Eugene V. Debs [Archive]

Leo

5th June 2007, 11:36

I consider him the most important Marxist in US history and the fiercest advocate of direct worker's control of society.

I don't agree with this actually. Although he took an internationalist position on WW1 and was a solid revolutionary organizer, I would say that radical communists like John Reed who were involved with the formation of the Communist Labor Party and later on in the Communist Party of America and who weren't sucked up into being lackeys of the Stalinist counter revolution later on, and who took an internationalist position during WW2, like the Johnson-Forest tendency - despite it's errors - more significant.

He was a great organizer for example, but he had a bad line on the national question (he once said the SPUSA had nothing to offer Black folks, and would not make special appeals to them).

The full quote is:

With the “’nigger” question, the “’race war” from the capitalist viewpoint we have nothing to do. In capitalism the Negro question is a grave one and will grow more threatening as the contradictions and complications of capitalist society multiply, but this need not worry us. Let them settle the Negro question in their way, if they can. We have nothing to do with it, for that is their fight. We have simply to open the eyes of as many Negroes as we can and bring them into the Socialist movement to do battle for emancipation from wage slavery, and when the working class have triumphed in the class struggle and stand forth economic as well as political free men, the race problem will forever disappear.

Socialists should with pride proclaim their sympathy with and fealty to the black race, and if any there be who hesitate to avow themselves in the face of ignorant and unreasoning prejudice, they lack the true spirit of the slavery-destroying revolutionary movement.

The voice of Socialism must be as inspiring music to the ears of those in bondage, especially the weak black brethren, doubly enslaved, who are bowed to the earth and groan in despair beneath the burden of the centuries.

For myself, my heart goes to the Negro and I make no apology to any white man for it. In fact, when I see the poor, brutalized, outraged black victim, I feel a burning sense of guilt for his intellectual poverty and moral debasement that makes me blush for the unspeakable crimes committed by my own race.

In closing, permit me to express the hope that the next convention may repeal the resolutions on the Negro question. The Negro does not need them and they serve to increase rather than diminish the necessity for explanation.

We have nothing special to offer the Negro, and we cannot make separate appeals to all the races.

The Socialist Party is the party of the working class, regardless of color—the whole working class of the whole world.

http://marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1903/negro.htm

No comment necessary!

Edgar

5th June 2007, 12:18

Debs was most certainly not a racist. In fact, he was one of the most racially progressive men of his time. Here are some more quotes:

"Foolish and vain indeed is the workingman who makes the color of his skin the stepping-stone to his imaginary superiority. The trouble is with his head, and if he can get that right he will find that what ails him is not superiority but inferiority, and that he, as well as the Negro he despises, is the victim of wage-slavery, which robs him of what he produces and keeps both him and the Negro tied down to the dead level of ignorance and degradation."

"The man who seeks to arouse prejudice among workingmen is not their friend. He who advises the white wage-worker to look down upon the black wage-worker is the enemy of both."

"The African is here and to stay. How came he to our shores? Ask your grandfathers, Mr. Anonymous, and if they will tell the truth you will or should blush for the crimes."

People's Councillor

5th June 2007, 12:44

Anyone who says Debs was racist should be treated with just as much credibility as someone who calls John Brown insane.

Nothing Human Is Alien

5th June 2007, 17:26

I for one didn't say that he was racist, I said he had a bad line on the national question.

Leo

5th June 2007, 18:29

Can you elaborate what you find "bad" about someone saying that black and white workers have the same class interests?

Rawthentic

5th June 2007, 22:51

The thing with Debs is that he never dwelled on then "national question"; he just saw everything as class struggle and didnt dig deeper.

OneBrickOneVoice

5th June 2007, 23:09

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+June 05, 2007 05:50 am--> (EL KABLAMO @ June 05, 2007 05:50 am)
Light Up The Sky!@June 05, 2007 12:50 am
yeah I saw it on the Portland Maoist blog along time ago. I remember just happily reading and then suddenly he throws this shit in about Eugene V. Debs out of the Blue and my jaw dropped.

Link (http://portlandmaoist.wordpress.com/2007/01/10/the-social-democratic-two-step/)
That Negro Equality pamplet was written by Kate O'Hare not Debs.

There is nothing which indicates Debs was for segregation and though less of black people. [/b]
yeah but O'Hare was a close comrade in arms and a major leader along with Debs in the Socialist Party. I think coupled with the CdL quote there is no other way to rub it.

Leo

5th June 2007, 23:33

yeah but O'Hare was a close comrade in arms and a major leader along with Debs in the Socialist Party.

From Wikipedia:

Some have attacked the legacy of the Socialist Party based on her views on race, but they ignore the contributions of the Socialist Party to the struggle against segregation, and that frequent SP candidate Eugene V. Debs refused to speak to segregated audiences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Richards_O'Hare

I think coupled with the CdL quote there is no other way to rub it.

Did you read the context which the CdL quote was taken out from?

If not, I am posting it again:

With the “’nigger” question, the “’race war” from the capitalist viewpoint we have nothing to do. In capitalism the Negro question is a grave one and will grow more threatening as the contradictions and complications of capitalist society multiply, but this need not worry us. Let them settle the Negro question in their way, if they can. We have nothing to do with it, for that is their fight. We have simply to open the eyes of as many Negroes as we can and bring them into the Socialist movement to do battle for emancipation from wage slavery, and when the working class have triumphed in the class struggle and stand forth economic as well as political free men, the race problem will forever disappear.

Socialists should with pride proclaim their sympathy with and fealty to the black race, and if any there be who hesitate to avow themselves in the face of ignorant and unreasoning prejudice, they lack the true spirit of the slavery-destroying revolutionary movement.

The voice of Socialism must be as inspiring music to the ears of those in bondage, especially the weak black brethren, doubly enslaved, who are bowed to the earth and groan in despair beneath the burden of the centuries.

For myself, my heart goes to the Negro and I make no apology to any white man for it. In fact, when I see the poor, brutalized, outraged black victim, I feel a burning sense of guilt for his intellectual poverty and moral debasement that makes me blush for the unspeakable crimes committed by my own race.

In closing, permit me to express the hope that the next convention may repeal the resolutions on the Negro question. The Negro does not need them and they serve to increase rather than diminish the necessity for explanation.

We have nothing special to offer the Negro, and we cannot make separate appeals to all the races.

The Socialist Party is the party of the working class, regardless of color—the whole working class of the whole world.

http://marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1903/negro.htm

The thing with Debs is that he never dwelled on then "national question"; he just saw everything as class struggle and didnt dig deeper.

I don't think there is anything "deeper" than class struggle for an actual marxist. I understand "national" oppression, I have been subjected to "national" oppression and still I say that it is the classes, not the nations that matter - and you don't really have to experience "national" oppression to be able to see this.

Rawthentic

5th June 2007, 23:36

I don't think there is anything "deeper" than class struggle for an actual marxist. I understand "national" oppression, I have been subjected to "national" oppression and still I say that it is the classes, not the nations that matter - and you don't really have to experience "national" oppression to be able to see this.
Tru Dat. Although, for example, Chicanos in the US have a different history of oppression within a white dominated society. I don't know, but I agree with your point.

OneBrickOneVoice

5th June 2007, 23:42

okay nevermind

Leo

5th June 2007, 23:43

Tru Dat. Although, for example, Chicanos in the US have a different history of oppression within a white dominated society.

The point is: it is not the rich Chicanos who are the real victims of "national" oppression but working-class Chicanos (and this I know for a fact in this specific case, but it can be applied to the general situation as well). This is why only proletarian fraternalization, solidarity and in the end revolution can solve the "national" oppression; none of the factions of the bourgeoisie are capable of doing this.

Rawthentic

5th June 2007, 23:45

Or petty-bourgeoisie for that matter correct? Yeah, I've heard from, actually a "communist" on this very thread that the proletariat had to ally with other "oppressed" groups such as petty-bourgeois or even bourgeois blacks because they were subject to racism as well. Its for the record anyway, what you are saying is correct.

Leo

6th June 2007, 00:02

Yeah, I've heard from, actually a "communist"

Haha, that's a good one :lol:

Check out the little "story" by John Reed in my profile statement, I think you'll like it.

Or petty-bourgeoisie for that matter correct?

Yes, possibly with the exception of some self-employed artisans and small land-owning farmers, the sections of the petty-bourgeoisie who had "sank down" into the proletariat, as Marx defines them.

OneBrickOneVoice

6th June 2007, 00:21

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 05, 2007 10:43 pm

Tru Dat. Although, for example, Chicanos in the US have a different history of oppression within a white dominated society.

The point is: it is not the rich Chicanos who are the real victims of "national" oppression but working-class Chicanos (and this I know for a fact in this specific case, but it can be applied to the general situation as well). This is why only proletarian fraternalization, solidarity and in the end revolution can solve the "national" oppression; none of the factions of the bourgeoisie are capable of doing this.
chicano proletarians get the brunt of it, but even bourgeois and petty bourgeois oppressed nationalities suffer from oppression and exploitation based on their nationality through racism and xenophobia and shit like that.

Nothing Human Is Alien

6th June 2007, 00:33

Leo, I don't want to get into a whole debate about the national question, as its clear we have two different positions (i.e. communist vs. ultra-leftist).

Needless to say, certain scores have to be settled, and the national question, in those places where it is on the agenda, must be answered before or as the class question is.

Of course the class question is the main question, but the national question sometimes has to be answered to bring it to the front.

Not all workers are exploited to the same degree. Some are exploited more than others, sometimes because of their nationality (a lower position of a certain nationality allows them to be "acceptably" treated a certain way). That sort of shit has to be knocked out of the box, in the interest of bringing all of our fellow workers together and up to par.

Even some of the least revolutionary of unions have realized this to a degree, which is why you'll see them sometimes fighting to extend union rate pay to Black or immigrant workers in a certain industry (so that the capitalists don't have anywhere else to go for cheaper labor, which they can use to break strikes, etc.). The same principle applies to fighting in the unions to raise the wages of workers everywhere, so that the capitalists can't ship the means of production out to some location were workers are more exploited as a norm.

