Racism and Eurocentrism on the Left

[Barry Lyndon]

Ok, might as well create a thread about this specific topic.

I am not going to name names, but it is very clear to me that many leftists, especially on this forum, harbor racist attitudes. Many of them get up in arms when confronted with such accusations, as if we are accusing them of being white hood wearing Klansmen. But the charge is not that certain leftists are consciously racist, but rather that subconscious racist assumptions underlie their comments and analysis.

Left-wing racism has several major components:

1) The upholding of models of socialism that are exclusively in Europe as the 'ideal'- whether the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, or Anarchist Catalonia, and that therefore all subsequent upheavals must be measured by that yardstick. If they do not resemble those revolutions, then they do not count as socialist.
None of this is to deny that these were great revolutions, they were, and they will always be remembered as the original attempts to put socialism into practice. What is being criticized is the way they are referenced in a totally reverent manner, as if history just stopped in the 1930's. There is very little taking into account the fact that since the 1940's, the fighting and bleeding and dying for the socialist ideal has overwhelmingly been in Asia, Africa and Latin America-parts of the world that are overwhelmingly non-white. Instead of trying to critically analyze why that is, left wing racists simply claim that all the subsequent successful revolution in those parts of the world were 'not socialist'.

2) When confronted on this issue, left wing racists will make the argument that their objection is not the race of revolts in non-white countries but the fact that they were not carried out in the way that Marx intended. They will note the lack of working-class participation or the large peasant composition of revolutions in North Korea, China, Vietnam, or Cuba. They will note that all these countries lacked a modern industrial base from which to build socialism.
There are a few major problems with this line of argument-

a) Ultra-lefts engage in double standards, ignoring the fact that revolutions in Russia and Spain also had a large peasant component, and were not exclusively led by the industrial working class. Lenin was denounced by orthodox Marxists at the time for attempting to carry out a revolution in a semi-industrialized nation like Russia.

b) Finally, if socialist revolution is impossible in underdeveloped, semi-industrialized nations, isn't that basically conceding that Marxism has nothing to offer to the overwhelmingly non-white population of those countries, that socialism is only purview of the 'advanced' working class in Europe, North America and Japan? What is the suggested alternative to the masses of the Third World of ridding themselves of oppression and exploitation, if every attempt at rebellion is a pre-ordained failure, barring worldwide revolution all at once, a virtually impossible scenario?

c) Such dismissals ignore the trends of the last 30 years, in which the Global North, particularly the United States, has largely de-industrialized and become to a primarily service economy, where workers are much more atomized and thus have far less likely to get a sense of a collective class consciousness then they would if they worked in a factory or a mine. By contrast, a huge industrial working class has developed in the Third World, particularly East and South Asia and Latin America.
The infatuation with Europe and its offshoots(the US) once again leaves Marxist analysis stuck at least 50 years in the past.


3) Finally, further evidence of the racism involved surfaces when left-wing racists will continue to deny the socialist character of an uprising even when an industrial working class is actively driving the revolution. For years, ultra-lefts were claiming that the Nepalese Maoists were nothing but a peasant movement with no support in the cities. Then when a massive workers strike was called by the Maoists in Khatmandu, ultra-lefts shifted their arguments to that the Maoists were 'channeling' and 'boxing in' the Nepalese workers into a reformist direction(the implication being that Nepalese workers have no agency of their own and have no ability to pursue their class interests).
The same with Venezuela. For years, ultra-lefts have tried to paint Hugo Chavez as nothing more then a social democrat merely bribing his constituents with social programs. When stories about factories being brought under workers control and workers militias being formed to defend those gains emerged, you would expect delight from any self-respecting socialist. But not the ultra-lefts. They insisted that such factories were not under 'workers control' but were only under 'workers management'(whatever difference that means). They claimed that putting guns into the hands of thousands of workers was merely some publicity stunt by Chavez, making idiotic comparisons to the National Guard(which historically has repressed labor strikes, not armed them!).

4) Finally, left-wing racism is deaf to the voices of non-whites, except for tokens that agree with their pre-conceived notions. It is one thing to disagree with ideas, but quite another to dismiss them entirely when you have never even read them.
Racist ultra-lefts quotations from Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Goldman, Kropotkin, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Bordiga, Adorno, etc are all over the place and somewhat obilgatory parts of some posts it seems.
Rarely from certain quarters do you even see engagement with the ideas and philosophies of Mao, Fanon, Amilcar Cabral, the Black Panthers, Baghat Singh, Che, Kwame Nkrumah, Walter Rodney, and so on.

These, summarized, are my basic criticisms.

[Magón]

I like to talk about Nicaragua as a good example of what can be done to successfully help the people, but it doesn't seem like something the Left (as a whole really, not just on here,) tries to explain or show.

[RadioRaheem84]

Excellent Post, Barry.

Except that the Cuban Revolution was mostly led by white people. Che was white, so is Fidel Castro.

But Russia itself proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that any nation lacking an industrial base can create socialism. As does Albania, with a much worse history of ethnic tribalism than most of the third world. Vietnam, China are other examples.

[Lyev]

Ok, might as well create a thread about this specific topic.

I am not going to name names, but it is very clear to me that many leftists, especially on this forum, harbor racist attitudes. Many of them get up in arms when confronted with such accusations, as if we are accusing them of being white hood wearing Klansmen. But the charge is not that certain leftists are consciously racist, but rather that subconscious racist assumptions underlie their comments and analysis.

Left-wing racism has several major components:

1) The upholding of models of socialism that are exclusively in Europe as the 'ideal'- whether the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, or Anarchist Catalonia, and that therefore all subsequent upheavals must be measured by that yardstick. If they do not resemble those revolutions, then they do not count as socialist.
None of this is to deny that these were not great revolutions, they were, and they will always be remembered as the original attempts to put socialism into practice. What is being criticized is the way they are referenced in a totally reverent manner, as if history just stopped in the 1930's. There is very little taking into account the fact that since the 1940's, the fighting and bleeding and dying for the socialist ideal has overwhelmingly been in Asia, Africa and Latin America-parts of the world that are overwhelmingly non-white. Instead of trying to critically analyze why that is, left wing racists simply claim that all the subsequent successful revolution in those parts of the world were 'not socialist'.

