Were Marx and Engels racist?

[bootleg42]

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/bpp/bppideology1970.html


On the subject of racism, Marxism-Leninism offers us very little assistance. In fact, there is much evidence that Marx and Engels were themselves racists--just like their White brothers and sisters of their era, and just as many Marxist-Leninists of our own time are also racists. Historically, Marxism-Leninism has been an outgrowth of European problems and it has been primarily preoccupied with finding solutions to European problems.

In the piece, Black Panther Party member Cleaver did not mention any examples or he did not explain exactly why Marx and Engels were racist. Also he claims there were many Marxist-Leninists who were racist (in his time). Does anyone know exactly who he was talking about????

I'm a noob so I'm asking here. Also I have a great respect for the Panthers so I really want to find out as I continue to learn^^^^.

Also a thing I disagree is him stating how Marx only worked to find solutions to European problems. Didn't Marx say, "Workers of the WORLD unite"???? Europeans and African Americans and every working person has the same problem and that's, CAPITALISM. Now how you defeat it could be left to the population who rebels but one must remember that the problems to everything, the root of the injustices is CAPITALISM and THAT's enemy #1.

[Random Precision]

That is a bourgeoisie lie, and I do not know why Mr. Cleaver bought it.

I don't know a whole lot about the issue, but Marx was actually one of the leading European abolitionists. He wrote to Engels after the U.S. Civil War broke out, calling it "the most important event in the world". He also urged British textile workers to support a boycott against the Confederacy, even though it was against their material interests. Explaining himself, he wrote in Volume One of Capital that "In the United States of North America every independent movement of the workers was paralyzed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded." He continues, on the nature of African slavery itself:


Originally posted by Karl Marx
The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement, and entombment in mines of the indigenous population of the continent, the beginnings of the conquest and plunder of India, and the conversion of Africa into a preserve for the commercial hunting of black skins are all things that characterize the dawn of the era of capitalist production.

On racism, and its origins in slavery:


What is a Negro slave? A man of the black race. The one explanation is as good as the other.

A Negro is a Negro. He only becomes a slave in certain relations. A cotton spinning jenny is a machine for spinning cotton. It only becomes capital in certain relations. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold by itself is money, or as sugar is the price of sugar.

For more on this: http://www.isreview.org/issues/26/roots_of_racism.shtml

[Saint Street Revolution]

Agreed, the rumour that Marx and Engels were Racist was a campaign by the Capitalists to create a bad name for the philosophers.

[Random Precision]

Here is an excellent response to this bullshit that I found on another website:


Originally posted by Allan Greene
1. The allegation that Marx was a racist and anti-semite is an old allegation.

2. It is based primarily on the lifting out of context of statements made by Marx.

3. Marx's statements were contextual. Marx characterized his view as a subclass of the broad trend in philosophy called, materialism.

4. When he made a statement about a given people, he was making statements about given peoples seeing said given peoples as determined by the material context in which said given peoples had arisen.

5. Unlike racists, he did not view given peoples as fixed quantities. That is, he did not view the mentalities of given peoples as fixed quantities. The mentality of a given people he saw as determined by the given material conditions in which the given people had arisen.

6. Since the mentality of a given people was determined by given material conditions, Marx held that mentalities or social psychologies of given peoples could be overthrown by overthrowing given material conditions.

7. The very process by which given peoples participated in the class struggle to overthrow materially oppressive and materially exploitative conditions was a process by which said given peoples came to abandon outworn, archaic, sometimes bigoted and backward social psychologies and mentalities.

8. Real racists, on the other hand, hold that the alleged characteristics to which they point as allegedly existing in given peoples are fixed characteristics innate and inherent and organic to said given peoples.

9. Marx did not romanticize anybody. He felt that the materially oppressive conditions oppress, and that material oppression leaves its mark on the oppressed. He felt, similarly, that materially exploitative conditions exploit, and that material exploitation leaves its mark on the exploited.