Leo

6th June 2007, 11:34

Leo, I don't want to get into a whole debate about the national question, as its clear we have two different positions (i.e. leftist vs. communist).

Corrected <_<

but even bourgeois and petty bourgeois oppressed nationalities suffer from oppression and exploitation based on their nationality through racism and xenophobia and shit like that.

If you have a fence covering your luxurious villa and if you are going to work in your BMW car and if you are eating in high-class restaurants all the time and so forth, it is highly unlikely that you will really suffer from any oppression, regardless of your skin color.

I worked as a box-carrier for a while when I was in US. I had several Chicano co-workers, they all seemed to think that rich Chicanos were assholes. You can, of course, try to say "oh, but Chicano bourgeoisie is also oppressed! Follow their lead!" but the chances are that they will be quite angry at you. I know that I would if some leftist-intellectual cynically told me that I should support this or that bourgeois faction for the sake of "progress" or whatever.

Needless to say, certain scores have to be settled, and the national question, in those places where it is on the agenda, must be answered before or as the class question is.

By whom? The bourgeoisie? This is obviously what you are implying, as it is clear that the "question" the proletariat will "answer" is the class question.

Do you think that the bourgeoisie is capable of solving the problems of the proletariat? If you do, how can you call yourself a "communist"?

Not all workers are exploited to the same degree. Some are exploited more than others, sometimes because of their nationality...

And sometimes because of age, should we split the proletariat on age too? Sometimes simply because one enterprise pays more than another, should we advocate that workers in an industry who are paid less than workers in another industry should organize separately and have separate interests?

That sort of shit has to be knocked out of the box

Only proletarian revolution can knock this shit out of the box. We can't create a capitalism where every single worker is exploited equally! The thing is, divided struggles, struggles in one sector, one industry, struggles limited to one "race" or one "nationality", have a possibility to succeed in defending what there already is if the struggling workers are determined enough and are conscious of the fact that they are not only fighting against the boss but also against the union, but for offensive struggles of the proletariat, the only way forward for the struggle is spreading, as much as possible.

so that the capitalists don't have anywhere else to go for cheaper labor, which they can use to break strikes, etc.

They will always have "cheaper labor", i.e the unemployed.

I remember hearing from a comrade about a strike in England under one of this Murdoch guy's (the guy who owns Fox TV and all) papers. Several thousand workers went on strike, as you can imagine this is quite an high number. Normally those strikers would not have been sacked because the paper would not be out if they were sacked as it is impossible to replace thousands of workers overnight, but Murdoch sacked all of them. The problem was that he was expecting this strike and he had a "secret" factory. The people who were working in that factory were not all "racial" or "national" minorities; they were the unemployed.

Vargha Poralli

7th June 2007, 09:17

I think Debs position on Blacks is 100 percent similar to Gandhi's position on Dalits(Untouchables).

We cannot be colour blind to racial discriminations or caste discriminations. Waiting for Socialism as a solution to all problems is not an option. We must support the emancipation of all oppressed groups in capitalism itself.Only those things can unite working class across Race,Religion etc.

Leo

7th June 2007, 11:17

I think Debs position on Blacks is 100 percent similar to Gandhi's position on Dalits(Untouchables).

Except Debs was calling for class unity and Gadhi was calling for national unity?

We must support the emancipation of all oppressed groups in capitalism itself.

Is that the emancipation of the workers in the oppressed group or capitalists in the oppressed group? What will change for the workers? What will be solved for the workers?

Nothing... This is the point. National liberation struggles as we know them has not ever cured any kind of "national" oppression. Only class unity, class solidarity, class fraternalization and in the end proletarian revolution can cure it.

We cannot be colour blind to racial discriminations or caste discriminations. Waiting for Socialism as a solution to all problems is not an option.

What else can be a solution?

Or perhaps the better question is who can solve it? Which class... Is the bourgeoisie, whether "dominant" or national liberationist, capable of solving any problem? Has it solved any problem in the 20th century? Look at Palestine, do you see a problem solved? Look at Ireland or Kurdistan or Ceylon... All we see is more wars, more suffering, more barbarism. For example, even if there is a Kurdish state founded in South East Turkey, it won't cure national oppression because there already are millions of Kurds living in the west and quite many Turks living in the South East as well.

What we should recognize is this: there is no solution to any of the problems we, as workers, are experiencing under capitalism. This is exactly why we are calling for proletarian revolution.

Vargha Poralli

7th June 2007, 15:36

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+June 07, 2007 03:47 pm--> (Leo Uilleann @ June 07, 2007 03:47 pm)
I think Debs position on Blacks is 100 percent similar to Gandhi's position on Dalits(Untouchables).

Except Debs was calling for class unity and Gadhi was calling for national unity? [/b]
Yes. Both cases are wrong.

We must support the emancipation of all oppressed groups in capitalism itself.

Is that the emancipation of the workers in the oppressed group or capitalists in the oppressed group? What will change for the workers? What will be solved for the workers?

I don't know exactly how to put it.

The capitalists in the oppressed group would not fight the opression. I have heard that some Black Businesses that had benefitted from the segregation so naturally it is against their class interest to stop it. By emancipation of all oppressed groups I meant the workers only not the Bourgeoisie.

Originally posted by [email protected]

Nothing... This is the point. National liberation struggles as we know them has not ever cured any kind of "national" oppression. Only class unity, class solidarity, class fraternalization and in the end proletarian revolution can cure it.

But certainly for the unity of all proletarians we have to be equal. The criticsm of Debs and the early SPUSA is that they didn't fight enough to end the segrgation. Their position of Colour Blindedness did not help to unite the multiracial American Working class.

Leo

We cannot be colour blind to racial discriminations or caste discriminations. Waiting for Socialism as a solution to all problems is not an option.

What else can be a solution?

Or perhaps the better question is who can solve it? Which class... Is the bourgeoisie, whether "dominant" or national liberationist, capable of solving any problem? Has it solved any problem in the 20th century? Look at Palestine, do you see a problem solved? Look at Ireland or Kurdistan or Ceylon... All we see is more wars, more suffering, more barbarism. For example, even if there is a Kurdish state founded in South East Turkey, it won't cure national oppression because there already are millions of Kurds living in the west and quite many Turks living in the South East as well.

What we should recognize is this: there is no solution to any of the problems we, as workers, are experiencing under capitalism. This is exactly why we are calling for proletarian revolution.

I don't know why you bring up the National Liberation here. Certainly the Black people in US cannot have a separate country of their own and certainly even if they have it that will not be the solution to their problems.

I don't have the right Knowledge about Kurdish struggle and can't comment on that and Srilanka(Ceylon) is totally different case which I cannot explain in this thread.

For a successful proletarian revolution we have to have Unity. And there can be no Unity without Equality. Unity without equality in the end would be just like

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

Leo

7th June 2007, 20:08

Yes. Both cases are wrong.

Calling for class unity is wrong?

The capitalists in the oppressed group would not fight the opression. I have heard that some Black Businesses that had benefitted from the segregation so naturally it is against their class interest to stop it.

Oh yes, but remember that advocating for a separate "racial" or "national" struggle is in reality advocating for segregation too.

But certainly for the unity of all proletarians we have to be equal.

Equal according to bourgeois laws? I don't think they really mean anything. Equal financially? This is not possible, "race" or "nationality" is not the only thing which causes inequality among the working class. What about the unemployed? Should they all struggle to get jobs in mass first so that they will be "equal" with other proletarians? This seems to be a very strange idea, fighting for everyone being exploited equally under capitalism... It is not possible. As for "real equality", in being equally important human beings, workers of different "races", different "nations" and so forth are already in reality equal in that sense, and have they have the same class interests. The very reason making nationalism and racism very harmful ideologies for the working class is that they make proletarians believe fellow proletarians are more or less important, significant, valuable and so forth.

Labor Shall Rule

7th June 2007, 21:00

Originally posted by Light Up The Sky!@May 31, 2007 10:16 pm
yeah I saw a piece by him which was extremely racist.
Debs was racist?

The Negro and his Nemesis (http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1904/negronemesis.htm)

The Negro in the Class Struggle (http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1903/negro.htm)

Eugene Debs, The Negro In The Class Struggle:
Socialists should with pride proclaim their sympathy with and fealty to the black race, and if any there be who hesitate to avow themselves in the face of ignorant and unreasoning prejudice, they lack the true spirit of the slavery-destroying revolutionary movement. The voice of Socialism must be as inspiring music to the ears of those in bondage, especially the weak black brethren, doubly enslaved, who are bowed to the earth and groan in despair beneath the burden of the centuries. For myself, my heart goes to the Negro and I make no apology to any white man for it. In fact, when I see the poor, brutalized, outraged black victim, I feel a burning sense of guilt for his intellectual poverty and moral debasement that makes me blush for the unspeakable crimes committed by my own race.

OneBrickOneVoice

7th June 2007, 21:13

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 06, 2007 10:34 am

If you have a fence covering your luxurious villa and if you are going to work in your BMW car and if you are eating in high-class restaurants all the time and so forth, it is highly unlikely that you will really suffer from any oppression, regardless of your skin color.

I worked as a box-carrier for a while when I was in US. I had several Chicano co-workers, they all seemed to think that rich Chicanos were assholes. You can, of course, try to say "oh, but Chicano bourgeoisie is also oppressed! Follow their lead!" but the chances are that they will be quite angry at you. I know that I would if some leftist-intellectual cynically told me that I should support this or that bourgeois faction for the sake of "progress" or whatever.
that's the precise reason why I say that chicano proletarians take the brunt. What I mean is that non-proletarian chicanos are still for example, called beaners when they're walking the street, or are still more likely to be stopped and frisked by police. I think the movie crash sort of demonstrated what I'm talking about in the scene where the wealthy black man and his wife were brutalized by police basically on the grounds that they were black and the policeman was white. It's called oppressed nationality because there is some form of discrimination against it accross class. Does class play a role in the level of oppression? Of course, because the working class is exploited and oppressed to start out with, nationality just increases that.