Racist ultra-lefts quotations from Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Goldman, Kropotkin, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Bordiga, Adorno, etc are all over the place and somewhat obilgatory parts of some posts it seems.
Rarely from certain quarters do you even see engagement with the ideas and philosophies of Mao, Fanon, Amilcar Cabral, the Black Panthers, Baghat Singh, Che, and so on.

These, summarized, are my basic criticisms.This thread is useful (you even started it!), but didn't respond after a while: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=4222

[Obs]

Excellent Post, Barry.

Except that the Cuban Revolution was mostly led by white people. Che was white, so is Fidel Castro.
Arguably. The term "white" has little to no actual meaning, anyway, so it's not like it matters much.

[RadioRaheem84]

I noticed the Hugarian Revolution of 56 was listed as a successful socialist strike. Is this true? I was under the impression it was at least infiltrated by the CIA at some point too.

[Crux]

I noticed the Hugarian Revolution of 56 was listed as a successful socialist strike. Is this true? I was under the impression it was at least infiltrated by the CIA at some point too.
Yes, all those worker's striking for better rights were duped by the CIA to care about their rights. Makes prefect sense and is totally not a self-serving myth.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, all those worker's striking for better rights were duped by the CIA to care about their rights. Makes prefect sense and is totally not a self-serving myth.

Thanks for the sarcasm, especially since I know next to nothing of the event. :rolleyes:

But at least you were able to look like a bad ass while putting me on blast.

[Palingenisis]

I noticed the Hugarian Revolution of 56 was listed as a successful socialist strike. Is this true? I was under the impression it was at least infiltrated by the CIA at some point too.

Im not sure about the CIA but there was a definite resurgence of the old fascist Arrow Cross which spear headed that movement however much legitimate grievances might have been involved...But no doubt the hero-whorshippers of the guy who suppressed Kronsdadht and advocated the militarization of labour on a semi-permanent basis will be on to tell us how it was a glorious uprising for pristine socialism, blah, blah, blah....:laugh:

[Barry Lyndon]

Excellent Post, Barry.

Except that the Cuban Revolution was mostly led by white people. Che was white, so is Fidel Castro.

True, but Cuba is an overwhelmingly non-white country, and it is important to note that several leading commanders in the revolutionary army were black and Chinese. I'm not just looking at individuals, but the country itself.

Also, Che Guevara was certainly not seen as white by his enemies. Declassified CIA documents on Che include comments such as 'Che seems rather intellectual for a Latino..." and other overtly racist garbage.

[Barry Lyndon]

Just a reminder folks that I'd like the discussion to engage what I wrote and not derail into arguments about Hungary 1956 and so on.

[LeninBalls]

HOLY FUCK MY EYES

I think you exaggerate this a bit much, tho. I agree there are a lot of leftists who differentiate and favor between revolution in the first and third world, but I don't think any genuine communists, on Revleft at least, are proper racists that dislike brown people.

[Armchair War Criminal]

I do think there are ways to uphold* the prior ("white") revolutions that you mention and not the latter ("nonwhite") revolutions without appealing to a racist or crypto-racist principle. After all, the latter revolutions took place during a later period of capitalism in which conditions were different, so we should expect resistance to take different forms. For instance, one might contend that the latter were more successful and less pure because the heightened national aspect of exploitation during that period meant that lower-tier elites in the periphery were marginally more likely to support revolution on anti-imperialist grounds, but that this contradiction within the progressive forces led to both concessions and additional political violence after national liberation. This argument would have to be made carefully, however.


Arguably. The term "white" has little to no actual meaning, anyway, so it's not like it matters much.
The fact that whiteness is a fluctuating social category rather than an eternal biological fact doesn't make it irrelevant. Race is a socially constructed relation between people, and understanding it is necessary to understanding the world just as understanding gender or class is.

*Whatever that means.

[Crux]

Ok, might as well create a thread about this specific topic.

I am not going to name names, but it is very clear to me that many leftists, especially on this forum, harbor racist attitudes. Many of them get up in arms when confronted with such accusations, as if we are accusing them of being white hood wearing Klansmen. But the charge is not that certain leftists are consciously racist, but rather that subconscious racist assumptions underlie their comments and analysis.

Left-wing racism has several major components:

1) The upholding of models of socialism that are exclusively in Europe as the 'ideal'- whether the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, or Anarchist Catalonia, and that therefore all subsequent upheavals must be measured by that yardstick. If they do not resemble those revolutions, then they do not count as socialist.
None of this is to deny that these were not great revolutions, they were, and they will always be remembered as the original attempts to put socialism into practice. What is being criticized is the way they are referenced in a totally reverent manner, as if history just stopped in the 1930's. There is very little taking into account the fact that since the 1940's, the fighting and bleeding and dying for the socialist ideal has overwhelmingly been in Asia, Africa and Latin America-parts of the world that are overwhelmingly non-white. Instead of trying to critically analyze why that is, left wing racists simply claim that all the subsequent successful revolution in those parts of the world were 'not socialist'.

2) When confronted on this issue, left wing racists will make the argument that their objection is not the race of revolts in non-white countries but the fact that they were not carried out in the way that Marx intended. They will note the lack of working-class participation or the large peasant composition of revolutions in North Korea, China, Vietnam, or Cuba. They will note that all these countries lacked a modern industrial base from which to build socialism.
There are a few major problems with this line of argument-

a) Ultra-lefts engage in double standards, ignoring the fact that revolutions in Russia and Spain also had a large peasant component, and were not exclusively led by the industrial working class. Lenin was denounced by orthodox Marxists at the time for attempting to carry out a revolution in a semi-industrialized nation like Russia.

b) Finally, if socialist revolution is impossible in underdeveloped, semi-industrialized nations, isn't that basically conceding that Marxism has nothing to offer to the overwhelmingly non-white population of those countries, that socialism is only purview of the 'advanced' working class in Europe, North America and Japan? What is the suggested alternative to the masses of the Third World of ridding themselves of oppression and exploitation, if every attempt at rebellion is a pre-ordained failure, barring worldwide revolution all at once, a virtually impossible scenario?

c) Such dismissals ignore the trends of the last 30 years, in which the Global North, particularly the United States, has largely de-industrialized and become to a primarily service economy, where workers are much more atomized and thus have far less likely to get a sense of a collective class consciousness then they would if they worked in a factory or a mine. By contrast, a huge industrial working class has developed in the Third World, particularly East and South Asia and Latin America.
The infatuation with Europe and its offshoots(the US) once again leaves Marxist analysis stuck at least 50 years in the past.


