[Marxism] Communists and black liberation

hasc.warrior.stew at gmail.com hasc.warrior.stew at gmail.com
Sat Feb 20 19:09:31 MST 2016


Again, Gerald Horne, a tenured professor that writes about black history and labor history has said something quite different from what you have. I advise you to take it up with him and do some actual scholarship.

Best regards,
Andrew Stewart 

> On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:22 PM, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/20/16 4:17 PM, hasc.warrior.stew at gmail.com wrote:
>> If that is the case, my discussion and research on the topic with
>> Gerald Horne and several others who are involved in the scholarship
>> indicated that theoretical nuances is far different than how the
>> public reaction in America developed.
> 
> This is the Marxism list. If you don't want to be criticized, don't post links to articles that make the case for Stalin. I know that this might sound like ancient history but I was educated in Marxism by Trotsky's bodyguard Joe Hansen.
> 
> Stalin's movement was based on bureaucratic fiat. The Black Belt theory developed during the Third Period, an ultraleft disaster of biblical proportions. In the USA it was hardly a factor in the CP's impact on American society but in Germany it helped to lead to the rise of Nazism.
> 
> We are still paying for the CP's mistakes. There was a basis for a working class party in the 1930s but the CP sabotaged it because it saw the DP as a useful ally in the popular front (until Hitler made a pact with Stalin.) What did it mean for the CP to function effectively as the left wing of the DP when this was essentially the party that defended slavery and Jim Crow and whose Dixiecrat wing was never challenged by FDR? A *racist* party that the Daily Worker extolled?
> 
> From an interview with Ira Katzelson on his book "Fear Itself", a debunking of New Deal myths:
> 
> Q: Your book is very moving on what you call the “southern cage” and FDR and the Democratic Party’s Faustian bargain with southern Democrats -- to preserve white supremacy and segregation laws in order to pass New Deal legislation. I think the level of racism and oppression in the south may stun some younger readers.
> 
> A: We might begin by recalling that in the 1930s and 1940s -- before the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision -- we had seventeen states in the Union, not just the eleven that seceded during the Civil War, but seventeen states that mandated racial segregation. Not one representative from those states, ranging from the most racist like Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, to the most liberal and not racist like Claude Pepper of Florida, ever opposed racial segregation in this period. So you had seventeen states, thirty-four United States senators and a disproportionately large House of Representatives delegation because seats are apportioned on the basis of population not voters, and this was a period when the South had a very low turnout, low franchise electorate.
> 
> There were rules like the poll tax and literacy tests to keeps black from voting, and those rules also kept many whites out of the electorate. So you had a small electorate, a one-party system and therefore great seniority for Southern members of Congress with control over key committees and legislative positions of leadership -- that is, disproportionate power.
> 
> And the Democratic Party in this period -- the agent of the New Deal in Congress -- was composed of a strange-bedfellows alliance of a Northern, principally immigrant, Catholic and Jewish, big-city, labor-oriented political base, together with a Southern, largely non-immigrant, non-urban, mostly Protestant, rural base. They could not have been more different in those respects, yet together they composed the Democratic Party. To secure party majorities for New Deal legislation, it was necessary to keep the two wings together, which meant that the south had a veto over all New Deal legislation.
> 
> After 1938, the Southerners composed a majority of the Democrats in Congress because Republicans began to make a comeback as they won Democratic seats in the North. But [the Republicans] did not win Democratic seats in the South. In 1940, every U.S. senator from the South was a Democrat just at the moment when the Republicans had begun to make a comeback in the House and in Senate seats outside the South. The consequence was that, in the 1940s, it wasn’t just that Southern members of Congress could say no to what they didn’t like. They actually were the authors of the preferences that shaped every single legislative outcome in the 1940s.
> 
> Nothing could be passed into law against the wishes of the Southern members of Congress. And most things that passed into law, especially after 1938 and 1940, matched almost precisely the preferences of the Southern wing of the Democratic Party in Congress.
> 
> - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151867




More information about the Marxism mailing list