10. But unlike racists, or anti-Semites, Marx did not hold that given character traits to which he pointed in given peoples in given historical conditions were fixed forever. He did not hold that the personalities or psychologies of given individuals or, for that matter, given peoples, existed outside the historical conditions or the historical context.

11. The old allegations that Marx was a racist are basically noncontextual crap, because they start from the premise that saying something about a given individual's personality or even about a given people's social psychology necessarily implies that the person saying it holds that the characteristic is fixed forever.

12. In reality, the person and/or persons making such allegations is himself or herself the victim of the delusion that personality or psychology is itself a fixed quantity or is fixed forever, and he or she cannot imagine that personality or psychology can change in the process of massive social struggles.

13. It is conventional to say that "you can't change human nature." But Marx would have disagreed with that statement.

14. Marx would have said that human nature changes in history according to historical conditions. He would have said that the kind of personality or kind of psychology of, for instance, a French peasant in the Middle Ages, was quite different than, for instance, the psychology of a Gallic (pre-French) nomadic tribesman in pre-Middle Ages times. What, in Marx's view, shaped human personality or human psychology was precisely the nature of given historical -- that is, material -- conditions.

15. Throwing out the old charge that Marx was a racist or anti-Semite is done primarily to cover up the basic point that Marx did not think of human personality and human psychology -- either individual psychology or group psychology -- as fixed forever. Racists do. Marx didn't.

http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/1299

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This has been discussed several times before here.

Read this, it demolishes this tired old slur:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1977/kmtr1/app1.htm

[bootleg42]

About Eldridge Cleaver from wikipedia:


As a teenager he was involved in petty crime, and in 1957 was convicted of assault with intent to murder. While in prison, he wrote a book of essays, Soul on Ice, which was influential in the black power movement and now widely considered a classic. In the book, Cleaver infamously acknowledges the rape of several white women, which he defended as "an insurrectionary act." He also admitted that he began his career as a rapist by "practicing on black girls in the ghetto." He maintains that his felonious acts have nothing to do with the views expressed in the book.

^^^^Does not sound like a person fighting for equallity. Male "machismo" as I always say.


By the 1980s, Cleaver had become a conservative Republican after witnessing the stark realities of Socialism and Communism regimes in North Korea, Cuba and Algeria. He appeared at various Republican events and spoke at a California Republican State Central Committee meeting regarding his political transformation. He endorsed Ronald Reagan for President in 1980 and in 1986 embarked on an unsuccessful campaign to win one of California's seats in the United States Senate, failing to win the Republican Party's nomination.

Later in the 1980s, Cleaver became addicted to crack cocaine. In 1992, he was convicted of cocaine possession and burglary. In 1994, after nearly dying in a cocaine-related assault, he kicked his addiction.

Is all this true??? Can someone with familiarity about him please tell me and please put your thoughts on this whole topic. What was the panthers stance on him????

[Janus]

Previous discussions:
Marx and Engels racists? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56161&hl=+Marx++racis*)
Marx-racist? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53150&hl=+Marx++racis*)
was Marx a racist? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=19699&hl=+Marx++racis*)

[Hampton]

It's pretty easy to attack Cleaver, almost to easy. I mean he went to jail then turned himself around while writing one of the most popular books of the time, although it was filled with homophobia and other things that none of us would endorse. And he supported the Gipper in his old age. What some people forget is that he almost died several times over for the movement and for the people and still remains one of the most popular figures of that era whose writing and speeches are still usable today.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hampton, you are right; if we ignore these failings, his life is an inspiration to us all.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:03 pm
It's pretty easy to attack Cleaver, almost to easy. I mean he went to jail then turned himself around while writing one of the most popular books of the time, although it was filled with homophobia and other things that none of us would endorse. And he supported the Gipper in his old age. What some people forget is that he almost died several times over for the movement and for the people and still remains one of the most popular figures of that era whose writing and speeches are still usable today.
One could argue that his main motivating factor for becoming a mormon reactionary was to avoid a huge prison sentence.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 02, 2007 06:14 pm
Hampton, you are right; if we ignore these failings, his life is an inspiration to us all.
Sexual violence against women, misogyny, homophobia, then class betrayal, Mormon mystical nonsense, then supporting bourgeois corporatism and Reagan's imperialist wars. I'm not feeling very inspired today.

