Joseph Kishore puts ISO in their place

[Blanquist]

The recent World Socialist Web Site article, “The killing of Trayvon Martin and racial politics in America,” by Joseph Kishore, elicited the following response from Sherry Wolf, a member of the International Socialist Organization and associate editor of International Socialist Review. Below we publish a reply by Kishore.

“Thank you for providing socialists with an especially crude example of vulgar Marxism in the hands of rank sectarians. I’ve circulated it to members as a useful example of lunk-headed indifference to racism in the name of socialism — a gem of pseudo-Marxist inanity!

“P.S. Please help resolve a debate. Is your inability to grasp the ISO’s 35 years of unbending opposition to the Dems a result of colossal idiocy or just garden variety mendacity?”

Sherry Wolf


***
Dear Ms. Wolf,

Thank you for sharing with us your opinion of my recent commentary on the racial politics practiced by the ISO and other pseudo-left organizations. We are pleased to learn that you are carefully reading the World Socialist Web Site, which places you among the approximately 40,000 readers who access our publication each day.


You denounce us as “rank sectarians” who practice “vulgar Marxism.” Coming from you, this double-barreled denunciation is a compliment. In the political world that you inhabit, “sectarianism” denotes the fight for the political independence of the working class from big business parties on the basis of a socialist program. And what makes our Marxism “vulgar” in your eyes is the Socialist Equality Party’s insistence that class, not race, gender or sexuality, is the essential analytical category and decisive social basis of revolutionary politics.


You go on to decry our “lunk-headed indifference to racism in the name of socialism.” This is simply a slander. Socialists have never denied or ignored the existence of racism. However, the historic position of the socialist movement has been that the struggle against racism and all forms of oppression must be based on the fight to unite all workers, on the basis of their common class interests, against the capitalist system. The identity politics of the ISO—which bases itself on varied disaffected but, nonetheless, relatively privileged sections of the middle class—serves to divide workers. It is a form of politics that facilitates an orientation to and outright collaboration with the Democratic Party.


This brings me to your letter’s postscript. You ask whether our “inability to grasp the ISO’s 35 years of unbending opposition to the Dems” is “a result of colossal idiocy or just garden variety mendacity?” The answer, Ms. Wolf, is neither. In describing your organization as a left appendage of the Democratic Party, we’re basing ourselves on well documented political facts.


You can rant and rave as much as you like, but there are hundreds of articles on the ISO’s web site that document its role as an apologist for the Democratic Party and the Obama administration. The ISO mediates its relations with the Democratic Party through its connections with the trade union bureaucracy, the reactionary and well-heeled civil rights establishment, the innumerable “left” think tanks and NGOs, and countless left-liberal journals such as the Nation, for which you yourself write.


In the case of Trayvon Martin, the ISO is attempting to present his murder as a racial issue—an approach opposed by Trayvon’s parents—for the most crassly opportunist reasons. As the 2012 presidential election approaches, the ISO sees an opportunity to connect opposition to racism with support for Obama’s reelection.


This operation is already well underway. At an April 11 meeting sponsored jointly by the ISO and Jackson’s Rainbow-PUSH coalition—under the banner “Trayvon Martin & The Fight Against The New Jim Crow”—Rainbow-PUSH representative Jeanette Wilson called on everyone “to go vote in the polls in November” for “progressive”—i.e., Democratic Party—politicians. Your own speaker, Keeanga-Yahahtta Taylor, adapted herself to Jackson’s reactionary politics. Her presentation did not contain a single reference to “class,” the “Democratic Party” or “Obama,” and concluded by denouncing the “rich white men” who run the country.


The ISO is merely continuing the pro-Obama line that it pursued in the last presidential election. In 2008, the ISO campaigned for Obama and cheered his election, as documented in detail by David Walsh in an essay published on the WSWS. The ISO hailed Obama’s election as a “transformative event” that would mark an end to “the right-wing agenda that dominated US politics for the last three decades.” Of course, the exact opposite has occurred, as the WSWS predicted at the time. Obama is overseeing a historic attack on the democratic rights and social conditions of the working class—black and white, immigrant and native-born.