3) Finally, further evidence of the racism involved surfaces when left-wing racists will continue to deny the socialist character of an uprising even when an industrial working class is actively driving the revolution. For years, ultra-lefts were claiming that the Nepalese Maoists were nothing but a peasant movement with no support in the cities. Then when a massive workers strike was called by the Maoists in Khatmandu, ultra-lefts shifted their arguments to that the Maoists were 'channeling' and 'boxing in' the Nepalese workers into a reformist direction(the implication being that Nepalese workers have no agency of their own and have no ability to pursue their class interests).
The same with Venezuela. For years, ultra-lefts have tried to paint Hugo Chavez as nothing more then a social democrat merely bribing his constituents with social programs. When stories about factories being brought under workers control and workers militias being formed to defend those gains emerged, you would expect delight from any self-respecting socialist. But not the ultra-lefts. They insisted that such factories were not under 'workers control' but were only under 'workers management'(whatever difference that means). They claimed that putting guns into the hands of thousands of workers was merely some publicity stunt by Chavez, making idiotic comparisons to the National Guard(which historically has repressed labor strikes, not armed them!).

4) Finally, left-wing racism is deaf to the voices of non-whites, except for tokens that agree with their pre-conceived notions. It is one thing to disagree with ideas, but quite another to dismiss them entirely when you have never even read them.
Racist ultra-lefts quotations from Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Goldman, Kropotkin, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Bordiga, Adorno, etc are all over the place and somewhat obilgatory parts of some posts it seems.
Rarely from certain quarters do you even see engagement with the ideas and philosophies of Mao, Fanon, Amilcar Cabral, the Black Panthers, Baghat Singh, Che, and so on.

These, summarized, are my basic criticisms.
1) All those exotists, unwittingly or not, claiming that third-world people are only capable of anti-imperialist or anti-feudal struggle, and could not possibly ever achieve the level of revolutions carried out on the european contient and western asia, are perhaps a close second?

2) Notice also the double-standard in, mistakengly, making excuses for movements based on their geographical location and ethnic belonging putting a blind-eye for mistakes and short-comings in the hope of not offending any of those "poor third-world" people in their "noble savagery".

a) The ultra-lefts commonly gets held up on armed struggle as one of the few arbiters between "revolutionary" and "non-revolutionary" movements in the global south.

b) Finally if movements make colossal strategical and ideoligcal mistakes these false-friends are quick to cover them up, in the hope that optimism can replace political analysis and strategy. At one point or another, when the western "fad" with the particular movement these are more often then not throwed to side, and the flase-friends leave as happy as they came, eagerly waiting for the next global south movement to parade uncritically as the "next big thing", be it Ho Chi Min, Kim Il Sung or even Allende or the Sandistinas.

c) finally this exotism also tend to leave such movements blind to what is in front of their noses, even though these kind of radicalism has sometimes forced students into the working class mileu with varying success. The idea that the european working class is "bought" (in comparison to the noble savages and superexploited south) has always kept the actual working class slightly removed, at least when it comes to concrete actions. As always there are good exceptions, especially if the working class themselfes move (thus disproving quite clearly the idea of a bought working class). However give them thirty years or so and the defectors from these kind of mileus are 13 a dozen.

I'll get to the next of the points later, need to get early to bed tonight.

[Lyev]

Racist ultra-lefts quotations from Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Goldman, Kropotkin, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Bordiga, Adorno, etc are all over the place and somewhat obilgatory parts of some posts it seems.
Rarely from certain quarters do you even see engagement with the ideas and philosophies of Mao, Fanon, Amilcar Cabral, the Black Panthers, Baghat Singh, Che, and so on.

These, summarized, are my basic criticisms.Oh yeah and this is fallacious (is it called "post hoc"?). I can probably find some more examples, but here is an excerpt from an article by International Socialism on Cliff's "Deflected Permanent Revolution":
The African student-intelligentsia had a high degree of organisational coherence, political identity and, in the Soviet Union, a coherent model for national independence. Independent movements propelled the student-intelligentsia into the existing state machinery. When they assumed control over states, Nkrumah, Senghor and Nyerere, for example (the Ghanaian, Senegalese and Tanzanian leaders respectively), saw socialism as the state ideology. “African socialism” was presented as the authentic African ideology that justified early attempts at state capitalist development. African socialism raised the state above class antagonism, while declaring class to be a European phenomenon unknown to African societies.26 (http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=641#126zeilig_26) After independence, with the mass movements against colonialism demobilised, the state became the only lever of power. Soon this enfeebled group, owning nothing and privileged only in its access to the old colonial apparatus, became, in Frantz Fanon’s prophetic words, “a sort of little caste, avid and voracious…only too glad to accept the dividends that the former colonial power hands out to it”.27 (http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=641#126zeilig_27)

[...]

After independence in June 1960 Lumumba became an obstacle to this project for the Belgian state and the Congolese évolués. His assassination six months later, organised by Belgian, US and UN forces, snuffed out the illusions of autonomous independence. With their power to withdraw capital and personnel, European powers turned independence into an empty shell. Though the Congo was an extreme example much of the continent followed a similar course. Freedom from colonial tutelage became, in Fanon’s words, “the curse of independence…the colonial power through its immense resources of coercion condemns the young nation to regression”.33 (http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=641#126zeilig_33)There whole article is here (http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=641).

[DaringMehring]

Original post gets a bunch of stuff wrong, then mis-labels it racist.

