Eric Mann Replies: Aren’t We in an Anti-Racist United Front?
Posted by Mike E on October 30, 2008
"Republican convention? A bunch of pasty-faced fascists"
This continues the discussion that developed from Eric’s first posting “Ten Reasons We Should Turn Out the Vote for Barack Obama.”
by Eric Mann
First, thanks to Mike Ely and Kasama’s readers for such a rich, engaged discussion.
I read every comment and felt I could spend another article just writing responses, but let me make a preliminary response to some of the critiques being made against my arguments.
I think one major disagreement we have is that I see the U.S. as an imperialist racist white settler state. I see the national question re oppressed people inside and outside the united states as the primary contradiction. If a white mob is yelling, “Off with his head,” what kind of communism or socialism or revolutionary ideology would say we should sit out that fight?
The Legacy of Boston Bussing 1975-76
Of all the comments, the one that moved me the most was the reference to the Boston bussing situation and the RCP’s support for Louise Day Hicks and the white racist mobs.
TellNoLies Says: October 26, 2008 at 3:57 pm
This is, to take a touchy moment from the RCP’s history, something of a Boston busing moment, where a determination to distance oneself from anything having to do with the existing capitalist state blinded some sincere revolutionaries to the “which side are you on” nature of a fight against racism and called into question their leadership in the eyes of the majority of revolutionary minded people from there on out.
Bussing was a civil rights issue, a democratic right for Blacks to go to any school, including predominantly white schools. Bussing was supported by the vast majority of Black families, though not without reservations. So when it began, white vigilante groups attacked the Black children in Boston, threatening to kill them. Every decent white person–priests and ministers, the entire civil rights movement and most of the new communist left–rallied to defend the Black kids.
Bizarrely, the RCP called bussing a sham reform that would divide the working class. They ended up opposing Black people’s right to go to any school they wanted to and objectively supported the white mobs. And this was not academic. I was in Boston at the time and heard the RCP speakers and felt they were racists and frankly, cruel and anti-Black. Coming out of the civil rights movement and having worked in Black communities for 5 years by then, and 30 more years since,
I had such a visceral dislike of the RCP that it turned me against communism altogether for another 3 or 4 years. It was only when I met oppressed nationality communists talking about the fight for democratic rights being part of the national question and how communists had to rally to defend Black and Latino peoples, on immigration, housing, against police brutality, only then did communism become attractive to me.
So, one of the reasons I give for why we should work to elect Obama is that he is a Black man being attacked by a white mob. Isn’t that enough for anti-racist communists to get? This is not just a split in the ruling class–it is a fight between liberal bourgeois democracy and fascism. If you don’t agree that that is important because you think they are both capitalist, I urge you to visit the Buchenwald camps where the Jews, Gypsies, and Communists were taken. I urge you to revisit how the communists led the anti-fascist united front. When you hear McCain and Palin say that “spreading the wealth around” is socialism, they are lying, sure, but isn’t it important that Obama is even talking about that? Why are we so afraid of the Democrats, so afraid of being ideologically contaminated?
In Los Angeles, my organization the Labor/Community Strategy Center is often at war with the Democratic party, we seek liberal and progressive allies and then sometimes they are hard to find. But today in our No On the Six Campaign we work with the Democrats to oppose two propositions that would imprison Black youth, we and they support Gay marriage and a woman’s right to choose. In What is to Be Done, Lenin says that a communist (as opposed to an economist) must be a tribune of the people and respond to all forms of oppression, e.g. including the suppression of Greek Orthodox priests.
Today, did you see the Republican convention? A bunch of pasty-faced fascists, all white and yet not seeming to notice the absence of any Blacks and Latinos.
Do we not understand we are in an anti-racist united front?
In my politics, I am working to build an antiracist, anti-fasicst, anti-imperialist united front. That is not a slogan but an operative theory.
I wish everyone was anti-racist, and anti-fascist and anti-imperialist. But many people I know are anti-racist, anti-fascist, and anti-war, and that’s pretty good because when Palin says, “We want to kill Al Quaeda and Obama wants to read them their rights” the crowd goes crazy, and the Republicans are screaming about torture.
I won’t go on elaborating on what were my main points in the article.
Basically, I believe that if you are successful on the left you live with real people, work with real people. If your entire union wants to go on strike you don’t say, “This is a bourgeois struggle because you only want a better price for the sale of your labor power.” No, you join the strike, fight against the leadership of the trade union bureaucracy, and help the union win. I just heard Barack Obama on his paid spot yesterday. Its tone was civilized, humane, and decent, focusing on the real problems of working people. I disagreed with many of the things he said and I have an organization that is far to his left. The day after the election I do not plan to attack him politically, nor will he care, but I will be part of an organization whose members, as individuals, are working for Obama and want him to win. I have confidence in my politics, in the Black community, and in the part of the left that is, like Carl Davidson explains, building actual mass movements.