As with all middle-class opportunist organizations, the politics of the ISO is mendacious. Socialist rhetoric serves only to mask a politics that is entirely in the orbit of the Democratic Party. Ill-tempered denunciations of the World Socialist Web Site cannot hide this basic fact.

Sincerely,
Joseph Kishore
Socialist Equality Party National Secretary

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/apr2012/wolf-a19.shtml

[citizen of industry]

Another debate between two sectarian parties. x thinks struggles related to race, feminism, environment, sexuality, etc., though a result of capitalist relations, should be subordinated to class and economic struggle. y thinks struggles related to race, feminism, environment, sexuality, etc. as a result of capitalist relations, are a good platform to organize around and to recruit potential members. The verbal cannons come out, slanders and accusations of being democratic party supporters appear, emails are exchanged and forwarded on to their respective memberships.

Hmm...which one should I join?

[islandmilitia]

thinks struggles related to race, feminism, environment, sexuality, etc., though a result of capitalist relations, should be subordinated to class and economic struggle.

The problem with the SEP on this score isn't that they think that "struggles related to race [...] should be subordinated to class and economic struggle" as such, it's that they don't recognize that struggles around different forms and mechanisms of oppression are not fundamentally separate from the class struggle, and are not even important accompaniments to the class struggle - they are the class struggle. For all their condemnations of identity politics, the SEP actually shares much of the foundations of middle-class identity politics, because both the SEP and middle-class activists take the separateness of identities and struggles for granted. In this respect, the SEP is representative of so much of contemporary Trotskyist politics, because the Trotskyist understanding of class struggle is highly reified and masculine, insofar as class struggle is understood in terms of struggles over wages and conditions that take place in a stable workplace environment between unionized workers. This assumption and the analysis that flows from it is absolutely insufficient as an understanding of the nature of capitalist society, especially the total and complex nature of that society, and stands in contrast to much more energetic and interesting components of the US left, such as the WUO, PFOC, and others.

[A Marxist Historian]

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/apr2012/wolf-a19.shtml

I am no fan of the ISO.

But the WSWS trying to claim the murder of Trayvon Martin wasn't about racism isn't just wrong. It's sick. And racist.

And has absolutely nothing to do with Trotskyism, as Trotsky himself made real clear when he was alive that he understood that white racism was basic to the US capitalist order.

-M.H.-

[RedZezz]

The problem with the SEP on this score isn't that they think that "struggles related to race [...] should be subordinated to class and economic struggle" as such, it's that they don't recognize that struggles around different forms and mechanisms of oppression are not fundamentally separate from the class struggle, and are not even important accompaniments to the class struggle - they are the class struggle.

I dont agree with this point about the WSWS denying that racism plays no role in the form of class struggle. The original article that Sherry Wolf responed to states that:


"Their attempts to present racism as the “core” of American society are false and reactionary. Racial inequalities exist and racism is promoted by sections of the ruling class. However, this is one particular expression of the fundamental division in society: class. Indeed, the most horrific levels of poverty and unemployment for black workers are to be found in cities overseen by black mayors, politicians, police chiefs and businessmen."


What this objects to is putting racism as the core of American politics and allying itself with people such as Jesse Jackson to subvert class stuggle and playing into the interests of middle class politics.

[RedZezz]

I am no fan of the ISO.

But the WSWS trying to claim the murder of Trayvon Martin wasn't about racism isn't just wrong. It's sick. And racist.

And has absolutely nothing to do with Trotskyism, as Trotsky himself made real clear when he was alive that he understood that white racism was basic to the US capitalist order.

-M.H.-

I do not recall them claiming that the murder was not racially motivated. In fact, the original article even states that the murder may have been racially charged, but the protests were about social injustice that all members of the working class are facing.

"Racial prejudice may have played a role in the killing of Martin, who was African-American. The initial public reaction, however, did not focus on race, but rather on the gross injustice involved. As Martin’s mother, Sabrina Fulton, put it, “It’s not about black and white, it’s about right and wrong.”