Argument from Bolshevik tradition isn't whether 3rd world countries can achieve socialism. Combined & uneven development theory and the example of the Russian revolution prove it is possible. Argument is -- their leadership in their Parties does not set socialism as the immediate objective of their revolution.

Eg Prachanda says Nepal has to become more capitalist, Mao said what is needed is "New Democracy" in a bloc of classes including the national bourgeoisie, etc.

The failure of all of these intermediate stage formulations is historically obvious. They're just another version of the old bourgeois trick "don't take what you can get when you're mobilized... we promise to get it to you in a couple of years, or decades, or centuries..."

The idea is a failure in the 3rd world and in the 1st world. Just look at the Social Democracy, or the history of the CPUSA (always finding new stages that have to be passed through -- anti-monopoly, anti-ultra-right).

How is it racist to say such a stagist revolution is not socialist, but of the national liberation or bourgeois type? It does not matter if the majority of people making the revolution are poor, or proclaiming socialism. The French Revolution was powered by sans-cullotes and was filled with radical egalitarianism, it was still a bourgeois revolution. It doesn't matter in what continent of time period these stagist revolutions are taking place. This has nothing to do with race.

If you want to play the stupid racist accusation game, then how about this one. Why do people who call these revolutions socialist think this is the best brown people can do at making socialism (ie, not making it)? See. the racist-accusing stupidity can work any way you want to slice it.

[Armchair War Criminal]

Oh yeah and this is fallacious (is it called "post hoc"?). I can probably find some more examples, but here is an excerpt from an article by International Socialism on Cliff's "Deflected Permanent Revolution":There whole article is here (http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=641).
I'm unfamiliar with the Senegalese case, but it's simply not true that Nkrumah was African Socialist (although he was, of course, a socialist and African.) Ghana followed a more universalist line while Tanzania adopted an ideology that fused more with traditional, national elements.

[Dick Van Guard]

But no doubt the hero-whorshippers of the guy who suppressed Kronsdadht and advocated the militarization of labour on a semi-permanent basis.If you are referring to Trotsky I would be very interested in seeing what evidence you have to back up this pretty bold claim. There is a qualitative difference between the kind of revolutionary violence advocated and defended (and always understood to be a necessary but temporary evil) in a text like Terrorism and Communism and the policy of state terror utilised during and after the consolidation of the ruling bureaucracy's power.

[Lyev]

I'm unfamiliar with the Senegalese case, but it's simply not true that Nkrumah was African Socialist (although he was, of course, a socialist and African.) Ghana followed a more universalist line while Tanzania adopted an ideology that fused more with traditional, national elements.The leaders and their ideologies, as discussed in the article wasn't really my reason for posting it, I suppose. I think it more generally about national liberation and whatnot. But anyway, the contention with the OP was that these "racists" will only cite Marx, Luxemburg, Goldman, Trotsky, Engels, Lenin or whatever, but this article cited Fanon a couple of times, and was also about the movement in Tanzania, Senegal, Ghana etc. I mean, why would racists bother even writing about events in Africa?

[Barry Lyndon]

I mean, why would racists bother even writing about events in Africa?

To show how 'those people' are incapable of running their own country.

[bricolage]

True, but Cuba is an overwhelmingly non-white country
Is it?

The 2002 census figures supplied by the government claim that 65% of Cubans were white.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Cuba#cite_note-barrier-0) The Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami says 68% are black.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Cuba#cite_note-barrier-0)

[Obs]

The fact that whiteness is a fluctuating social category rather than an eternal biological fact doesn't make it irrelevant. Race is a socially constructed relation between people, and understanding it is necessary to understanding the world just as understanding gender or class is.
Of course. My point was that it's almost impossible when dealing with a country like Cuba to categorise some people as 'white', especially given that these people, if they moved to a country like the U.S. or most of Europe, would not be called 'white'.

[Palingenisis]

Same old, same old.....Nine times out of ten you will find "leftists" who support "anti-imperialism" and the "rights of nations to self-determination" come from countries victimized by either Imperialism or colonialism....Those who are most critical of such politics nine times out of ten come from countries with very real Imperialist and/or colonial agendas (the English Anarkidists with labelling Irish insurgents drug dealers or "anti-working class bastards" are the ones who really annoy me but Im not to fond of the CWI either :blushing:).

[graymouser]

This is a poor argument on many, many sides.

When you criticize people for not having supported whoever happened to win in a given country's situation, you are ignoring the fact that there were other tendencies, who actually agreed with us, who lost out. For instance, in Vietnam there was a significant Trotskyist movement up through the 1940s who were the main left rivals of the CP. Most of their leaders were murdered by supporters of the Vietminh. Now, many Trotskyists gave critical support to the Vietnamese in their struggle against imperialism anyway, but didn't uncritically support Vietnam after the war. Where does "left racism" fit into that picture? There were people who we supported, but they were killed.

Even if we didn't have a specific tendency that we supported, in general criticism of revolutionary movements is legitimate. If the Maoists in Nepal are leading workers and peasants into a blind alley, and we don't say something, who will? Should we just cheerlead a group that we think is headed for an eventual disaster? Also, the League for the Fifth International has sections in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, are they racists too because they uphold our line on Nepal? If we had a Venezuelan section, would they be racists for not upholding Chávez? These are real questions, and should not be tossed aside lightly.

I think cheerleader-ism is in many ways worse than what you call "left racism." It's condescending to just passively nod to whatever third-world revolutionaries do because you are in the first world. We should be working to engage with third world revolutionaries as equals, not putting any critique beyond the pale just because they are oppressed. Such critique should always be sensitive to cultural differences, but I think it's disingenuous at best to defend the politics of cheerleading by calling people racist.

[Agnapostate]

I don't believe Latin America is overwhelmingly non-white. While the Mesoamerican and Andean regions are dominated by Indians, and the Latin Caribbean and east coastal areas of many countries by Africans, there are certainly areas where whites dominate, albeit mestizo whites that would be rejected by purists with their silly one-drop rules. Argentina and Uruguay jump to mind as Latin American countries that are whiter than the U.S., for example.

