Manufacture of Dissent: Black Tokenism and White Guilt

[blackstone]

On my blog I recently introduced a theory that i call, Manufacture of Dissent, which is utilized by the Revolutionary Communist Party through its central organ Revolution.

abstract:
The Revolution paper utilizes demeaning and patronizing language targeted at it's white readership in the hopes that feelings of white guilt will propel white people into taking up struggle. It curses at them, calls them "stupid white people", "complicit"and uses harsh tones against them for not being "involved in the struggle" of Black people like supporters of the RCP. However, the RCP does not have "organized ties" to the masses, particularly the Black masses as it so claims. So in order to hide this failure the Revolution newspaper relies on anecdotes and black tokenism to give off the appearance of successfully creating ties with the black masses. It thus creates a false impression by using language that emphasizes difference; utilizing references to race or stereotypical characteristics.

The full article here
http://power-2-people.blogspot.com/2008/02/manufacture-of-dissent-in-revolution.html

I'm interested to here anyone's comments and criticisms. Because i think certain ways of RCP or the left of trying to shape public opinion is patronizing and deceiving.

[jake williams]

Speaking of black tokenism, Barack Obama. Look - he has no policies, he's well liked because white people can say they support "blacks" when really they're supporting a sweet, polite, educated-class, "articulate" (the next time I hear that word used to describe him I'm going to vomit), person, good at doing what he's told and not having any actual firm positions. And, I expect, he's what white people assume blacks aren't (however appropriately).

Now that's off my chest, about the broader idea of white guilt... I don't like wealthy white liberals who occasionally go on about how they Feel real bad about the black people and then proceed to go about their day. If this is your conception of white guilt, then no. But I think it's entirely appropriate, if we consistently enforce a consciousness of our approximation and generalization, to recognize that most "white people" are part of a dominant society brutally oppressing and exploiting the world's population, and has for centuries. Also, of course, it oppresses and exploits its own working class, which in most places is built up in part of non-white immigrants and particularly in America, the descendants of slaves. To some degree, the white section of the working class still profits from this system, but to a substantial degree it does not. Upper-class/professional class/official class whites, in many places now typically "liberals", do profit from this system, mostly for economic reasons but partly for racial reasons.

And they should feel guilty, and I don't completely mean to exclude myself, though I'm certainly not in their situation - they're powerful and they're complicit, partly because the world they enter into gives them unjust advantages, but in large part because of current circumstances and actions, and inaction. But no, they shouldn't babble on about the poor suffering people of the world and We should help them!, of course that's just patronizing nonsense.

Racial oppression and economic oppression are quite closely related and interconnected and it's impossible to demarcate between the two perfectly - I do, however, think they are two different categories. It's worth keeping in mind that there is a tight correlation for historical, and to some degree current reasons (yes, there is still some direct, personalized racism in the upper class, though it's much reduced; while some employers, say, might actually discriminate against a black face, they're far more likely to discriminate against a style of talking or dress).

[renegadoe]

I think blackstone has an excellent point. And the RCP's behavior in this regard remarkably resembles the typical liberal mindset. Go figure.

[Dros]

I think blackstone has an excellent point. And the RCP's behavior in this regard remarkably resembles the typical liberal mindset. Go figure.

???

Care to elaborate?:confused:

===

With regards to the orginal question, I think that there is a real need for "progressive" whites, who tend to be of the Petty-Bourgeois class, to "wake the fuck up" as the paper says. These articles in the paper are attempting to highlight the atrocities that occur under this system. A lot of white people in the suburbs DON'T SEE IT or won't let themselves see it. I don't see this as deceptive or patronizing but as reflecting the real life need to mobilize the "progressive" segments of society and attempt to get some recruits out of that.

[renegadoe]

???

Care to elaborate?:confused:

Yes. The RCP, like liberals, focuses on organizing for a group (in other words, representing them), because, apparently, the group is unable to clearly understand its own interests. Thus, their work is of a moral imperative - they fight for black people because it's the "right thing" to do; they do not understand that for black people to be free, black people must organize themselves. This is why the RCP's ranks are predominately white middle-class youth - and why serious revolutionaries will never take them seriously.