OneBrickOneVoice

7th June 2007, 21:14

Originally posted by RedDali+June 07, 2007 08:00 pm--> (RedDali @ June 07, 2007 08:00 pm)
Light Up The Sky!@May 31, 2007 10:16 pm
yeah I saw a piece by him which was extremely racist.
Debs was racist?

The Negro and his Nemesis (http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1904/negronemesis.htm)

The Negro in the Class Struggle (http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1903/negro.htm)

Eugene Debs, The Negro In The Class Struggle:
Socialists should with pride proclaim their sympathy with and fealty to the black race, and if any there be who hesitate to avow themselves in the face of ignorant and unreasoning prejudice, they lack the true spirit of the slavery-destroying revolutionary movement. The voice of Socialism must be as inspiring music to the ears of those in bondage, especially the weak black brethren, doubly enslaved, who are bowed to the earth and groan in despair beneath the burden of the centuries. For myself, my heart goes to the Negro and I make no apology to any white man for it. In fact, when I see the poor, brutalized, outraged black victim, I feel a burning sense of guilt for his intellectual poverty and moral debasement that makes me blush for the unspeakable crimes committed by my own race. [/b]
yeah i was corrected. Turns out just a close comrade of his was racist

Leo

7th June 2007, 21:18

What I mean is that non-proletarian chicanos are still for example, called beaners when they're walking the street

In the slums, maybe, but in rich neighborhoods not really and they don't really hang out in the slums.

or are still more likely to be stopped and frisked by police

I don't think they would be when they are wearing fancy suits.

I think the movie crash

I should watch that really. I heard it wasn't bad but I never got the chance to watch it.

It's called oppressed nationality because there is some form of discrimination against it accross class.

wealthy black man and his wife were brutalized by police basically on the grounds that they were black and the policeman was white

Those sort of cases are exceptions though, they don't really happen a lot. There might be a few individual cases, but it is not really anything general in regards to the experience of the wealthy people from oppressed "nations". It is not oppression across class.

yeah i was corrected. Turns out just a close comrade of his was racist

I don't think Debs and O'Hare were any closer than Lenin and Plekhanov*.

*Plekhanov was anti-semitic and he was also an ageist apparently.

Entrails Konfetti

7th June 2007, 23:46

I'm annoyed when people say Debs wasn't that great because of his electioneering.
Well, Marx said it could be possible to bring forth revolution in the west through electoral politics. Also. Debs just used the electoral system to agitate and introduce workers to Socialism.

Yes, 100 years later we have learned that electoral politics in the west is a waste of time. But to accuse Debs of being a reformist when he advocated workers actions and helped organize labour is very un-educated.

I think Debs is more deserving of a subforum in history than Che Guevara!

Debs was not goodlooking, he certainly wasn't a sex icon. He looked like your average guy driving a work van. He could give great speeches, he was a very nice guy, very humble, and very progressive. He wasn't arrogant-- he said that Revolutionary-Socialists, Communists and Anarchists are all socialists and should work together.

As he was thrown in jail after the Pullman Strike, he read Marx and became radicalized. Most people with age don't become radicalized, but the opposite. He on the otherhand started out a democrat and became a revolutionary Socialist-- what this shows is that an average worker can become radicalized, can stand up, and can have confidence in their class and themselves. We don't have to be goodlooking, charasmatic, or sexy-- we just have to be determined, and armed with knowlege.

Janus

8th June 2007, 00:27

I think the movie crash sort of demonstrated what I'm talking about in the scene where the wealthy black man and his wife were brutalized by police basically on the grounds that they were black and the policeman was white.
I doubt that kind of event would actually unfold in reality particularly since economic power always translates into political power. All the wealthy man would have to do is make a few calls or sue the police force; means which are unavailable to the destitute.

OneBrickOneVoice

8th June 2007, 01:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:27 pm

I think the movie crash sort of demonstrated what I'm talking about in the scene where the wealthy black man and his wife were brutalized by police basically on the grounds that they were black and the policeman was white.
I doubt that kind of event would actually unfold in reality particularly since economic power always translates into political power. All the wealthy man would have to do is make a few calls or sue the police force; means which are unavailable to the destitute.
But still I feel like petty bourgeois and even bourgeois people of an oppressed nationality are subject to racial prejudice and stuff like that. While a situation like the one put forward in Crash may be rare, I think it does happen and very similiar stuff still do happen. And that's what makes them an oppressed nationality. In fact I think that a wealthy black man may be subject to racism from fascists on the basis of his wealth, you know things like "why is this black man so wealthy and a aryan like me not successful" because it disproves the racist mental illness that black people or chicano peoples are all poor because their inferior, a wealthy or middle class national minority can be subject on that ground.

Marx said it could be possible to bring forth revolution in the west through electoral politics.

do you have a link or something like that?

Usually once a party gets into bourgeois liberal electoral politics, it tends to compromise what it is standing for. Look at the CPUSA which after years of running its own candidate now has decayed so far as to support the democrats. Look at the SWP which attacks revolutions at every corner.

Rawthentic

8th June 2007, 03:36

Henry, the "aryan" worker, the exploited one, is using racism as it really is, a manifestation of class society. Instead of seeing it as a class struggle, the "aryan" blames the black capitalist simply for being black.

Therefore, it is not surprising for white workers to be racist towards their black or latino bosses, and it shouldnt be surprising that communists must work and educate our class brothers and sisters about the need to shed that thinking and where it comes from, as well as acknowledging that a capitalist is....a capitalist, no matter whether he is white or black. Why? Because the capitalist is the profiteer of the capitalist system, the system that generates this racism that he is sometimes subject to.

OneBrickOneVoice

8th June 2007, 03:45

racism and class struggle aren't compatible Jose, real class consciousness would be critiscizing the guy for being a capitalist not black or chicano. But it's not just a class thing; it can be from co-workers, too who for example say he's just where he is because of affirmative action or sentiments like that. I was just giving an example, hell the white guy in the first scenario could be a captialist who is slightly less successful.

The fact that there is racial oppression in this form can turn petty bourgeois blacks to support socialism on the grounds of its the only way oppressed nationalities can be liberated. So there is some unity to be had there.

Rawthentic

8th June 2007, 03:59

Henry, racism, as well as other forms of discrimination, are the birth pangs of class society, they are the forms in which the oppressed are subjugated and disunited. When we talk about class struggle we talk about uniting the working class regardless of race, religion, nationality, etc., to put an end to classes, the root of racism.

I can see where you are going in terms of the petty-bourgeois being subject to racism, but like I said before, racism cannot be separated from class, that is a serious misunderstanding. Besides the fact that the petty-bourgeois approach socialism with an entirely different perspective than that of the proletariat, and would hence need to break completely from their class relations to adopt the proletarian line.

Entrails Konfetti

8th June 2007, 04:02

Originally posted by Light Up The Sky!@June 08, 2007 12:27 am

Marx said it could be possible to bring forth revolution in the west through electoral politics.

do you have a link or something like that?

Usually once a party gets into bourgeois liberal electoral politics, it tends to compromise what it is standing for. Look at the CPUSA which after years of running its own candidate now has decayed so far as to support the democrats. Look at the SWP which attacks revolutions at every corner.
He didn't say it was definate, but that it could happen.

Also, Debs never said or did anything about a compromise, and he just ran for candidacy to agitate. I'm not saying its good idea. To do it today is a waste of time.
But in the early 20th century it was a new thing, even Rosa Luxemburg was curious about the possibilities-- but the results weren't favourable.

As for a link, I can't find one, but I do remember reading it somewhere. Marx I think, meant that the proletariat could act as an oposition to the capitalists and agitate.

Rawthentic

8th June 2007, 04:12

KABLAMO, you are correct in saying that Debs and the Party only used votes and elections as socialist propaganda, and Debs always measured victories in not the number of total votes he got, but the number of Socialist ones he got compared to the reformist ones.

OneBrickOneVoice

8th June 2007, 04:20

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 08, 2007 02:59 am
Henry, racism, as well as other forms of discrimination, are the birth pangs of class society, they are the forms in which the oppressed are subjugated and disunited. When we talk about class struggle we talk about uniting the working class regardless of race, religion, nationality, etc., to put an end to classes, the root of racism.

I can see where you are going in terms of the petty-bourgeois being subject to racism, but like I said before, racism cannot be separated from class, that is a serious misunderstanding. Besides the fact that the petty-bourgeois approach socialism with an entirely different perspective than that of the proletariat, and would hence need to break completely from their class relations to adopt the proletarian line.
Just out of curiousity, I've never really got a concrete answer on this: what do you really think about Engel's class status? Do you think he was just being one of the greatest revolutionary marxist theoreticians because he thought he could get richer from it? Or do you think him and those like him are exceptions? Or what?

And yeah, I agree, Racism is tied in to class society, just like the oppression of womyn and the LGBT movement

Rawthentic

8th June 2007, 04:29

About Engels, he was a man that lived in a very different time, under ascendant capitalism. You see, as I have told you, floated from one class to the other was not only possible in Engels' time, but also relatively easy, and Karl Marx showed this when he broke with his class background to become proletarian. Engels was not as successful at this as Marx was, neither was Lenin, who attempted to make the break but ended up divorced from class relations. Marx and Engels hated those of the propertied classes who came to the revolutionary proletarian movement as "leaders", but failed or refused to break with their class background. What they saw for these petty-bourgeois, or even bourgeois, was as being "intellectual servants" of the proletariat, nothing more, and this highlighted their concept of proletarian self-emancipation.

Karl Marx in his Address to the Central Committee of the Communist League: " While the democratic petty bourgeois is everywhere oppressed, they preach to the proletariat general unity and reconciliation...that is, they seek to ensnare the workers in a party organization in which general social democratic phrases prevail while...the specific demands of the proletariat may not be presented. Such a unity would to their complete disadvantage of the proletariat"

So I think that sums up what Engels was about. He did not hold a proletarian line, because he was not proletarian, but came to the understanding that his role was that of an intellectual, not a leader of the proletarian movement. I hope this covers it.