If comrades are debating whether or not to vote before a major turning point in US history when I am proposing turning out the vote for Obama, then we are pretty far apart. Did you notice I also said in my article that I am working with an independent movement to build my and our own base, far to the left of Obama? On election night we are having an election night party for the volunteers of the No on the Six campaign. I will not be with the Obama folks on election night, not that I wouldn’t want to, but because my own organization will have 100 to 150 volunteers, perhaps 50 Black, 50 Latino, 20 Korean and Asian/Pacific Islander who have worked together for 3 months on the No on the Six campaign. We will be rooting for the defeat of these reactionary propositions. Our organization does not endorse candidates but I think 95% of our members will be rooting with all their hearts for an Obama victory. It is great to have a multi-racial base, to have an organization, to have left politics, and to not be isolated.
For those who point out the dangers of an Obama presidency, because he is, as I stressed in my article as well, commander in chief of US imperialism, we share those concerns. But I do believe that the Mexicans, Venezuelans, Vietnamese, Palestinians, Cubans, South Africans and every third world revolutionary I know will be hoping that Obama wins and McCain loses. Are they wrong too? I urge you to write them to explain their naivete, or perhaps, look in the mirror and take another look at history passing you by.
For concern re length, I’ll stop here.
I have put up a new post on my blog with a couple more points of response along with excerpts from many other comments posted here that struck me–Part One: Responding to Criticisms of Ten Reasons We Should Work to Elect Obama. I would welcome continued discussion there or here, whatever works best and is most appropriate. I plan to post my responses to other critiques and feedback that I have been getting to my article there soon.
Again, the discussion here has been great and you have been very generous to me and my article.
Let’s keep the dialogue and debate going.
Jose M said
Hey, he posted my comment on his blog!
Thanks man, we’ll keep up the line struggle.
I need to read more on this, observe, and then come to some conclusions.
RW Harvey said
Eric, clearly you are an impassioned fighter for justice in this world, one of the few who I know are on the front lines (I know that I certainly am not at this point in my life) and I respect that, and you. You eloquently argue with the remembrances of Nazi Germany and how the rulers there came first for one group of people and then another, so here is my question:
What will you think, say, and do when Obama as the first Black president becomes the first modern leader of the U.S. to institute martial law and begins to round up you and others that you love? What will you tell those in Afghanistan when he increases the bombing and perhaps the troop deployment? Surely questions like these must be part of your assessment as to whether there is indeed a basis for a united front? Do you really imagine arguing with Obama about these types of actions from the point of view that he is a Black president facing a white lynch mob?
There is no doubt that simply by virtue of his being Black, in the context of the racist/slave foundations of this country, he will be a lightening rod for racist and white supremacist ravings (and even assaults), but how does opposing racism equate with electing him? Don’t you see the danger that your approach is placing Obama beyond the pale of criticism and social opposition because any criticism of Obama can be construed as racism (or objectively in alignment with racists) to oppose the policies of a Black president?
Thank you for being so willing to engage on this critical issue, Eric
zerohour said
“What will you think, say, and do when Obama as the first Black president becomes the first modern leader of the U.S. to institute martial law and begins to round up you and others that you love? What will you tell those in Afghanistan when he increases the bombing and perhaps the troop deployment? Surely questions like these must be part of your assessment as to whether there is indeed a basis for a united front? Do you really imagine arguing with Obama about these types of actions from the point of view that he is a Black president facing a white lynch mob”
This is part of the problem with polarizing the debate as a matter of “Obama vs. revolution.” Even if both campaigns completely fell apart right this second, revolution is not on the agenda, and I doubt anyone in the world thinks otherwise. I do think it is more likely, however, that many, including in the Middle East, would prefer an Obama presidency. It’s too pat to think that supporting Obama now means the self-suppression of resistance later, or even that resistance will be seen as tainted and hypocritical. There is some basis to believe that the “breathing room” argument for electoral strategy is simply a prelude for relative inaction: the Clinton presidency. During those years, the left couldn’t mount a single effective campaign and our influence on policy was nil. Why would it be different this time around? That still needs to be answered. But…
Stipulating that both candidates are imperialist, why do people here keep diminishing the importance of race? Among the people I’ve spoken to who are voting for Obama, none – absolutely none – have any illusions that his presidency will mean the elimination of racism, much less any drastic reduction in other social oppressions and inequalities, but they do feel it will put white supremacy, culturally speaking, on the defensive for a short time. And yes, many believe that his domestic policies will provide some material relief. What if they do? Is it irrelevant? Can they be casually waved away with Afghanistan?