As Marx said, the revolution must be the work of the workers themselves.

[RNK]

If that were true, we have a long fucking wait.

[renegadoe]

If that were true, we have a long fucking wait.

You're right. I can only hope I will see proletarian revolution by the end of my life. This doesn't mean we are left without a course of action, but no amount of "revolutionary will" can negate objective conditions. And to assert otherwise is fundamentally idealist.

[RNK]

To assert that workers are some mythical alterior being that communists will only ever be able to observe from the outside is idealist. I don't know about you, but I, and most on this board, and most in this movement, are proletarians, or student proletarians. When we rise up, protest, organize and mass together we are not doing it for the workers, we are, as workers, doing it for ourselves. This is why I both accept and reject your statement; yes, conditionally, the workers must rise up; no parasitic elitist group can do it for them *coughPDPAcough*. But I differ in my assertion that most communists are workers, so a communist movement, atleast conventionally, is inseperably a working class movement.

[blackstone]

???

Care to elaborate?:confused:

===

With regards to the orginal question, I think that there is a real need for "progressive" whites, who tend to be of the Petty-Bourgeois class, to "wake the fuck up" as the paper says. These articles in the paper are attempting to highlight the atrocities that occur under this system. A lot of white people in the suburbs DON'T SEE IT or won't let themselves see it. I don't see this as deceptive or patronizing but as reflecting the real life need to mobilize the "progressive" segments of society and attempt to get some recruits out of that.

There's a real need for everyone to "wake the fuck up" and overthrow the system. Alot of people, including blacks, feel everyone needs to stop complaining or blaming others and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Upward mobility! But i know you agree that things just don't happen that way.

A lot of black people in the urban areas see things or have had experiences, and also too are not mobilized to enact change. Why is that?

These are real questions, complex issues that cant be solved through a campaign of yelling at people, like "wtf are you doing! Why aren't you helping you idiots!"

"These articles in the paper are attempting to highlight the atrocities that occur under this system. A lot of white people in the suburbs DON'T SEE IT or won't let themselves see it."

So? How does highlighting atrocities occurring under the system change things in mass? Maybe it will touch a handful of people to help, but not in mass. Otherwise everyone would be donating money to those informercials about poor hungry kids in Africa and East Asia. Right? But most people just switch channels.

So highlighting atrocities is good, but that alone won't make people wake up, neither will yelling at them.

As renegadoe was saying, RCP like liberals are operating on moral imperatives. That's not how social change happens.

[jake williams]

One general impression I'd like to point out - my general impression of black America is that it's particularly well informed about politics and society. Especially when considered against the community's general level of formal education (I don't think a lot of young black American males are going for their sociology major), but even relative to the rest of the population irrespective of any "correction".

[Dros]

Yes. The RCP, like liberals, focuses on organizing for a group (in other words, representing them), because, apparently, the group is unable to clearly understand its own interests. Thus, their work is of a moral imperative - they fight for black people because it's the "right thing" to do; they do not understand that for black people to be free, black people must organize themselves. This is why the RCP's ranks are predominately white middle-class youth - and why serious revolutionaries will never take them seriously.

As Marx said, the revolution must be the work of the workers themselves.

Most of the RCPers I know are proletarians and a large (disproportionately large) number of them are black and/or women. Of course workers liberation needs to come from within the Proletariat. The role of the Vanguard is to lead, educate, and organize the Proletariat from within. It is of course true that the RCP needs to become closer to the Proletariat and develop a broader base. But that will be true every day until the day we get to Communism.

The RCP has never claimed to "represent" the Proletariat in a liberal sense. That is total BS.


There's a real need for everyone to "wake the fuck up" and overthrow the system. Alot of people, including blacks, feel everyone needs to stop complaining or blaming others and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Upward mobility! But i know you agree that things just don't happen that way.