Leo

8th June 2007, 11:42

Well, Marx said it could be possible to bring forth revolution in the west through electoral politics.

Yet, things had changed since Marx said that.

I'm annoyed when people say Debs wasn't that great because of his electioneering... Also. Debs just used the electoral system to agitate and introduce workers to Socialism.

Yes, 100 years later we have learned that electoral politics in the west is a waste of time. But to accuse Debs of being a reformist when he advocated workers actions and helped organize labour is very un-educated.

But surely it was a mistake, I mean Eugene Debs will be remembered with his internationalist speech in Canton, Ohio in opposition to World War I, not with his electoral or unionist politics.

I agree that it is very unfair and not true to accuse Debs with reformism because of his electioneering, but he did fail to analyze the situation throughly and he did fail to see that parliamentarian or electoral method was not valid anymore because it had been obvious; almost all the socialists in the European parliaments were integrated into the state with the parliaments themselves and they were supporting the war.

I think Debs is more deserving of a subforum in history than Che Guevara!

I would definately agree with that.

Vargha Poralli

8th June 2007, 18:25

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 08, 2007 12:38 am

Yes. Both cases are wrong.

Calling for class unity is wrong?

Great !! puting word in my mouth it seems :rolleyes:

The capitalists in the oppressed group would not fight the opression. I have heard that some Black Businesses that had benefitted from the segregation so naturally it is against their class interest to stop it.

Oh yes, but remember that advocating for a separate "racial" or "national" struggle is in reality advocating for segregation too.

Bullshit Leo. :angry: I really doubht you know about what you are talking about. i really don't get what the hell you meant by that. So you say that workers should tolerate discrimination based on race,religion caste etc ?

But certainly for the unity of all proletarians we have to be equal.

Equal according to bourgeois laws? I don't think they really mean anything. Equal financially? This is not possible, "race" or "nationality" is not the only thing which causes inequality among the working class. What about the unemployed? Should they all struggle to get jobs in mass first so that they will be "equal" with other proletarians? This seems to be a very strange idea, fighting for everyone being exploited equally under capitalism... It is not possible. As for "real equality", in being equally important human beings, workers of different "races", different "nations" and so forth are already in reality equal in that sense, and have they have the same class interests. The very reason making nationalism and racism very harmful ideologies for the working class is that they make proletarians believe fellow proletarians are more or less important, significant, valuable and so forth.

Well I mean equal in the sense that we all are a part of the working class.

We are not equal. I say it from my observation in real world.

Do you think me as a person from a forward caste by birth son of a government employee would have same equal status as a person who is Dalit by birth whose ancestors have atleast for some 5-6 generations had been forced to do Manual Scavenging(A process of collecting and disposing Night Soil) are equal as a proletarians. I think no. This is a fact.

Also the fact is that to make us equal some measures like Reservation in education jobs are very much important. Unity cannot be achieved without equality. Yes if some bourgeoisie laws help us in making us equal then hell as a worker it our benefit to support them.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Any LeftHenry your arguments are totally wrong. Capitalists of any race,religion,caste or gender is still a capitalist and benefits from the current class society.

Leo

8th June 2007, 18:51

Great !! puting word in my mouth it seems

That's what you said!

Originally posted by g.ram+--> (g.ram)
Leo
Except Debs was calling for class unity and Gadhi was calling for national unity?

Yes. Both cases are wrong.[/b]

What am I supposed to understand!

Bullshit Leo. mad.gif

Please calm down, you don't have to get angry.

I really doubht you know about what you are talking about. i really don't get what the hell you meant by that. So you say that workers should tolerate discrimination based on race,religion caste etc ?

:o No, of course that's not what I am saying! All I say that struggles limited to one "race" or one "nation" will not solve anything. Marx said "Workers of the world, unite" not "Workers of x nation / race / religion, unite". Only united proletarian struggles on class terrain can destroy discrimination based on race, religion, nationality etc.

Well I mean equal in the sense that we all are a part of the working class.

Well, yes we are all a part of the working class :unsure:

We are not equal. I say it from my observation in real world.

Wait... what?

Do you think me as a person from a forward caste by birth son of a government employee would have same equal status as a person who is Dalit by birth whose ancestors have atleast for some 5-6 generations had been forced to do Manual Scavenging(A process of collecting and disposing Night Soil) are equal as a proletarians. I think no. This is a fact.

Okay, what you mean is financial and sociological (status etc.) equality. That was what I was trying to understand about your position.

Also the fact is that to make us equal some measures like Reservation in education jobs are very much important. Unity cannot be achieved without equality. Yes if some bourgeoisie laws help us in making us equal then hell as a worker it our benefit to support them.

But bourgeois laws can't do such thing. "Race" or "nationality" or "religion" or "caste" and so forth are not the only things that cause inequality in the financial and sociological sense among the working class. What about the unemployed? Should they all struggle to get jobs in mass first so that they will be "equal" with other proletarians? This seems to be a very strange idea, fighting for everyone being exploited equally under capitalism... It is not possible.

This goes into a long argument about the decadence of capitalism. It is a very long issue which I unfortunately don't have the time to deal with right now. Perhaps we will talk about it later.

Led Zeppelin

8th June 2007, 18:57

Originally posted by EK
We don't have to be goodlooking, charasmatic, or sexy-- we just have to be determined, and armed with knowlege.

Who said we have to goodlooking, charismatic or sexy? What the hell?

But yeah, most revolutionary leaders, if not all, were charismatic, I'm sure Debs was.

Vargha Poralli

8th June 2007, 19:28

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+June 08, 2007 11:21 pm--> (Leo Uilleann @ June 08, 2007 11:21 pm)
Great !! puting word in my mouth it seems

That's what you said!

Originally posted by g.ram+--> (g.ram)
Originally posted by Leo
Except Debs was calling for class unity and Gadhi was calling for national unity?

Yes. Both cases are wrong.[/b]

What am I supposed to understand![/b]
I think you are too simplistic in analysis. But some things are not as simple as it is.

Gandhi's patronising attitude did not help Dalits. It is the their fight which has gained them what limited achievement they have made.

And SPUSA's position did not end Segregation. It is the fight of the Black Community manifested in Civil rights movement achieved them the gains they have today.

Clearly Dalits would not have waited until India's Independence to their Miseries. Same way Blacks would not have waited for Socialism to achieve Civil rights.

As Communists we must support things like these. We cannot say wait till revolution so that you may have what others have now. Fighting for things like these is the only way we could achieve class unity which is crucial in our struggles.

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann

Bullshit Leo. mad.gif

Please calm down, you don't have to get angry.

I really doubht you know about what you are talking about. i really don't get what the hell you meant by that. So you say that workers should tolerate discrimination based on race,religion caste etc ?

:o No, of course that's not what I am saying! All I say that struggles limited to one "race" or one "nation" will not solve anything. Marx said "Workers of the world, unite" not "Workers of x nation / race / religion, unite". Only united proletarian struggles on class terrain can destroy discrimination based on race, religion, nationality etc.

Then you have totally misunderstood what I am saying.

Civil rights movement achieved its victory not only because of Blacks. It really had participation from White people.

Same way what Dalits have achieved(significantly less) is also because of support for their struggle from progressive people from other castes.

What I am saying is as communists we should fight for the upliftment in living standards for all workers.

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann

Well I mean equal in the sense that we all are a part of the working class.

Well, yes we are all a part of the working class :unsure:

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
We are not equal. I say it from my observation in real world.

Wait... what?

I think I have clearly given an example of what I have observed.

Leo [email protected]

Do you think me as a person from a forward caste by birth son of a government employee would have same equal status as a person who is Dalit by birth whose ancestors have atleast for some 5-6 generations had been forced to do Manual Scavenging(A process of collecting and disposing Night Soil) are equal as a proletarians. I think no. This is a fact.

Okay, what you mean is financial and sociological (status etc.) equality. That was what I was trying to understand about your position.

Yes. For some things waiting for Socialism is not the answer.

Leo Uilleann

Also the fact is that to make us equal some measures like Reservation in education jobs are very much important. Unity cannot be achieved without equality. Yes if some bourgeoisie laws help us in making us equal then hell as a worker it our benefit to support them.

But bourgeois laws can't do such thing. "Race" or "nationality" or "religion" or "caste" and so forth are not the only things that cause inequality in the financial and sociological sense among the working class. What about the unemployed? Should they all struggle to get jobs in mass first so that they will be "equal" with other proletarians? This seems to be a very strange idea, fighting for everyone being exploited equally under capitalism... It is not possible.

This goes into a long argument about the decadence of capitalism. It is a very long issue which I unfortunately don't have the time to deal with right now. Perhaps we will talk about it later.

Well Racism,Gender inequality etc have existed for a long time before Capitalism. And Indian caste structure is really a very old system which became rigid during 3rd Century BCE quite a long time before Slave Society and Feudalism in Europe.

The problem with both Feudalism and Capitalism is that they had just changed the property relations of the previous class societies but they never changed Social Relations.

And Changing the property relations alone will not change these Social Relations IMO even if the workers have took control of the Means of Productions in near future. We have to fight a lot to change these Social Relations too.

What I am saying is that we have to fight it right now. The Capitalists will not do it. We have to make them do it.

Vargha Poralli

8th June 2007, 19:38

We don't have to be goodlooking, charasmatic, or sexy-- we just have to be determined, and armed with knowlege.

If you are talking about Che Guevara then you are totally wrong. There are million people who are goodlooking,charismatic and sexy. And people who admire che in this forum were not admirers of his Charisma or Sexiness. Unlike you we see people for what they did not how they looked.

Chee too was a determined revolutionary. He did not chose to sit in Cuba and enjoy his position in Cuba. Disregarding his health he took himself to fight oppression in Congo and Bolivia which I think is worth admiring a person for.

