
members of say the working class in Detroit, compared with the Southern white
(Anglo-Americans) living in the plantation belt today describes the national
colonial question in a way the ideologist cannot ignore.

To describe the conditions of the African American masses add to the list
above, liquor stores on every corner, murder, drug infested living quarters,
criminalization and institutionalized police violence. Then compare the difference
in the actual living conditions between the black of Detroit and the blacks
in the Mississippi Delta or the town of Tchula, Mississippi for example.
Meridian Mississippi or Simpson Country would serve just as well.

What appears as a theory discussion and ideological squabble contains and
unfolds a more sinister logic that the screamers and haters would love to ignore.
Thus, when I cut off the theoretical space of the "socialist" who write point
blank that we are dealing with primitive accumulation and the task of
revolutionaries is to persuade other revolutionaries to fight for capitalist
development - bourgeois property relations, in the less development areas, it is from
the standpoint of understanding how politics translated into theory and vice
versa.

Some less experienced comrades who lack practical experience (and choose to
read "their man" and not Marx) do not understand the logic of being driven into
alignment with the fascist bourgeoisie on the basis of "theory."  In a prior
response to me laughing at the absurdity of calling prostitution in Detroit or
anywhere else on earth a form of primitive accumulation of capital, I was
called an ignorant redneck jerk, black racist, Stalinist etc. What upset me to no
end was the "redneck comment."

Do you understand how the neck gets "red" and how to read the neck that is
"red?" The neck gets red from plowing the crop and to associate the laboring
process with ignorance is horrendous. We are talking about a class. The fact of
the matter is that sharecropper condemned more whites to the sharecropping
system than blacks - five million black and six million whites. If one seeks to
understand our history and why the black sharecropper moved in a different
political direction than the white sharecropper, one has to unravel the strange
career of Jim Crow.

It is of course difficult for the proponents of race theory to understand the
history of the American union. The ideologist that prefer "their man Friday"
over Karl Marx and Frederick Engels linger in permanent ignorance concerning
American history and the new internal ingredients of the class struggle.


Melvin P.


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



More information about the Marxism mailing list