Mike said: “this is not some sinister hidden committee, or some monolithic fraternity of imperialists — but a complex, fractious, evolving process of decisionmaking involving levels of power, centers of power, and different instrumentalities (military, media, funding, etc.) But the fact remains that ultimately (and essentially) the decision is made by a ruling class (in the sense that they approve the major candidates, and often decide which of them will ascend).” I agree but I would think that an important part of their calculations would take mass sentiment into account. Not only how to manipulate it, but what certain flashpoints may be where they may have to tread lightly or make accommodations. In the context of two failing wars, and an economy spiralling downwards, the system may enter into a legitimacy crisis and this may mean real concessions in the short term depending on how we organize. Many have mentioned that McCain/Palin are virulently anti-choice. Is that an expendable issue? If so, it’s dangerously close to arguing that the worse things get for the masses, the better it would be for revolutionaries.
The strong likelihood is, he’s going to win. Why do revolutionaries think we will get a better hearing simply by being outside the election process? In terms of credibility, I actually don’t believe it matters. In the time I’ve done organizing, whether criticizing Clinton or Bush, I don’t remember ever being asked if I vote. I’m no longer so convinced that a tactical engagement with an election campaign automatically leads to a longer term dissipation of revolutionary forces.
Mike said: “We have often discussed Mao’s concept of “hasten and await.” There are objective changes that we must “await” — that turn the objective conditions more favorable to reaching millions. But we can also hasten those openings by building and consolidating revolutionary forces, identifying the ways of conducting revolutionary work under non-revolutinary conditions, and struggling to win people away from the illusions and destructions of tailing the liberals.” Again, no disagreement, but why does this mean we can’t have a tactical involvement with such a campaign?
I’m not arguing that we should do electoral work on principle [it's too late now anyway], just that some of the arguments for non-participation are flawed and need re-examination.
zerohour said
“Don’t you see the danger that your approach is placing Obama beyond the pale of criticism and social opposition because any criticism of Obama can be construed as racism (or objectively in alignment with racists) to oppose the policies of a Black president?”
Doesn’t this recapitulate the logic that racists are already raising about Obama supporters? That they are only voting for him because he’s black? Subsequently they will also defend him solely on this basis? To paraphrase Chris Rock pointed out: people “ain’t voting for Flavor Fav!” [thanks to Linda D. fort that one]
celticfire said
I agree with Eric Mann that essentially, we can’t just treat this as another boring exchanging of bourgeois heads for new ones. We can’t pain this election as that simple: there is a long standing tradition of bourgeois democratic elections in this country – it isn’t a peasant country or an isolated island. Its something like an empire and we most acknowledge when opportunities (like now) arise to strike out victories against the racist right-wing of the imperialist ruling class.
Ugg said
“So, one of the reasons I give for why we should work to elect Obama is that he is a Black man being attacked by a white mob.”
Point 1, your identification of Obama as a “black man” is substantively incorrect.
First of all it’s simply not true to portray Obama as representing black people in any way except in the most superficial sense of the color of his skin. A lot of people are going with that, but it mistakes the racial signifier for the content that it is supposed to symbolize. Blackness isn’t a simple matter of skin color. It is a marker of social status that is directly linked to the enforced class position of blacks as unskilled workers drifting in and out of criminality.
Again, if Obama’s election was a blow against that system of oppression, then Clarence Thomas’ rise to the Supreme Court would have been a resounding blow against white supremacy. Certainly, he and Condoleeza Rice, or Colin Powell, have more right to claim to be representatives of blacks in the United States than Barack Obama (at least in so far as they have shared the black experience).
What is interesting about Obama’s imminent landslide election is exactly how it unveils the real substance of the race issue in this country. The day Obama becomes president does not signify a blow against the ruling ideological and material organization of this society. It does not represent historic progress. It will not mean that black and white will behave differently towards one another. But it will create some cognitive dissonance in the entire theoretical apparatus of identity politics, while exposing the soft racism of white guilt and liberal pandering.
I fail to see how voting for Barack Obama, who simply does not share the same cultural background and heritage of the decendants of slaves in the United States, and who is rolling in the approval of the white establishment (if that’s really how you want to pose it), constitutes a blow against the system of oppression that is truly killing black people throughout this country. Reducing politics to a vote based on melanin, when the true fate of blacks in this country grows ever more desperate, and then breaking your arm to pat yourself on the back for a “vote against white supremacy” is quite frankly disgusting. All the more so when your candidate explicitly distances himself from the cause of black people in the United States.
Point 2, your posing of a white lynch mob is horseshit, and the idea that the way to combat rising fascism is to vote for a right of center Democrat, is the kind of politics that gets large numbers of people killed by fascism.