Leo

8th June 2007, 20:14

Civil rights movement achieved its victory not only because of Blacks. It really had participation from White people.

Civil rights movement did not really achieve any victory; there is still racism in the US. It is just that the US government changed some parts of their official propaganda.

Well Racism,Gender inequality etc have existed for a long time before Capitalism. And Indian caste structure is really a very old system which became rigid during 3rd Century BCE quite a long time before Slave Society and Feudalism in Europe.

The problem with both Feudalism and Capitalism is that they had just changed the property relations of the previous class societies but they never changed Social Relations.

And Changing the property relations alone will not change these Social Relations IMO even if the workers have took control of the Means of Productions in near future. We have to fight a lot to change these Social Relations too.

This is interesting, but I think there is one aspect to it which you are missing: in order to change the social relations, you have to start with fighting any bits of racism, nationalism, the influence of casts and other bourgeois ideologies within the proletarian struggle. We can only do this while we are struggling in our own terrain, the class terrain, where white and black workers are forced to see that they have the same class interests. Without this, changing the social relations is not possible. You say:

What I am saying is that we have to fight it right now. The Capitalists will not do it. We have to make them do it.

The only problem is that it is not that they don't want to do it; it is that they are unable to do it. Take the example of the American bourgeoisie; they did want to stop racism but they couldn't and they will never be able to in decadent capitalism. This is why only the proletariat can solve the problem, and the proletariat has to solve this problem itself, independent from any bourgeois faction, bourgeois law or bourgeois influence.

PRC-UTE

8th June 2007, 20:55

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 08, 2007 07:14 pm

Civil rights movement achieved its victory not only because of Blacks. It really had participation from White people.

Civil rights movement did not really achieve any victory; there is still racism in the US. It is just that the US government changed some parts of their official propaganda.

Saying that the black civil rights movement achieved no victories is simply incorrect. Much of the racism in the USA is just a reaction to gains that have been made. Of course the civil rights movement only went so far and even MLK hinted that only socialism could resolve the rest of the work that had to be done (such as pointing out that integration is good, but if black ppl can't afford a hamburger it's not enough)... but to pretend like nothing at all changed is utopian and a slap in the face to people who sacrificed and some who gave their lives to overturn a racial caste system.

Leo

8th June 2007, 21:22

Saying that the black civil rights movement achieved no victories is simply incorrect.

Is it?

I lived for a year in Los Angeles. Of course, in the tvs and all, it was all being said that "the problem was solved" after the civil rights movement, and in rich neighborhoods, there seemed to be "harmony", there were blacks and chicanos in TV shows and commercials. Almost everything appeared to be "clean" of racism.

However, I had some black friends from working-class backgrounds, they were all quite young but still most of them had been subjected to racism, although only one had been subjected to anything really violent.

While I was there, I worked as a box carrier for a while. I had some chicano co-workers. They had been subjected to racism too, not only around but also in their workplaces and some of them were quite older than me.

And of course, as someone from the middle east, I was subjected to racism as well - I even got into a fight.

Of course there were changes, exceptions were more common but racism was like this problem which everyone knew that it existed, but no one talked about. There had been a reaction, individual members of the middle class were indeed a little "ashamed" to admit the racist tendencies they had if they had any. Most of the black and white capitalists had mixed with each other better and so forth.

Los Angeles doesn't have a good reputation but I would imagine that it is much better than some southern states.

Now, if we look at the legal changes during the civil rights movement, there were passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination in employment practices and public accommodations, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that restored voting rights, the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 that changed U.S. immigration policy, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing... and that was it basically. And of course legal changes are not in anyways enough to solve this kind of problems.

but to pretend like nothing at all changed is utopian and a slap in the face to people who sacrificed and some who gave their lives to overturn a racial caste system.

I am not pretending anything <_<

Yes, it is sad that all those people who died for this didn't solve the problem. However we should be analyzing why the problem wasn't solved.

Labor Shall Rule

8th June 2007, 21:42

To Leo Uilleann Voz de la Gente Trabajadora :

"I would definately agree with that."

I also agree. Debs did far more for the worker's movement than Che Guevara ever did.

You both are taking a position on race relations that is disconnected with reality - we all know that the conception of race is primarily the social construct of class society, but that does not mean we should ignore such a tremendous division between white and black workers. The fact is that the average white family will earn approximately $650,000 more than the black family; the fact is that the income of 2.1 million African-American families (26 percent) was below the poverty level; the fact is that African-Americans aged 12 and up are the most victimized group in America: 41.7 over 1,000 of them are victims of violent crimes, compared with whites (36.3 over 1,000). This, believe it or not, does not include murder. I actually met a Freedom Rider that, while in Alabama, met a black sharecrop farmer that had toiled and bled on the same land that his enslaved ancestors had worked on; they still owed debt to the same former slave masters, and they still, for better lack of a word, were slaves. These historical circumstances need to be understood - we need to have affirmative action programs, and recognize black liberation movements.

Leo

8th June 2007, 21:52

These historical circumstances need to be understood - we need to have affirmative action programs, and recognize black liberation movements.

Here is the problem, I think.

In my last post, I was trying to prove that racism still existed in the US and that there was still "racial" oppression and again that civil rights movement had not solved any of those problems. Neither will affirmative action programs nor black liberations solve those problems. Even if we forget that communist militants are a minority, and will always be a minority and that the bourgeoisie is our bitter enemies thus they will not really care about what support to have or what we recognize, the fact is that all different bourgeois factions tried to solve the problems in different ways; some were more radical, some were more moderate and so forth - and that all failed. The bourgeoisie is not capable of solving this problem; it is not because they are all wicked people, it is just a material fact. We can only solve this problem within the terrain of class struggle, after all it is our terrain.

Vargha Poralli

9th June 2007, 06:17

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+June 09, 2007 12:44 am--> (Leo Uilleann @ June 09, 2007 12:44 am)
Civil rights movement achieved its victory not only because of Blacks. It really had participation from White people.

Civil rights movement did not really achieve any victory; there is still racism in the US. It is just that the US government changed some parts of their official propaganda.

[/b]
Well it did ended Segregation. It did open up many oppurtunities to the Blacks and played a crucial role in putting an end to Jim Crowe Laws.

Those things are not because of Benevolent American Bourgeoisie. It is because of the hard fought struggle fought by the Black and White workers for the civil rights movements.

Should the Blacks should have waited for Socialism to end those things ? I think no.

Leo Uillean

Well Racism,Gender inequality etc have existed for a long time before Capitalism. And Indian caste structure is really a very old system which became rigid during 3rd Century BCE quite a long time before Slave Society and Feudalism in Europe.

The problem with both Feudalism and Capitalism is that they had just changed the property relations of the previous class societies but they never changed Social Relations.

And Changing the property relations alone will not change these Social Relations IMO even if the workers have took control of the Means of Productions in near future. We have to fight a lot to change these Social Relations too.

This is interesting, but I think there is one aspect to it which you are missing: in order to change the social relations, you have to start with fighting any bits of racism, nationalism, the influence of casts and other bourgeois ideologies within the proletarian struggle. We can only do this while we are struggling in our own terrain, the class terrain, where white and black workers are forced to see that they have the same class interests. Without this, changing the social relations is not possible.

Yes. For Black and White workers in US or a Brahmin and Dalit worker in India to see their struggle in terms of class they have to break up the barrier that has been dividing them for a long time.

Desegregation helped blacks to come out of the places that has been confined for them to join with the people of other races. Black and White kids started to share the same schools which surely gave a big blow to institutional racism.

Same way Reservation made people of all castes to have somewhat equal oppurtunity in education, jobs etc. Many Dalits broke off of being a Manual Scavenger a occupation that has been forced on them for genereations.

These things definitely help in class struggle. These types of things are worth fighting for. And victory in these things will unite the working class and strengthens it in the Class Struggle.

You say:

What I am saying is that we have to fight it right now. The Capitalists will not do it. We have to make them do it.

The only problem is that it is not that they don't want to do it; it is that they are unable to do it. Take the example of the American bourgeoisie; they did want to stop racism but they couldn't and they will never be able to in decadent capitalism. This is why only the proletariat can solve the problem, and the proletariat has to solve this problem itself, independent from any bourgeois faction, bourgeois law or bourgeois influence.

Well this thing is what I meant when I say your analyses were simplistic.

You give too much credit to the Bourgeoisie. No they never want to end Racism or Casteism. Those things divide the working class and they benefit from this division.

Desegregation and Death Blow to Jim Crow laws did not come because American Bourgeoisie wanted to end institutional racism but because of the Black and White workers fight to end it through the civil rights movement.

Caste lines in todays India have blurred greatly not because of the Benevolence of the British and Indian bourgeoisie but because of the very long fight of the miniscule Indian working class to end it.

Leo

9th June 2007, 08:39

Well it did ended Segregation.

Only officially.

Among the working class, there is still segregation; white, black, latino and asian workers all hanging out together is a rare case.

It did open up many oppurtunities

What opportunities is there for the working class?

Those things are not because of Benevolent American Bourgeoisie. It is because of the hard fought struggle fought by the Black and White workers for the civil rights movements.

Yes, but again, look at this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66827&view=findpost&p=1292328917) post. The racism problem isn't really solved - as far as I saw. They say that all the laws which they changed solved the problems but I don't think this is true at all.

Should the Blacks should have waited for Socialism to end those things ? I think no.

Socialism is not something you buy from the supermarket, put in the microwave and wait to be able to eat! The working class doesn't wait for socialism, it fights for socialism, or in other words socialism is born out of the daily fights of the working class.

Yes. For Black and White workers in US or a Brahmin and Dalit worker in India to see their struggle in terms of class they have to break up the barrier that has been dividing them for a long time.

Yes, and they can only do it in the class terrain.

Desegregation helped blacks to come out of the places that has been confined for them to join with the people of other races. Black and White kids started to share the same schools.