[black magick hustla]

i guess i will reply because i feel that i am one of the "names" not being named.

long story short, im not white, i was not born in a white place, and i think you conflate supporting class militancy with supporting the the agenda of the state. anyway, the word "support" is shaky at best because it amounts flaming in stupid internet forums and going to irrelevant leftist events but certainly the communist left writes about struggles in the third world, and some of the biggest and more active icc sections are not in "western" countries. however there is a big difference in real aspects of the class fight, i.e. workers striking against immiseration prospects and acting as a class, than supporting the geopolitics of a state and the people working within it.

i dont think you get it. but its fine. "ultra-lefts" do not support the ideologies and the machinations of the state. so if you want to label us as racist and eurocentric that is fine. although i am 100% you are white yourself

[Barry Lyndon]

This is a poor argument on many, many sides.

When you criticize people for not having supported whoever happened to win in a given country's situation, you are ignoring the fact that there were other tendencies, who actually agreed with us, who lost out. For instance, in Vietnam there was a significant Trotskyist movement up through the 1940s who were the main left rivals of the CP. Most of their leaders were murdered by supporters of the Vietminh. Now, many Trotskyists gave critical support to the Vietnamese in their struggle against imperialism anyway, but didn't uncritically support Vietnam after the war. Where does "left racism" fit into that picture? There were people who we supported, but they were killed.

Even if we didn't have a specific tendency that we supported, in general criticism of revolutionary movements is legitimate. If the Maoists in Nepal are leading workers and peasants into a blind alley, and we don't say something, who will? Should we just cheerlead a group that we think is headed for an eventual disaster? Also, the League for the Fifth International has sections in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, are they racists too because they uphold our line on Nepal? If we had a Venezuelan section, would they be racists for not upholding Chávez? These are real questions, and should not be tossed aside lightly.

I think cheerleader-ism is in many ways worse than what you call "left racism." It's condescending to just passively nod to whatever third-world revolutionaries do because you are in the first world. We should be working to engage with third world revolutionaries as equals, not putting any critique beyond the pale just because they are oppressed. Such critique should always be sensitive to cultural differences, but I think it's disingenuous at best to defend the politics of cheerleading by calling people racist.

But why do tendencies championed by Trotskyists, Cliffites, Left-Coms, etc always fail to gain any traction in Third World countries? The only places in the Global South where Trotskyists have built up a serious following have been in Sri Lanka and Argentina I believe. Why have they never even had a revolution or controlled any territory? You can't blame the repeated failure to even begin a revolution in any part of the world for the last 70 years entirely on Stalinists, imperialism, etc etc. Even anarchists have the Zapatista territory in Mexico. Perhaps it may be because such Eurocentric ideologies are not helpful to the conditions in those parts of the world? It's interesting that you call on others to be self-critical but you are yourself almost entirely uncritical of the Trotskyist movement's failures. And I'm saying this as a former Trotskyist.

I also never said that Third World revolutions are beyond criticism, and I agree that revolutionaries there should be treated as equals. That should begin with calling them what they are-socialist revolutionaries, not slinging dirt labels at them like 'state-capitalists', and 'petty-bourgeois nationalists' and so on.
Criticizing Third World revolutions is not racist. But holding them to standards that you don't apply to white Europeans and Americans, and inconsistently changing your arguments so that no matter what the circumstances, you don't support them, reflects a racist outlook.

[Armchair War Criminal]

But why do tendencies championed by Trotskyists, Cliffites, Left-Coms, etc always fail to gain any traction in Third World countries? The only places in the Global South where Trotskyists have built up a serious following have been in Sri Lanka and Argentina I believe.
I can't say what the relevant genealogies are, but Argentinean Horizontalidad is Left Communism in essence.

[Lyev]

But why do tendencies championed by Trotskyists, Cliffites, Left-Coms, etc always fail to gain any traction in Third World countries? The only places in the Global South where Trotskyists have built up a serious following have been in Sri Lanka and Argentina I believe. Why have they never even had a revolution or controlled any territory? You can't blame the repeated failure to even begin a revolution in any part of the world for the last 70 years entirely on Stalinists, imperialism, etc etc. Even anarchists have the Zapatista territory in Mexico. Perhaps it may be because such Eurocentric ideologies are not helpful to the conditions in those parts of the world? It's interesting that you call on others to be self-critical but you are yourself almost entirely uncritical of the Trotskyist movement's failures. And I'm saying this as a former Trotskyist.

I also never said that Third World revolutions are beyond criticism, and I agree that revolutionaries there should be treated as equals. That should begin with calling them what they are-socialist revolutionaries, not slinging dirt labels at them like 'state-capitalists', and 'petty-bourgeois nationalists' and so on.
Criticizing Third World revolutions is not racist. But holding them to standards that you don't apply to white Europeans and Americans, and inconsistently changing your arguments so that no matter what the circumstances, you don't support them, reflects a racist outlook.Just to interject here, some of the CWI's biggest and most active sections (proportionally) are in Nigeria and Pakistan. You're really clutching straws here by the way. It's pretty clear that these "ultra-leftists", that you've created in your head anyway, are fictional, and aren't "racist".

[Reznov]

True, but Cuba is an overwhelmingly non-white country, and it is important to note that several leading commanders in the revolutionary army were black and Chinese. I'm not just looking at individuals, but the country itself.

Also, Che Guevara was certainly not seen as white by his enemies. Declassified CIA documents on Che include comments such as 'Che seems rather intellectual for a Latino..." and other overtly racist garbage.

According to the census of 2002, the population was 11,177,743, including 5,597,233 men and 5,580,510 women. The racial make-up was 7,271,926 whites, 1,126,894 blacks and 2,778,923 mulattoes (or mestizos)

Do you have a source on this Barry?