Of course that's true. That's why the Vanguard tries to build class consciousness. However, white people (the numerous white people I know) live in their own, liberal, petty bourgeios bubble and are COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to the realities of this system.


These are real questions, complex issues that cant be solved through a campaign of yelling at people, like "wtf are you doing! Why aren't you helping you idiots!"

Of course. But that's not the only thing they're doing. That kind of language may help people to "snap out of it".


So? How does highlighting atrocities occurring under the system change things in mass? Maybe it will touch a handful of people to help, but not in mass. Otherwise everyone would be donating money to those informercials about poor hungry kids in Africa and East Asia. Right? But most people just switch channels.

The first step in towards getting help is admitting there is a problem.:D

It is of critical importance for Communists to constantly make people aware of why capitalism is a failed system. Otherwise, there is no need for Communism at all. We need to expose what is really happening, especially 'cause the bourgeois press won't do that for us.


As renegadoe was saying, RCP like liberals are operating on moral imperatives. That's not how social change happens.

I disagree. The RCP is an orginization made up of (mainly) proletarians. They are acting out of their interest for self-liberation. I think RNK expressed this better:


To assert that workers are some mythical alterior being that communists will only ever be able to observe from the outside is idealist. I don't know about you, but I, and most on this board, and most in this movement, are proletarians, or student proletarians. When we rise up, protest, organize and mass together we are not doing it for the workers, we are, as workers, doing it for ourselves. This is why I both accept and reject your statement; yes, conditionally, the workers must rise up; no parasitic elitist group can do it for them. But I differ in my assertion that most communists are workers, so a communist movement, atleast conventionally, is inseperably a working class movement.

[renegadoe]

The role of the Vanguard is to lead, educate, and organize the Proletariat from within. It is of course true that the RCP needs to become closer to the Proletariat and develop a broader base. But that will be true every day until the day we get to Communism.

The RCP has never claimed to "represent" the Proletariat in a liberal sense. That is total BS.The second part of this quote contradicts the first. The whole concept of a vanguard party is that this group are "professional revolutionaries" who better understand the interests of the working-class than workers themselves, so they must be represented. Vanguardists see themselves as saviors, messiahs bringing proletarian consciousness to them from the "outside". This whole notion, however, is anti-materialist. Consciousness is determined by our everyday life through our experiences in our material conditions (namely, through our work). We cannot simply diffuse revolutionary consciousness by protesting and calling Bush a Nazi.

Remember, Marx said that we communists are midwives of the revolution - we cannot "lead" the birth of communism, but just help it along.

[Lenin II]

Yes. The RCP, like liberals, focuses on organizing for a group (in other words, representing them), because, apparently, the group is unable to clearly understand its own interests.
By this chauvinist “South Park-esque” libertarian logic, anyone who tries to help other people is a pretentious liberal blowhard.

Thus, their work is of a moral imperative - they fight for black people because it's the "right thing" to do; they do not understand that for black people to be free, black people must organize themselves.
And how is it counter-productive to highlight tragedy, racism, war and economic injustice that capitalism brings in order to give them motivation to organize themselves?

The whole concept of a vanguard party is that this group are "professional revolutionaries" who better understand the interests of the working-class than workers themselves, so they must be represented.
This implies that the vanguard are not of the working class themselves, which they are.

Vanguardists see themselves as saviors, messiahs bringing proletarian consciousness to them from the "outside".
Communists could have accomplished so much more by now if perhaps we could show some fucking realism. A prime example being that we need to learn (especially Trotskyites) that separation by ideology does NOT equal superiority. If it did, all those workers with different jobs than each other, every “expert,” would be a “messiah.”

This whole notion, however, is anti-materialist.
Whatever.

Consciousness is determined by our everyday life through our experiences in our material conditions (namely, through our work).
And yet highlighting the tragedy of “everyday experiences” in order to raise political and class consciousness is the ideology of LIBERALS!