To some extent, yes, but segregation doesn't have to be institutional. There is still separation in neighborhoods, thus separation in schools etc.

You give too much credit to the Bourgeoisie. No they never want to end Racism or Casteism. Those things divide the working class and they benefit from this division.

I think that is too simplistic.

They did, for example, want to end racism in the United States because it had became a big issue, the imperialist rivals of the US (like the USSR) were using this issue against them and their public image was in very deep trouble. They didn't however manage to end racism because they were unable to but at least they are making a big effort to make it look as if they ended racism.

There are always other factors in the game.

Of course nothing happened because the bourgeoisie were good people or bad people. It was pure imperialist interests / class interests. Everything is...

Caste lines in todays India have blurred greatly

Did they? I don't know much about the Castes in India today but I have heard that it too still existed and was an important aspect of life in some parts of the society.

Hampton

9th June 2007, 18:48

Isn't saying that the Civil Rights Movement didn't do anything for black people pretty simplisitc as well? Sure it did not end racism, I'm not sure who thought a bunch of laws passed through a bullshit political system would change people's hearts and minds and automatically make everyone like each other. There are no laws that will end racism, it's in the fabric of the cloth, the only way to end it is to get a new cloth and throw away the old one.

Now, if we look at the legal changes during the civil rights movement, there were passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination in employment practices and public accommodations, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that restored voting rights, the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 that changed U.S. immigration policy, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing... and that was it basically.

Basically? Yea none of those things is really all that great, right? I mean black people have only been fighting for some od those rights for what, 300 years? Should have they been doing something else?

There is a line I think when talking about the civil rights movement that those on the left seem to follow. There are those who praise it and sayit solved all the problems and those who say it did nothing for anyone. I think both of these positions are incorrect. It is right to say that the movement did not go far enough and that a desegregated lunch counter does not help those who can't afford to eat there, but to not acknowledge the gains received under it, small as they may be, or to not see how the movement and marches put racism or Jim Crow into the national and world eye are missing something.

The other side is saying it was a great thing and it solved all problems because they could now vote. That's wrong too.

To some extent, yes, but segregation doesn't have to be institutional. There is still separation in neighborhoods, thus separation in schools etc.

If it's not institutional or not in the system, not ingrained in everyday life, then what is it?

Leo

9th June 2007, 21:12

Sure it did not end racism, I'm not sure who thought a bunch of laws passed through a bullshit political system would change people's hearts and minds and automatically make everyone like each other.

The bourgeoisie definately wanted workers to think that, especially black workers.

There is a line I think when talking about the civil rights movement that those on the left seem to follow. There are those who praise it and sayit solved all the problems and those who say it did nothing for anyone. I think both of these positions are incorrect. It is right to say that the movement did not go far enough and that a desegregated lunch counter does not help those who can't afford to eat there, but to not acknowledge the gains received under it, small as they may be, or to not see how the movement and marches put racism or Jim Crow into the national and world eye are missing something.

Well, yes, in that period racism and Jim Crow were in the national and world eye. Okay... But, that didn't solve the problem, did it? Being able to vote didn't change anything in the lives of black workers, nor did banning discrimination in the sale or rental of housing actually stop discrimination in the sale or rental of housing for the workers, banning discrimination in employment practices and public accommodations did not really stop discrimination in employment practices and public accommodations.

If it's not institutional or not in the system, not ingrained in everyday life, then what is it?

Perhaps "official" would have been a better word than "institutional". I never said that it wasn't ingrained in everyday life, nor that it wasn't in the system. In fact I've been saying quite the opposite.

Labor Shall Rule

9th June 2007, 21:42

It seems you don't understand how amazing such an achievement like that is - for the first time, blacks can be among people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, rather than being segregated on the basis of their skin pigment. It was illegal to segregate within these institutions, which is an achievement for the working class as a whole. I don't know about you, but I will admit that my grandfather was an avid racist; he was employed at a steel mill, and would describe how he felt 'safe' that the schools were not integrated, and how every morning black and white workers would enter their workplace from different spots. We need organizations that would fight against this form of super-exploitation that persists on the basis of race - we need to fight the racism that divides the workers as of right now; we need to agitate and educate within the context of capitalism by supporting affirmative action and these organizations in order to rid of the artificial antagonism between white and black workers.

We have made large steps since 1960 - considering that I go to school with blacks, that I am friends with blacks, that I march at rallies with blacks; all things that certainly would not exist in my grandfather's time.

Leo

9th June 2007, 23:22

It seems you don't understand how amazing such an achievement like that is - for the first time, blacks can be among people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, rather than being segregated on the basis of their skin pigment.

Yes, that's what the history books are saying. Yet, I am rather skeptical about this: is segregation really something that can be solved with several laws being changed?

It was illegal to segregate within these institutions, which is an achievement for the working class as a whole.

I am not sure I understand the point correctly here, you are saying that it is illegal to segregate within institutions now or that it not to segregate was illegal in the past?

But what is legal or illegal hardly changes what is real, doesn't it? I am not really sure that segregation is something bourgeois laws are capable of solving in decadent capitalism.

We need organizations that would fight against this form of super-exploitation that persists on the basis of race

But surely there would be no chance of success in destroying racism whatsoever in separate struggles? And after all we will not have a capitalism where everyone is exploited equally: think of the unemployed, they are 30% of the world, they live in horrible conditions, they starve to death and there is nothing the bourgeoisie is capable of doing about it. It is only us, the proletarait that can solve the problems of the proletariat, of humanity and of the world.

There is nothing the bourgeoisie can give us.

considering that I go to school with blacks, that I am friends with blacks, that I march at rallies with blacks;

I don't think this really proves much. I am sure that there are many people who have a very low amount of black students in their schools or who stay away from black students in their schools. As for the past, the Communist Party of America had several thousand black members at the 20ies. I remember reading about rallies where whites walked with blacks in the 30ties - so it wasn't all racism in the early 20th century as well.

What seems to really be a step forward was the abolishment of slavery, and that happened during the ascendant period of capitalism, during the period in which the bourgeoisie was capable of solving at least some problems. Nevertheless I don't really know much about that period as I never studied the history of that period in detail.

we need to agitate and educate within the context of capitalism by supporting affirmative action and these organizations in order to rid of the artificial antagonism between white and black workers.

I don't think we can really do that, or in other words I don't it is really possible to do something like that. The only place where we can actually get rid rid of the artificial antagonism between white and black workers, where all workers can see that racism is completely against their class interests, where racism can actually be destroyed is the picket line and the proletariat is the only class capable of doing it.

Dominick

10th June 2007, 01:49

Regardless, the Civil Rights Movement was a progressive shift in, both in the consciousness of the masses, resulting in the inspiration of various struggles at home and abroad, and material change for African-Americans. There certainly were inroads made to halt these gains after the fact, and we must be certain to understand this; that is, the current conditions are resultant of a push back by the ruling class against the radicalism of the movements in the 60's and 70's. The alternative is projecting the current conditions backwards onto the Civil Rights Movement, as though they did not accomplish any gains.

Entrails Konfetti

10th June 2007, 04:08

Originally posted by Leo+--> (Leo)I agree that it is very unfair and not true to accuse Debs with reformism because of his electioneering, but he did fail to analyze the situation throughly and he did fail to see that parliamentarian or electoral method was not valid anymore because it had been obvious; almost all the socialists in the European parliaments were integrated into the state with the parliaments themselves and they were supporting the war.[/b]

Well, this continent is blocked from the rest of the world by two oceans, and certainly it would cause material conditions to be different. Also, keep in mind most of Europe sends people to the legislature or paraliament based on proportional representation, and so it's easier for third parties to have chairs, and the United States of America has the wonderful electoral congress, so Debs probally never expected to take office. Maybe Debs thought the mentioned differences between USA and Europe would prevent integration into paraliament and reformism. Whatever prevented Debs from analyzing the situtation, SPUSA has descended into reformism-- not soley because of electoral politics, but because of the split before the middle of the 20th century, and most of the pro-revolution members left for elsewhere.

Originally posted by Leninism+--> (Leninism)Who said we have to goodlooking, charismatic or sexy? What the hell?

But yeah, most revolutionary leaders, if not all, were charismatic, I'm sure Debs was. [/b]

What I'm getting at is that Che was style over substance. If he wasn't goodlooking and made the room brighter when he entered, no one would give a damn!

Debs, you wouldn't notice him if he entered the room. However he would become noticeable when he was speaking publicly. He was a terrific orator.

Despite Debs speaking and his actual organizing of fellow workers, he not as known as Che. You'd think Debs would known world-wide to be so radical, and to organize in a country so conservative. And he was just an ordinary guy from Nowhere, Indiana. Debs played a major part in organizing the workers movement in the USA.

[email protected]
And SPUSA's position did not end Segregation. It is the fight of the Black Community manifested in Civil rights movement achieved them the gains they have today.
And who would SPUSA be to tell black people what they should and shouldn't do?
I can't recall in the late 19th and early 20th centuries many Blacks taking a militant stand against racism. Blacks organizing millitantly hadn't really culminated yet, the end of the Civil-War and the victory of the north was still pretty new, and everyone was confused as to what was really happening. It was the newer generations of freed blacks who organized against racism, those whose wills weren't broken because of slavery.

Chee too was a determined revolutionary. He did not chose to sit in Cuba and enjoy his position in Cuba. Disregarding his health he took himself to fight oppression in Congo and Bolivia which I think is worth admiring a person for.
He didn't organize workers, he didn't help any worker gain an understanding of Socialism or Marxism. The theory that a guerilla foco is to turn off a countrys lights, and make the bourgeois turn into to monsters of the night--while the peasants and the proletariat begin to see the monsters and fight them to win socialism-- has been disproven. Instead the turning off of the lights pisses everyone off, or causes the guerillas (who have waning support of the proles and peasants) go into a cease-fire and work for reforms within the capitalist state.