[synthesis]

3) Finally, further evidence of the racism involved surfaces when left-wing racists will continue to deny the socialist character of an uprising even when an industrial working class is actively driving the revolution. For years, ultra-lefts were claiming that the Nepalese Maoists were nothing but a peasant movement with no support in the cities. Then when a massive workers strike was called by the Maoists in Khatmandu, ultra-lefts shifted their arguments to that the Maoists were 'channeling' and 'boxing in' the Nepalese workers into a reformist direction(the implication being that Nepalese workers have no agency of their own and have no ability to pursue their class interests).
The same with Venezuela. For years, ultra-lefts have tried to paint Hugo Chavez as nothing more then a social democrat merely bribing his constituents with social programs. When stories about factories being brought under workers control and workers militias being formed to defend those gains emerged, you would expect delight from any self-respecting socialist. But not the ultra-lefts. They insisted that such factories were not under 'workers control' but were only under 'workers management'(whatever difference that means). They claimed that putting guns into the hands of thousands of workers was merely some publicity stunt by Chavez, making idiotic comparisons to the National Guard(which historically has repressed labor strikes, not armed them!).

So "ultra-lefts" are actually right-wingers at heart? I think this deserves explication.

[gorillafuck]

Even anarchists have the Zapatista territory in Mexico.
Wouldn't you oppose this on the grounds of it being ultraleftist?:confused: After all, Marcos shits on the vanguards of the world...

[Barry Lyndon]

So "ultra-lefts" are actually right-wingers at heart? I think this deserves explication.

I think that many ultra-lefts go so far to the left in unconstructively attacking existing socialist movements, and all but openly declaring that they want such movements to fail, that they begin to resemble right-wingers.

[Barry Lyndon]

Wouldn't you oppose this on the grounds of it being ultraleftist?:confused: After all, Marcos shits on the vanguards of the world...

I respect all revolutionaries who attempt to put socialist ideals into practice and don't carp and whine from the sidelines, I don't care what tendency they are. Subcommandante Marcos is one of them. I think he's put forward really good analysis on globalization, particularly the essay 'The Fourth World War'.

The Zapatistas also deserve respect for launching their revolt in the early 1990's, when capitalism seemed triumphant everywhere and the Left looked finished in Latin America and the world. They proved to everyone that resistance was still possible and kept hope alive in a dark time.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Ok, might as well create a thread about this specific topic.

I am not going to name names, but it is very clear to me that many leftists, especially on this forum, harbor racist attitudes. Many of them get up in arms when confronted with such accusations, as if we are accusing them of being white hood wearing Klansmen. But the charge is not that certain leftists are consciously racist, but rather that subconscious racist assumptions underlie their comments and analysis.

Left-wing racism has several major components:

1) The upholding of models of socialism that are exclusively in Europe as the 'ideal'- whether the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, or Anarchist Catalonia, and that therefore all subsequent upheavals must be measured by that yardstick. If they do not resemble those revolutions, then they do not count as socialist.
None of this is to deny that these were not great revolutions, they were, and they will always be remembered as the original attempts to put socialism into practice. What is being criticized is the way they are referenced in a totally reverent manner, as if history just stopped in the 1930's. There is very little taking into account the fact that since the 1940's, the fighting and bleeding and dying for the socialist ideal has overwhelmingly been in Asia, Africa and Latin America-parts of the world that are overwhelmingly non-white. Instead of trying to critically analyze why that is, left wing racists simply claim that all the subsequent successful revolution in those parts of the world were 'not socialist'.

A lot of Anarchists on the left believe that Anarchist Catalonia has been (as of now) the only successful revolution, due to the fact that it has been the only 'semi'-successful Anarchist revolution in history. It would be absurd, to expect an Anarchist to refer to the Maoist Revolution as a 'successful implementation of socialism' when in actual implementation, Maoist China was diametrically opposed to anything/everything Anarchists stood for. That's not racism, but a fact.

But that's not to say that all other revolutions have been wrought with disaster, I mean, by all comparative standards, I believe that Thomas Sankara's Burkina Faso was massively successful - however, to the best of my knowledge, Burkina Faso wasn't "in the hands of the proletariat", it was in the hands of Thomas Sankara - which means workers were not in control of the modes of production - and to the best of my knowledge, without power in the hands of the proletariat, you can't have socialism. Similarly, I believe Cuba has made enormous gains in literacy, life expectancy, and general welfare - which is in and of itself an extraordinary feat, but without worker's control over the modes of production, I can't help but fail to see them as non-'socialist'.


2) When confronted on this issue, left wing racists will make the argument that their objection is not the race of revolts in non-white countries but the fact that they were not carried out in the way that Marx intended. They will note the lack of working-class participation or the large peasant composition of revolutions in North Korea, China, Vietnam, or Cuba. They will note that all these countries lacked a modern industrial base from which to build socialism.
There are a few major problems with this line of argument-

Wait, what? How can you have socialism without power in the hands of the proletariat?


4) Finally, left-wing racism is deaf to the voices of non-whites, except for tokens that agree with their pre-conceived notions. It is one thing to disagree with ideas, but quite another to dismiss them entirely when you have never even read them.
Racist ultra-lefts quotations from Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Goldman, Kropotkin, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Bordiga, Adorno, etc are all over the place and somewhat obilgatory parts of some posts it seems.
Rarely from certain quarters do you even see engagement with the ideas and philosophies of Mao, Fanon, Amilcar Cabral, the Black Panthers, Baghat Singh, Che, Kwame Nkrumah, Walter Rodney, and so on.

I HAVE YET TO SEE A MAO QUOTE ON THIS SITE. Also, despite being an ultra-leftist, I admittedly quote Mao quite liberally - but I honestly see an extraordinary difference between Mao's theoretical statements, and the application of Maoist theory in China... Finally, I can't help but quote Marx, I kinda think he is important...

[Barry Lyndon]

A lot of Anarchists on the left believe that Anarchist Catalonia has been (as of now) the only successful revolution, due to the fact that it has been the only 'semi'-successful Anarchist revolution in history. It would be absurd, to expect an Anarchist to refer to the Maoist Revolution as a 'successful implementation of socialism' when in actual implementation, Maoist China was diametrically opposed to anything/everything Anarchists stood for. That's not racism, but a fact.