[Hampton]

We all choose to see what we want to see in those we idolize. They all had faults, the question is do those fault negate the great things that he did for the people.

[redarmyleader]

First off, one would have to ask how you determine whether or not someone did was great for the people. I think the history of the BPP is one that needs to be studied more thoroughly, for too many people have a liberal approach to the BPP. The had their strong points and their weaknesses. I do not believe that overall the BPP is a great example of a revolutionary party, or of revolutionary activity. There is a great critique of them in a pamphlet called Socialism and Black Liberation (http://www.bamn.com/misc/soc_black_lib_pdf.pdf) The pamphlet also talks about the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, who in my opinion were far ahead of the BPP in respect to a great majority of issues.

It is quite easy to understand why Cleaver would say that. You notice that he mentions the racism of the "Marxist-Leninists of our own time". He is referring to something very real, namely the racism of so-called revolutionaries and either their complete dismissal and disdain of the race question, or the lack of seriousness around the question. The demeanor of a lot of revolutionaries expressed the fact that they were white, and therefore received privilege in society on that basis. Organizations like the SWP would rather just follow what the black people were doing, as opposed to actually helping them fight against racism, and create black leaders trained in Marxist politics who could move struggle forward. I am also sure that most in the BPP had very little exposure to actual Marxist literature, or literature of revolutionaries like Lenin and Trotsky who advanced those theories, but "analyses" of them by psuedo-revolutionary and Marxist groups of the time.

I can tell you that there are a lot of racist attitudes from members of this site. Either people dismiss the whole issue of race and white privilege, or show total disregard for minorities in society and the conditions they face. Look at the discussion on affirmative action or the lumpenproletariat to see the examples of privileged white people who have little or no contact (and many with no desire) with black and Latino people express their ignorance and "superiority" (mostly more superiority in the discussion on the lumpenproletariat).

Of course that does not mean that there are people here who sincerely want to fight racism, but don't know quite how (which too existed in the 60's and 70's). Though being black it is quite frustrating, and there are times where you just don't want to deal with white people at all. But that is not right, because they are our class brothers and sisters, and we have to fight to get them to understand that without us working together revolution is not possible.

Anyway, thats my thoughts for today

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:27 am
I can tell you that there are a lot of racist attitudes from members of this site. Either people dismiss the whole issue of race and white privilege, or show total disregard for minorities in society and the conditions they face. Look at the discussion on affirmative action or the lumpenproletariat to see the examples of privileged white people who have little or no contact (and many with no desire) with black and Latino people express their ignorance and "superiority" (mostly more superiority in the discussion on the lumpenproletariat).


I'm Latino and I mostly have latino friends, along with many black and some southeast asian friends here in inner city NYC. I only had one white friend in my life so I can't say i got alot of personal experience with white people, other than the white kids in my college who, lets just say, I haven't gotten along with.

Now as for this board, I don't think people here are racists, maybe just unknowing of the race issue in the United States as they should. I believe that the race issue must be resolved before any socialist movements can be successful within the United States. Unfortunally, people in the U.S. will unite with people of their races before people of their class. First this must be changed, then socialist revolution can become a possibility. And I also believe people from both white and black side will confuse examples of racism with other things. I believe that until the black people of the United States get some sort of AUTONOMY (not Segregation but autonomy), they will continue to see everything only in terms of race and not class. When they get autonomy, they'll be able to rebel against the petty bourgeoisie of their community and then they will want to begin true socialist revolution. And with the white population, until they reach the misery that the blacks go through today (example, Katrina), they will also not see things in terms of class, but only in terms of race or just plain stupidity. (patriotism for one) Of course I speak in general and I know there are both black and white people who are more advanced in their thinking (hopefully us here).