I for one am nothing like Che Guevara, I'm not from the background of Plantation owners. I do not believe or take part in insurections separate from the working-class organizing. I'm not actor material, I'm not a doctor.

So, I relate more to Eugene Debs, who came from a smalltown, a working-class family, and went to school at night at a local community college. He organized with fellow workers, he stood up-- if he can do it, so can I!

Debs didn't spend his life organizing, and teaching fellow workers because he was subject to party discipline. He did it because he believed in his fellow workers. His coleagues energized him, and he energized them in return.

Leo
This is interesting, but I think there is one aspect to it which you are missing: in order to change the social relations, you have to start with fighting any bits of racism, nationalism, the influence of casts and other bourgeois ideologies within the proletarian struggle. We can only do this while we are struggling in our own terrain, the class terrain, where white and black workers are forced to see that they have the same class interests. Without this, changing the social relations is not possible.

I agree that if the civil rights movement were to return, it would fail or stop short because the bourgeois can't do anything to make such equallity. But, the thing is, it's very real that the movement will return in full-force-- it will not be Socialist at first, and I think we shouldn't abstain from it, but agitate and organize within it. I feel like I'm getting a sense of abstainance from you. Within this movement we can end exploitation instead of letting the movement sink in the mud, because the equal exploitation of all workers is impossible.

And to be on the safe-side, in post revolutionary society-- I'm all for councils of workers from ethnic minority background who point out racism most are unaware of, and take action against it. Afterall, the former society has its marks on the new.

Vargha Poralli

10th June 2007, 07:44

Only officially.

Among the working class, there is still segregation; white, black, latino and asian workers all hanging out together is a rare case.

So it is better to still have institutional racism ? The fight against was useless ?

What opportunities is there for the working class?

To be able to get better education,to get better medical treatment,to get better jobs etc...

Yes, but again, look at this post. The racism problem isn't really solved - as far as I saw. They say that all the laws which they changed solved the problems but I don't think this is true at all.

Well I think Hampton addressed this point better.

Socialism is not something you buy from the supermarket, put in the microwave and wait to be able to eat! The working class doesn't wait for socialism, it fights for socialism, or in other words socialism is born out of the daily fights of the working class.

Fighting for things like these is the fight for Socialism. That is my point.

Did they? I don't know much about the Castes in India today but I have heard that it too still existed and was an important aspect of life in some parts of the society.

Well the the issue is not as simple as i have said. I am actually mistaken.

But certainly the rigidity has greatly reduced now as compared to 50 or 60 years before. That was really because of the fight of the dalit woirking class for more than centuries.

A good example I can give is th recent State Elections result of Uttar Pradesh. This state is most populous state in India with diverse population and the hotbed for caste fights and Hindu-Muslim conflicts.In recent elections the Bahujan Samaj Party a party which has its initial growth based on hatred of High Caste Hindus captured power with majority a thing which the state never had for almost 10 years. And the votes the party gained is very much diverse and majority of the High Caste Hindus and OBC's voted for the party.

This gave a serious blow to both BJP and Congress and also the Smamjwadi party which based on the OBC vote bank.The result is clearly an indication of the evolution of the Indian masses. They no longer vote on the caste lines but on various issues.

If the caste system had been rigid as it has been in the past things l;ike this would never happen. It shows people of all castes that the probelem is not caused by other castes but because of the system. It surely helps to sharpen the class struggle.

Originally posted by Hampton+--> (Hampton)
There is a line I think when talking about the civil rights movement that those on the left seem to follow. There are those who praise it and sayit solved all the problems and those who say it did nothing for anyone.
[/b]

I am not holding this line. I am just saying the problem solved by the civil rights movement was not because the American Bourgeoisie was benevolent but because of the fight workers took against those things.

EL Kalambo

And who would SPUSA be to tell black people what they should and shouldn't do?

SPUSA should not tell black workers what they should and shouldn't do. They should have fought against segregation.

I can't recall in the late 19th and early 20th centuries many Blacks taking a militant stand against racism. Blacks organizing millitantly hadn't really culminated yet, the end of the Civil-War and the victory of the north was still pretty new, and everyone was confused as to what was really happening. It was the newer generations of freed blacks who organized against racism, those whose wills weren't broken because of slavery.

Those things could not have stopped SPUSA from fighting against segregation.

Well even Dalits didn't start fighting militantly in the heydays of British Raj. It is Indian reformists like Rajaram Mohun Roy,Dayanand Saraswathi,Ramakrishna Paramahansa,Mannathu Pathmanaban were not dalits by birth worked greatly for their upliftment. Unlike Gandhi who had patronising attitude toward Dalit they understood unless Dalits could stand up on their own they cannot fight the prejudice and discrimination from other castes. They worked a little what they could do to make Dalits stand up on their own.

He didn't organize workers, he didn't help any worker gain an understanding of Socialism or Marxism. The theory that a guerilla foco is to turn off a countrys lights, and make the bourgeois turn into to monsters of the night--while the peasants and the proletariat begin to see the monsters and fight them to win socialism-- has been disproven. Instead the turning off of the lights pisses everyone off, or causes the guerillas (who have waning support of the proles and peasants) go into a cease-fire and work for reforms within the capitalist state.

I for one am nothing like Che Guevara, I'm not from the background of Plantation owners. I do not believe or take part in insurections separate from the working-class organizing. I'm not actor material, I'm not a doctor.

So, I relate more to Eugene Debs, who came from a smalltown, a working-class family, and went to school at night at a local community college. He organized with fellow workers, he stood up-- if he can do it, so can I!

Debs didn't spend his life organizing, and teaching fellow workers because he was subject to party discipline. He did it because he believed in his fellow workers. His coleagues energized him, and he energized them in return.

For once I never said Che > Debs.

Leo

10th June 2007, 10:57

g.ram

So it is better to still have institutional racism ?

I think that there is still racism within the institutions, it is just not "official". Would it be better to to still have "official" racism? Of course not. But it is not that much better now either, racism still exists in every aspect of the capitalist society and will continue to do so until the proletarait itself completely destroys it.

To be able to get better education,to get better medical treatment,to get better jobs etc...

Well, yes, that's what the bourgeoisie claims now. I don't think black workers get better education, better medical treatment and better jobs now though.

Well I think Hampton addressed this point better.

Socialism is not something you buy from the supermarket, put in the microwave and wait to be able to eat! The working class doesn't wait for socialism, it fights for socialism, or in other words socialism is born out of the daily fights of the working class.

Uh, actually that was me, in this post (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66827&view=findpost&p=1292329139).

SPUSA ... should have fought against segregation.

Debs did try, at least.

EL KABLAMO

Well, this continent is blocked from the rest of the world by two oceans, and certainly it would cause material conditions to be different. Also, keep in mind most of Europe sends people to the legislature or paraliament based on proportional representation, and so it's easier for third parties to have chairs, and the United States of America has the wonderful electoral congress, so Debs probally never expected to take office.

Yes, but I think that surely it was a mistake, at least a waste of tremendous effort. Of course I am not blaming Debs, I don't think it lowers him or anything, it is just something to learn from.

Maybe Debs thought the mentioned differences between USA and Europe would prevent integration into paraliament and reformism. Whatever prevented Debs from analyzing the situtation, SPUSA has descended into reformism-- not soley because of electoral politics, but because of the split before the middle of the 20th century, and most of the pro-revolution members left for elsewhere.

I have a question related to this. Debs always seemed to be someone who was on the left-wing of the second international, but I don't really know what his position was regarding the October Revolution and John Reed's Communist Labor Party within the SPUSA and the separate party which was formed later, Communist Party of America. Do you know anything about this? I remember reading articles condemning the state for throwing Debs into prison in The Liberator published by Max Eastman but I don't remember reading anything about the relation between the communist groups and Debs.

So, I relate more to Eugene Debs, who came from a smalltown, a working-class family, and went to school at night at a local community college. He organized with fellow workers, he stood up-- if he can do it, so can I!

He is certainly a much better person to relate to :)

Hampton

10th June 2007, 22:36

The bourgeoisie definately wanted workers to think that, especially black workers.

And don't you think black workers are able to see that there is still segregation and that they still have the highest unemployment and have the worst paying jobs and that they are the most likely to go to jail during their lifetime? We already know these things, we don't need others to tell them to us.

Well, yes, in that period racism and Jim Crow were in the national and world eye. Okay... But, that didn't solve the problem, did it? Being able to vote didn't change anything in the lives of black workers, nor did banning discrimination in the sale or rental of housing actually stop discrimination in the sale or rental of housing for the workers, banning discrimination in employment practices and public accommodations did not really stop discrimination in employment practices and public accommodations.

So what's the alternative then? Carry guns like the Panthers and be erased with a decade? There is no point in criticize something if you don't offer up a rationale alternative. What do you say to the rural black farmer who owns no land and can't vote? Don't march for the right to vote? Sopport socialism and everything will be alright? Wait and one day Marx will come down from the sky and grant your liberation?

But as I said before the only way to completly solve the problem is to throw away the cloth.

But, I mean, being able to vote in the South did nothing?

Leo

10th June 2007, 22:59

So what's the alternative then?

Class struggle.

What do you say to the rural black farmer who owns no land and can't vote?

How about "go on strike" for your class demands?

But as I said before the only way to completly solve the problem is to throw away the cloth.

Exactly.

But, I mean, being able to vote in the South did nothing?

I've never been to the South, in fact I only lived for a year in the US so maybe you can tell me what good it did?

What good does voting ever do to workers?

RGacky3

11th June 2007, 04:34

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 07, 2007 10:46 pm
I think Debs is more deserving of a subforum in history than Che Guevara!

Debs was not goodlooking, he certainly wasn't a sex icon. He looked like your average guy driving a work van. He could give great speeches, he was a very nice guy, very humble, and very progressive. He wasn't arrogant-- he said that Revolutionary-Socialists, Communists and Anarchists are all socialists and should work together.
I think this is a very important point, thats one thing that I admire about Debs, he never as far as I know, had an arrogant hollier than thou attitude (one which sadly is very prevelant in Socialist circles), he was down to earth, he was a home grown American working class man, some one that working class people could relate too, not some punk in all black clothes with a hammer and sickle t-shirt and a bandana over his mouth, are working people going to see a guy like that as one of their own? He was humble which in my opinion is one of the most important quality in a revolutionary, he never had a vanguardist attitude.