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/apr2012/pers-a05.shtml

[Raúl Duke]

the WSWS trying to claim the murder of Trayvon Martin wasn't about racism isn't just wrong.

Whether or not the shooter, Zimmerman, was an "outright racist" or not it would be stupid for a socialist organization to claim that the matter of race did not play a factor in this killing.

A negative perception of black/non-white youths, particularly in the inner city, (as "dangerous," "petty criminals," "gangsters") permeates in this society and is expressed in many ways, such as this particular killing and also in the way NYPD has handled it's "stop and search" policy and marijuana possession related arrests (which disproportionately targets minorities).

Racial profiling/stereotypes is very pervasive (and reinforced by certain media outlets/institutions/etc) in the US culture, whether it's codified into law like Arizona's "show me your papers" law or not.

[A Marxist Historian]

I do not recall them claiming that the murder was not racially motivated. In fact, the original article even states that the murder may have been racially charged, but the protests were about social injustice that all members of the working class are facing.

"Racial prejudice may have played a role in the killing of Martin, who was African-American. The initial public reaction, however, did not focus on race, but rather on the gross injustice involved. As Martin’s mother, Sabrina Fulton, put it, “It’s not about black and white, it’s about right and wrong.”

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/apr2012/pers-a05.shtml

"may have been racially charged?" Duh.

Hell, even some of your more civilized Tea Party types would admit that.

And Martin's mother was dead right, it's not about black and white, as everybody, whether black or white, should know that white racism is wrong.

You don't just have "racial prejudice" in America, you have racial oppression, stemming from the fact that chattel slavery of blacks and genocide against Indians was a fundamental component of American society from its origins.

Black people are not just workers paid a lil' more badly than others, they are an oppressed race-color caste in American society, as a heritage of chattel slavery.

Any American Marxist who forgets that for one second is not a Marxist. As Marx himself put it, "labor cannot be liberated in white skin when black skin is still branded."

And, the slaves being "freed by Lincoln" or not, those in black skin are still branded in America.

Which is why Trayvon Martin died.

-M.H.-

[redredred]

I can't stand the ISO, but at least they have some levels of legitimacy with their publications and their work and some good analysis.

The WSWS people are a sick Healyite cult who should not be taken seriously any time in any fashion.

[MarxArchist]

The problem with the SEP on this score isn't that they think that "struggles related to race [...] should be subordinated to class and economic struggle" as such, it's that they don't recognize that struggles around different forms and mechanisms of oppression are not fundamentally separate from the class struggle, and are not even important accompaniments to the class struggle - they are the class struggle. For all their condemnations of identity politics, the SEP actually shares much of the foundations of middle-class identity politics, because both the SEP and middle-class activists take the separateness of identities and struggles for granted. In this respect, the SEP is representative of so much of contemporary Trotskyist politics, because the Trotskyist understanding of class struggle is highly reified and masculine, insofar as class struggle is understood in terms of struggles over wages and conditions that take place in a stable workplace environment between unionized workers. This assumption and the analysis that flows from it is absolutely insufficient as an understanding of the nature of capitalist society, especially the total and complex nature of that society, and stands in contrast to much more energetic and interesting components of the US left, such as the WUO, PFOC, and others.

Well, at least one woman in the ISO agrees with the SEP that identity politics is garbage.

http://socialistworker.org/2008/07/1...ntity-politics

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol...-062/smith.htm

The ISO did have a problem, not so much these days, of pushing support for Democrats and partaking in identity politics but the latter is a problem with all too many Marxist orginizations and Anarchist circles. The source is basically the New Left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left

Here in the Bay Area it's driving me up the wall. After Occupy Oakland became "Decolonize" Oakland I just about walked away from the whole mess. It all becomes a perversion of socialism proper like Maoist Third Worldsim where class analysis is distorted to absurdity where the only revolutionary "class" is whoever is being oppressed the most at any given moment. Identity politics in general have been eating away at the socialist movement since the late 1970's.

http://www.amazon.com/Hegemony-Socia.../dp/1859843301

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/251790185

Sharron Smith of the ISO is right, people such as the authors above have done so much harm to the prospect of class consciousness capitalists should give them a medal and paid tenure as professors teaching their garbage as a way to retard any socialist movements...oh wait...capitalists already did that. The SEP is also correct in sniffing out organizations that push both identity politics and votes for Democrats I just don't think the ISO is as guilty, these days, as the SEP would like to think.