But that's not to say that all other revolutions have been wrought with disaster, I mean, by all comparative standards, I believe that Thomas Sankara's Burkina Faso was massively successful - however, to the best of my knowledge, Burkina Faso wasn't "in the hands of the proletariat", it was in the hands of Thomas Sankara - which means workers were not in control of the modes of production - and to the best of my knowledge, without power in the hands of the proletariat, you can't have socialism. Similarly, I believe Cuba has made enormous gains in literacy, life expectancy, and general welfare - which is in and of itself an extraordinary feat, but without worker's control over the modes of production, I can't help but fail to see them as non-'socialist'.



Wait, what? How can you have socialism without power in the hands of the proletariat?



I HAVE YET TO SEE A MAO QUOTE ON THIS SITE. Also, despite being an ultra-leftist, I admittedly quote Mao quite liberally - but I honestly see an extraordinary difference between Mao's theoretical statements, and the application of Maoist theory in China... Finally, I can't help but quote Marx, I kinda think he is important...

Fair enough, anarchists are consistently opposed to all centralized authority. I don't agree with that position, but it is a consistent stance and thus has nothing to do with racism. The fact that Anarchists have managed to control territory in places like Mexico and Korea shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not an ideology that is the exclusive domain of white Europeans.
I am more going after Cliffites and Left-Coms who engage in double standards.

I reference Marx a lot too. It's just that I don't see him as pure and that I also reference others who have built on his theories.

[Klaatu]

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND your connection of racism and socialism.

[synthesis]

I think that many ultra-lefts go so far to the left in unconstructively attacking existing socialist movements, and all but openly declaring that they want such movements to fail, that they begin to resemble right-wingers.

But what about the "racism and Eurocentrism" part?

[graymouser]

But why do tendencies championed by Trotskyists, Cliffites, Left-Coms, etc always fail to gain any traction in Third World countries? The only places in the Global South where Trotskyists have built up a serious following have been in Sri Lanka and Argentina I believe. Why have they never even had a revolution or controlled any territory? You can't blame the repeated failure to even begin a revolution in any part of the world for the last 70 years entirely on Stalinists, imperialism, etc etc. Even anarchists have the Zapatista territory in Mexico. Perhaps it may be because such Eurocentric ideologies are not helpful to the conditions in those parts of the world? It's interesting that you call on others to be self-critical but you are yourself almost entirely uncritical of the Trotskyist movement's failures. And I'm saying this as a former Trotskyist.
Honestly, the Trotskyist tendency that came the farthest in a revolutionary situation was the Bolivian section of the Fourth International, the Partido Obrero Revolucionario, during the 1952/53 revolution. Unfortunately they dropped their own program and supported the Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario, and the Bolivian social revolution was stopped in its tracks. How is this not exactly what you are suggesting here?

The international grouping I'm in, the League for the Fifth International, is actually extremely critical of Trotskyists throughout history - one of our main documents is The Death Agony of the Fourth International (http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/publications/pamphlets/death-agony-fourth-international), which criticizes the development of Trotskyism from 1940 to 1983 (when the document was written), including the failures in Bolivia and Sri Lanka. Some tendencies are less critical of this history but it is simply not true that we give a free pass to historical Trotskyism.


I also never said that Third World revolutions are beyond criticism, and I agree that revolutionaries there should be treated as equals. That should begin with calling them what they are-socialist revolutionaries, not slinging dirt labels at them like 'state-capitalists', and 'petty-bourgeois nationalists' and so on.
Criticizing Third World revolutions is not racist. But holding them to standards that you don't apply to white Europeans and Americans, and inconsistently changing your arguments so that no matter what the circumstances, you don't support them, reflects a racist outlook.
Who actually does that? Seriously, we use the label "Stalinist" for Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro etc - but we also use that label for European and American Stalinists. As for petty-bourgeois nationalists, that's a sociological characterization - there really do exist petty-bourgeois nationalists, they aren't just a bogeyman. You have to actually look at what people are doing, not just some of their rhetoric. Chavez is, as far as Latin American populism goes, not even particularly far along in terms of nationalization and so forth. "Socialism of the 21st century" is a fig leaf - the actual program, the actual deeds, do not match anything we would call socialism. If it acts like populism but talks socialism, objectively, we cannot agree that it actually is socialism. This phenomenon is hardly new, "Arabic socialism" was a significant movement in the 20th century but virtually no one upholds it now.

The main reason we don't use the terms petty-bourgeois nationalism and populism with Europeans and Americans is that, well, populism in those parts of the world is mostly racist right-populism, not the left-populism and left-nationalism that exist in the "South." The latter can be critically supported against imperialism but are not "socialist revolutionaries." Left-populism and left-nationalism have long histories, and they don't lead to socialism, period.

[KC]

But why do tendencies championed by Trotskyists, Cliffites, Left-Coms, etc always fail to gain any traction in Third World countries? The only places in the Global South where Trotskyists have built up a serious following have been in Sri Lanka and Argentina I believe. Why have they never even had a revolution or controlled any territory? You can't blame the repeated failure to even begin a revolution in any part of the world for the last 70 years entirely on Stalinists, imperialism, etc etc. Even anarchists have the Zapatista territory in Mexico. Perhaps it may be because such Eurocentric ideologies are not helpful to the conditions in those parts of the world? It's interesting that you call on others to be self-critical but you are yourself almost entirely uncritical of the Trotskyist movement's failures. And I'm saying this as a former Trotskyist.

Because most Trotskyist groups are plagued by sectarianism, opportunism and ultra-leftism. Whereas most Maoist/Stalinist/"anti-imperialist" groups just appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's very easy to take the energy of the masses and appeal to the mass consciousness where it is at and use that to line them up behind the domestic bourgeoisie. It is much more difficult to actually attempt to raise consciousness and fight for an independent workers' struggle against both the foreign and domestic bourgeoisie.

The success of most of these "Stalinist" movements or whatever you want to call them is because they just appeal to the lowest common denominator and link it up with the broad populism of the domestic bourgeoisie. I would hardly call that "successful," though you might.