The idea that Debs was a racist is'nt even worth talking about, its silly.

Entrails Konfetti

12th June 2007, 05:41

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 10, 2007 09:57 am
I have a question related to this. Debs always seemed to be someone who was on the left-wing of the second international, but I don't really know what his position was regarding the October Revolution and John Reed's Communist Labor Party within the SPUSA and the separate party which was formed later, Communist Party of America. Do you know anything about this? I remember reading articles condemning the state for throwing Debs into prison in The Liberator published by Max Eastman but I don't remember reading anything about the relation between the communist groups and Debs.
Debs supported the Russian Revolution, however he, like the rest of SPUSA didn't agree to apllying for admission to the third international on the grounds that conditions laid down by Zinoviev (Chairman of the Executive Committiee of the Moscow International) wouldn't word for the USA labour movement. Why Are We Not Stronger? (http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/spusa/1920/1115-debs-whynotstronger.pdf)

I don't know what Debs' relationship was with Eastman and CPUSA, seeing how he was incarcirated at the time for his Canton Ohio speech.

Leo

12th June 2007, 09:46

Originally posted by Debs
I read this in a communist paper recently: “The ﬁrst thing we must do is to smash the Socialist Party.” The writer of that sentiment will ﬁnd ready allies in Wall Street, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Manufacturers’ Association, and I am inclined to think they would pay a round price for the job. More than likely this comrade, who now calls himself a communist, once belonged to the Socialist Party, and now he wants to smash it.

This sort-of shows what side Debs took in the expulsion of John Reed and his comrades which is, unfortunately, not the side of communists :(

Entrails Konfetti

12th June 2007, 17:06

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 12, 2007 08:46 am

This sort-of shows what side Debs took in the expulsion of John Reed and his comrades which is, unfortunately, not the side of communists :(
Could you explain what the positions were of SPUSA and CPUSA, there isn't really any clear descriptions of it anywhere. From what I understand during the time of Debs, SPUSA had alot of infighting between reformism and revolution, and so revolutionary members left to form CPUSA-- whereas Debs, I believe, stayed to save the party from reformism. However, he wasn't someone who wuld make bold demarchations against Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists, and Anarchists. Instead, he believed we are all free to disagree with eachother but we shouldn't accuse revolutionists we disagree with of being letches. He thought the working-class should have a revolutionary party aswell as revolutionary unions.

I asked you to explain the positions, because when I read that article, before you excerp it, I didn't see much significance in it, but saw the typical divisions that occur in the left.

More Fire for the People

12th June 2007, 18:08

The civil rights movement gained its historical weight in not the mere passage of legislation but as a movement itself. The 1950s civil rights movement was the first mass mobilization of Blacks since the 1920s Marcus Garvey movement and the first one to be as impactive on the social structure since the Reconstruction.

The civil rights movement mobilized millions of students and workers of all colors, creeds, and beliefs against the tyranny of racial injustice by moving from below. No longer where words and phrases like 'the talented tenth' a part of the vocabulary. As a movement the civil rights movement desegregated the working class. A level of everyday unity amongst Black, White, Chicano, and Asian workers was now achievable that in the past could only be achieved when the police were surrounding a boiling hot occupied factory.

Leo

12th June 2007, 21:38

Could you explain what the positions were of SPUSA and CPUSA, there isn't really any clear descriptions of it anywhere. From what I understand during the time of Debs, SPUSA had alot of infighting between reformism and revolution, and so revolutionary members left to form CPUSA-- whereas Debs, I believe, stayed to save the party from reformism. However, he wasn't someone who wuld make bold demarchations against Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists, and Anarchists. Instead, he believed we are all free to disagree with eachother but we shouldn't accuse revolutionists we disagree with of being letches. He thought the working-class should have a revolutionary party aswell as revolutionary unions.

I asked you to explain the positions, because when I read that article, before you excerp it, I didn't see much significance in it, but saw the typical divisions that occur in the left.

Well, to begin with, Socialist Party of America (it wasn't called SPUSA back then) had different wings in it; at first, there was the left, around Eugene Debs, and there was the right, around Morris Hillquit. "National feeling," Hillquit proclaimed in November 1914, "stands for existence primarily, for the chance to earn a livelihood. It stands for everything we hold dear--home, language, family, and friends. The working man has a country as well as a class. Even before he has a class." Debs' and Hillquit's positions were especially very different about reformism: they clashed over the Socialist Party's electoral politics and policies toward the American Federation of Labor. When the World War 1 started, the majority position in the Socialist Party was opposition to war. Some people who had been on the right before, such as Victor Berger moved closer to the anti-war position, and thus, to the left in the party. Some of the people in the right, John Spargo and William Walling quit the party in 1917, following the opposition of the majority to war. Morris Hillquit did stay in the party however and he supported the United States' participation in the war from the inside, continuing to keep the right-wing of the party alive, although he protested against the government for arresting Debs.

However, there was another wing, which made the bulk of the socialist party in opposition to the war which was moving further to the left. Now, Hillquit was on the right, Bergen was in the center and the communists were in the left. As for Debs, although he was in prison when the split was taking place, it seems as if he was closer to the center of the party. Anyway, the left-wing of the party organized as if it was a "party within the party". The left-wing were clearly at the majority. A referendum to join the Comintern passed with 90% support, but the centrist leadership suppressed the results. Elections for the party's National Executive Committee resulted in 12 leftists being elected out of a total of 15. Calls were made to expel right-wing and reformists from the party. The centrists responded with expelling several state organizations, language federations, and many locals, in all two thirds of the membership. The Socialist Party leadership then called an emergency convention to be held in Chicago on August 30, 1919. The outgoing National Executive Committee, with the left-wing purged invalidated the results of the 1919 Socialist Party election and set about electing a slate of delegates to the forthcoming National Emergency Convention in Chicago who were loyal to it. The left-wing fraction, with the prominent left-wing communist John Reed and a number of left-wing Socialist Party members, sought to win over the National Emergency Convention and, if they would not succeed, to take as many militants as possible away from that gathering into a new Communist organization.

The leadership of the Socialist Party knew that the left-wing would try to come so they called the police, who obligingly expelled the left-wing militants from the hall. The remaining leftist delegates walked out in disgust and, met with the expelled delegates, formed the Communist Labor Party on August 30, 1919.

Now, the political positions were above all revolutionary struggle over reformism, support for the October Revolution, entry into Comintern. They were against parliamentarianism. They were against racism in the Socialist Party. Their position on this question was, more or less, clear. In the Second Congress of Comintern, John Reed said:

The only correct policy for the American Communists towards the Negroes is to regard them above all as workers. The agricultural workers and the small farmers of the South pose the same tasks as those we have in respect to the white rural proletariat. Communist propaganda can be carried out among the Negroes who are employed as industrial workers in the North. In both parts of the country we must strive to organize Negroes in the same unions as the whites. This is the best and quickest way to root out racial prejudice and awaken class solidarity.

Also, at the colonial question, Reed was emphasizing in his speech at the People's Congress of Baku how imperialism was capable of very quickly developing the capitalist classes in countries which had reached "national liberation" and calling for social revolution in the East as opposed to national liberation. He also did not hide his feelings for the readiness to embrace the nationalism and even the most reactionary ideologies by the Comintern in the congress to which objected bitterly to its "demagogy and display" in disgust. Reed made no secret of his contempt and hatred for Zinoviev and Radek, whose authority in the Comintern was then pre-eminent.

Chicano Shamrock

14th June 2007, 09:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:27 pm
But still I feel like petty bourgeois and even bourgeois people of an oppressed nationality are subject to racial prejudice and stuff like that. While a situation like the one put forward in Crash may be rare, I think it does happen and very similiar stuff still do happen. And that's what makes them an oppressed nationality. In fact I think that a wealthy black man may be subject to racism from fascists on the basis of his wealth, you know things like "why is this black man so wealthy and a aryan like me not successful" because it disproves the racist mental illness that black people or chicano peoples are all poor because their inferior, a wealthy or middle class national minority can be subject on that ground.
So you think that Colin Powell is subject to racial prejudice by other bourgeois? I highly doubt it. He might be subject to it by joe blow on the street but that doesn't mean shit to him. It's not about race at that level. It's about power and class.

I don't think there is anything positive that could come out of everyone being equally oppressed. That is just dumb to me. I don't want to fight to be equally oppressed. I want to get as many comrades as I can to fight alongside me so that none of us are oppressed.

Chicano Shamrock

14th June 2007, 09:53

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 09, 2007 02:22 pm

It seems you don't understand how amazing such an achievement like that is - for the first time, blacks can be among people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, rather than being segregated on the basis of their skin pigment.

Yes, that's what the history books are saying. Yet, I am rather skeptical about this: is segregation really something that can be solved with several laws being changed?

I have a Caucasian stepmom who moved from Los Angeles to Souther Carolina in the 80's. She had lived her whole life in Southern California. Once when living there she went to this laundry place and there was a sign above some washers that said "Colored" and "Whites". At first she didn't understand. It was out of her realm of thought so she put her colored clothes in one washer and her white clothes across the room. She hadn't realized what happened until later that day.

This was in the 80's after segregation as an official thing had ended. It certainly hadn't ended then and isn't done now. We can't hope that the bourgeoisie will free us from our chains. Only together as a class can we stop this from happening. There can be no equality or peace until the system is changed. Now if our comrades of a different race are being treated unfairly in what is considered "fair" as a standard then we ought to help them out and unionize with them. Not because they are Chicano, Indian, Black, Caucasian..... but because they are proletariat.

I certainly am not colorblind. I picked this handle because I think we are different and I am proud of being different but our struggles should not be divided.