[Sir Comradical]

Come on, as if race wasn't a factor in Trayvon's murder.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No YOU started it.

[ellipsis]

Here in the Bay Area it's driving me up the wall. After Occupy Oakland became "Decolonize" Oakland I just about walked away from the whole mess. It all becomes a perversion of socialism proper like Maoist Third Worldsim where class analysis is distorted to absurdity where the only revolutionary "class" is whoever is being oppressed the most at any given moment. Identity politics in general have been eating away at the socialist movement since the late 1970's.

Not to derail the thread but OO never actually adopted the name decolonize. IIRC it was a proposal that was met with considerable opposition and ended up causing a lot of infighting.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not to derail the thread but OO never actually adopted the name decolonize. IIRC it was a proposal that was met with considerable opposition and ended up causing a lot of infighting.

Yeah I was there at that vote and it was heated but didn't pass. I think it won a bare majority, but not the 2/3rd (or higher, I can't remember) required to adopt it.

I think most of the "Occupy" side didn't really care that much about the name change and some supported it just as an attempt to keep unity. The "Decolonize" side basically took their supporters and set up their own thing.

I think it was a rather weak argument to say that "Occupy" is what empires do. As many people pointed out, native american activists used the term "occupy" when Aclatraz Island was politically occupied. Not to mention that Occupy was just the accepted adopted name and it came a year or so after a lot of people involved in that movement (at least in Oakland) had participated in campus occupations.

I do think we, in occupy oakland, needed to do more to build support and connections with wider layers of the working class in Oakland which would definately include black and latino Oaklanders; and that more of an effort should have been made to make solidarity in an organic way by going out to neighborhoods and allying with some activism going on in other parts of the city. This is a crude way to put it and I don't think it was intentional on anyone's part, but I got a sense that among political people (who all sincerely wanted to have a real movement representing everyone in Oakland and rooted in all communities) that having anti-racist rehtoric was enough. On the other hand I think things like the BBQ and anti-forclosure committee got it right - connecting to people beyond a general identification among workers and black folks with the "anti1%" message.

I think that's why we had so much broad support at one point and then the city's propaganda confused people enough to give up on the movement. Annecdotally, when talking to people in Oakland in the first phase of the movement people kinda wrote it off as "I like what they are saying, but I aint going to camp out all night" to then support when we got repressed (I litterally saw someone's opinion change right in front of me when he had been complaining about the movement and then 20 cop cars rode by and he was like... "all that? For Occupy?" and his tune totally changed) to then later in the new year, "They're crazy, they just want to break stuff". The "message" spoke to people, but without seeing a practical effect, it was easier for City Hall, the Cops, and the Media's propaganda about "a bunch of spoiled kids" to take hold.

[MarxArchist]

Not to derail the thread but OO never actually adopted the name decolonize. IIRC it was a proposal that was met with considerable opposition and ended up causing a lot of infighting.

I know, bad wording, I was speaking of the split and the tension it caused. When I said "became" I should've said fracture. People who were originally 'Occupy' became 'Decolonize' and tried to push a sort of new left 'most oppressed' type organization on Occupy.

It was a divisive organizing tactic. My point. I dint really see Occupy in Oakland as a white male dominated example of imperialism or colonialism that excludes people of color, women and the extremely poor but that's just me. I personally stayed pretty quiet as far as suggestions and tactics and my involvement started to wane around the time of the split (when my opinions became rather vocal). I've opposed fragmentation of workers struggle for some time and it annoys me to see it happen. People tend to lose sight of the anti capitalist aspect but if people feel issues facing women, the extremely poor and people of color are being ignored it should be a problem addressed in solidarity with sound materialist class analysis , in lieu of idealism, as the foundation.