Trotskyism is not a "Eurocentric ideology". Permanent Revolution is proof of that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

With all this talk of Third World bourgeoisie and Third World workers, everyone's forgetting about the divisions and political potential if certainly not social potential in the Third World petit-bourgeoisie. :(

[gorillafuck]

With all this talk of Third World bourgeoisie and Third World workers, everyone's forgetting about the divisions and political potential if certainly not social potential in the Third World petit-bourgeoisie. :(
Elaborate, because that doesn't seem like a socialist stance at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The "national" / "comprador" divide in the Third World is found not within the bourgeoisie, but the petit-bourgeoisie. It's about considering the "national" elements, like Chavez, as radical populist allies. It's similar to the political but not social potential of the peasantry as perceived by Lenin back in his day.

[Crux]

But why do tendencies championed by Trotskyists, Cliffites, Left-Coms, etc always fail to gain any traction in Third World countries?
Beacause you don't blieve third-world people to be capable of any other struggles than yoru own narrow definitoons and thus turn a blidn eye to the wuide variety of other groups. Just to take one historic example, in Sri Lanka, which might be West Europe to you, I don't know, the troskyists were in majority in the CP. Yeah, not in europe, in Sri Lanka. Clearly proof that trotskyism is a western phenomenon. Oh I noticed you used a little funny logical fallacy called switching goalposts to back up your argument. Well I am sure the M-L's were a roaring success in sri lanka and have now a revolutionary state. Oh wait. And yes you are a former trotskyist, clearly you've left all that behind you.

[Devrim]

But why do tendencies championed by Trotskyists, Cliffites, Left-Coms, etc always fail to gain any traction in Third World countries?

Since the revolutionary wave after the first world war, the ideas of the communist left haven`t gained any traction anywhere with the exception of perhaps briefly in Italy after the Second War. The line of argument would make sense if there were big organistaions fooloowed by thousands of workers in Europe and not in the so-called third world, butthere isn`t and it doesn`t.
Devrim

[Devrim]

Same old, same old.....Nine times out of ten you will find "leftists" who support "anti-imperialism" and the "rights of nations to self-determination" come from countries victimized by either Imperialism or colonialism....Those who are most critical of such politics nine times out of ten come from countries with very real Imperialist and/or colonial agendas (the English Anarkidists with labelling Irish insurgents drug dealers or "anti-working class bastards" are the ones who really annoy me but Im not to fond of the CWI either :blushing:).

I think this is nonsense, and if you use Revleft as an example wouldn"t stand up at all.

If we made it very personal, I am a Catholic background and lived in Derry through the worst years of the troubles, and you are a prod from the South.

The ideas of the ICC are puf forward on her by two of its members myself (see above) and Leo, Turkish Kurd. Whereas the overwhelming majority of people putting forward the so-called anti-imperialist argument are from the US.

Really this whole thing about calling people racist is completly typical of political circles in the US. I have argued for what we see as communist politics in Derry and West Belfast, the Palestinian camps of South Beruit, and in Kurdistan, andf have never once been called a racist.

Devrim

[Barry Lyndon]

Beacause you don't blieve third-world people to be capable of any other struggles than yoru own narrow definitoons and thus turn a blidn eye to the wuide variety of other groups. Just to take one historic example, in Sri Lanka, which might be West Europe to you, I don't know, the troskyists were in majority in the CP. Yeah, not in europe, in Sri Lanka. Clearly proof that trotskyism is a western phenomenon. Oh I noticed you used a little funny logical fallacy called switching goalposts to back up your argument. Well I am sure the M-L's were a roaring success in sri lanka and have now a revolutionary state. Oh wait. And yes you are a former trotskyist, clearly you've left all that behind you.

'Narrow definitions'? I'm one of the only people on this forum who supports anarchists in Greece, the Zapatistas in Mexico, the Maoists in India and Nepal, Bolivarianism in Venezuela, and the Cuban Revolution all at once. I support any revolutionaries who I feel are making headway and seem to be remaining true to socialist principles at the same time, that is the only criteria I see as important. I'm not staking out some 'camp' based on historical disagreements from 70 years ago and condescendingly telling people all over the world that they are doomed to failure if they don't take my 'correct' path to socialism. This is a phenomena that exists across the left, regardless of tendency. It's just that the Left Coms and a lot of Trotskyists tend to be the most self-righteous about it.

[Crux]

'Narrow definitions'? I'm one of the only people on this forum who supports anarchists in Greece, the Zapatistas in Mexico, the Maoists in India and Nepal, Bolivarianism in Venezuela, and the Cuban Revolution all at once. I support any revolutionaries who I feel are making headway and seem to be remaining true to socialist principles at the same time, that is the only criteria I see as important. I'm not staking out some 'camp' based on historical disagreements from 70 years ago and condescendingly telling people all over the world that they are doomed to failure if they don't take my 'correct' path to socialism. This is a phenomena that exists across the left, regardless of tendency. It's just that the Left Coms and a lot of Trotskyists tend to be the most self-righteous about it.
So you are not saying that anyone who does not support those current groups you mentioned are racists and doomed to failure? Maybe you ought to rewrite your original post then.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

With all youre respect Barry Lyndon, eurocentrism for sure our whole western society is to deapply infiltrated by that shit, no doubt, but what you call racism in this case i just see sectarianism betwen the diffenrent tendencys. Left-Comms wont agree that the revolution in China was socialist because it wasnt done exactly as they wanted it to bee, no matter circumstances. Sometimes its as simpel that many dont know to much about the black panthers and Burkina Faso, then again its more about eurocentrism rather then racism.

Sorry for going oftopic, but i feel we just have to make clear that in the uprising in Hungary 56, there where no CIA http://www.revleft.com/vb/hungary-rebelion-t140668/index.html?t=140668&highlight=hungary

Also just want to say that this talk about that the industrial society is dissapering here in the west, is not right. The modern service sector is as much industrialized as steel mill, car factory, mine ore so, workers at mcdonalds are trained to do monotomous tasks when they are "building" a big mac in the same princips as the assembly line. Still we have to produce as much as possible, the sectors might have changed but for us workers the situation is still the same.