Look, under capitalism, affirmative action, is justified but I believe since most of us here are more advanced in our thinking than capitalists, we tend to look at things that capitalism does more negatively. Understand that in socialism or communism, such a thing as affirmative action is unacceptable unless it oppresses the old ruling class and the old ways of thinking.

And for the lumpenproletariat issue, I think it's just from historical experience that people here (and me included), dismiss the lumpenproletariat and go hard on them. I say, of the lumpenproletariat, we need to work hard to correctly identify WHO ARE lumpenproletariat and WHO ARE NOT. I for one can tell you, from personal experience, that the lumpenproletariat are REGRESSIVE. We need to do a better job identifying who are lumpenproletariat and who are not.

BTW, thanks for the read on Socialism and Black Liberation, good read.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PM:


Sexual violence against women, misogyny, homophobia, then class betrayal, Mormon mystical nonsense, then supporting bourgeois corporatism and Reagan's imperialist wars. I'm not feeling very inspired today.

As Hampton noted, if you look at his earlier life, there is much there to inspire us.

Oppression does not always make better activists of us; sometimes it can crush the individual.

Cleaver was no god; just a human being. He was clearly destroyed by what happened to him, and by what he had to endure.

Without condoning the path he later took, I stand by Hampton's comments.

[Cheung Mo]

A bigoted, patently dishonest serial rapist is incapable of doing great things for the people. Even Daniel Ortega is better than this disgusting fuck.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 03, 2007 10:32 am
PM:


Sexual violence against women, misogyny, homophobia, then class betrayal, Mormon mystical nonsense, then supporting bourgeois corporatism and Reagan's imperialist wars. I'm not feeling very inspired today.

As Hampton noted, if you look at his earlier life, there is much there to inspire us.

Oppression does not always make better activists of us; sometimes it can crush the individual.

Cleaver was no god; just a human being. He was clearly destroyed by what happened to him, and by what he had to endure.

Without condoning the path he later took, I stand by Hampton's comments.
If you and Hampton can gain inspiration from his life, then so be it. Although he did practice sexual violence on women quite early on which cannot be attributed to "what he went through later." Revolutionaries are human and humans are flawed. Cleaver does manage to be extremely flawed. Preaching equality whilst raping girls on the side isn't my idea of inspiration, it's bigoted hypocrisy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PM:


If you and Hampton can gain inspiration from his life, then so be it. Although he did practice sexual violence on women quite early on which cannot be attributed to "what he went through later." Revolutionaries are human and humans are flawed. Cleaver does manage to be extremely flawed. Preaching equality whilst raping girls on the side isn't my idea of inspiration, it's bigoted hypocrisy.

As I said, oppression can produce terrible results in those subject to it, but that neither means we have to accept or reject everything in the lives of those so afflicted.

As much as we condemn the features of his life that you mention, we should take heart from other aspects -- all the while understanding why oppression so twisted him.

Unbridled worship of the man is just as much to be deprecated as unqualified vilification of the sort you seem to indulge in.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 03, 2007 02:38 pm
PM:


If you and Hampton can gain inspiration from his life, then so be it. Although he did practice sexual violence on women quite early on which cannot be attributed to "what he went through later." Revolutionaries are human and humans are flawed. Cleaver does manage to be extremely flawed. Preaching equality whilst raping girls on the side isn't my idea of inspiration, it's bigoted hypocrisy.

As I said, oppression can produce terrible results in those subject to it, but that neither means we have to accept or reject everything in the lives of those so afflicted.

As much as we condemn the features of his life that you mention, we should take heart from other aspects -- all the while understanding why oppression so twisted him.

Unbridled worship of the man is just as much to be deprecated as unqualified vilification of the sort you seem to indulge in.
There seems to be a danger of relativism. I don't think there is an "unqualified vilification" here, but I will point out that many strugglers against oppression seem to manage to carry out their struggles without engaging in carrying out serial sex crimes and supporting imperial wars.