The level of exaggeration should be noted, when you 1) portray Obama as being in the shoes of a victim of lynching, and 2) portray all republicans as pasty-white fascists. This is the game of three card monty that is the CPUSA concept of “United Front Against Fascism.” You portray the Democrat as an everyday person under the gun like the most oppressed in society (or at least as representing the interests of the oppressed), and then you portray their opponents as goose-stepping Nazis, or cross burning klansmen. Then you put out your play against the ultra-left with your RCP bussing point. So you got ultra-left, ultra-right, and then you got Barack. How is this any different than being a democrat? And isn’t that a strange place to be considering how most people feel about either party?
It is absurd to characterize Obama as being on the run from some white lynch mob when he is filling up stadiums full of adoring white fans, filling up the airwaves with adoring white commentary, and filling his campaign coffers with adoring white dollars. I hate to put the race tag on these realities, but after all that is what your analysis of “a vote for Obama = a vote against racism” is all about.
Likewise if you take the recent turn in the McCain campaign rhetoric as creating this so-called fascist, white lynch mob, then you are confused about where the tensions are coming from and why. These people didn’t come out of nowhere, and they didn’t come onto the scene in reaction to Barack Obama. These are the same people that formed the minutemen, and voted Bush into office twice. But more fundamentally the speed and the viciousness with which that base of reactionaries was activated is very much related to the overall shifting of stability in the country.
Though I would note that as the attacks have increased against Obama his lead has increased, and I wonder what that means to your overall analysis of lynch mobs and blows against white supremacy. I think it betrays the banality of white-guilt race theory. Where white supremacy is not a systemic and historic development, but it is a set of conscious political or cultural positions on the individual level. In other words, it is not a structural evil that needs to be thoroughly ripped out of our society in the process of revolution, instead the guilty white sees it as a moral issue, a choice of good or bad in the internal battle of every individual’s soul. It is self reflective feel-goodism to pose a vote for Obama as a strike against racism because it is proof to the guilty white that they are not personally racist, even as they walk by homeless black people in the streets, and lock their car doors in fear of being car-jacked by poor black people.
For this reason it is even more important not to focus on Obama’s candidacy as the crucial point of political struggle. Or to put it another way, the reactionary sentiments in the country are being pushed forward because the country is in crisis. The election of Obama will not end that crisis, and it will not end that reaction. If anything, the person who will come into office will be someone with a proven record of compromising with reactionaries, even endorsing their most reactionary policies. Do not expect Obama or the U.S. government to put the leash back on the dog. We will have to build our own bases of support and organization with which to first defend ourselves, and then sweep the reactionaries away. And I guarantee that the state will not be on our side in that fight.
The question is, what side will you and yours be on Eric?
I will say that I’m looking forward to the “post-racial” America that we’ll be getting on the 5th, not because I think it will really do away with the racial-class system in the U.S., but because I think it will go a long way to exposing the soft racism of white guilt and pandering, while also exposing the real nature of race in the U.S. as blacks and others sink into an ever worse off position because of the crisis, and their already precarious placement in the overall social and economic system, while the president does the business of the ruling class.
The unity that you’ve created through the election will, like all election campaigns, fade into the ether after election night. What you have to ask yourself is whether you imparted any notion of a liberating revolutionary goal for humanity, whether any of your work has brought us a step further in building that affirmative politics, or if all you’ve done was build a temporary organization, with temporary goals, and temporary principles all confined with the one or two years that have been Election 2008. You’ve got to ask yourself if you’ve really done anything to help the black people that you’re cynically wearing on your sleeve. And you’ve got to ask yourself whether you’ve really done what needed to be done to help organize people to defend themselves against the coming attacks.
Ka Frank said
Eric writes: “For those who point out the dangers of an Obama presidency, because he is, as I stressed in my article as well, commander in chief of US imperialism, we share those concerns. But I do believe that the Mexicans, Venezuelans, Vietnamese, Palestinians, Cubans, South Africans and every third world revolutionary I know will be hoping that Obama wins and McCain loses.”
Every revolutionary from India and the Philippines that I have spoken to about the election does NOT hope that Obama wins and McCain loses–exactly because they are preparing the people they lead to struggle in the trenches against the next commander in chief of US imperialism, no matter who wins. Supporting Obama, for them, is holding out the potentially deadly illusion that an Obama administration will bring with it a kinder and gentler imperialism.
Keith said
Ugg Wrote: “Blackness isn’t a simple matter of skin color. It is a marker of social status that is directly linked to the enforced class position of blacks as unskilled workers drifting in and out of criminality.”
I think that Afro-Americans will be and should be the ones who decide who is and who isn’t their representative. The idea that blacks are all unskilled workers on the margins of criminality is, lots of things as well as, wrong… very wrong.
If you want to understand something about the authenticity of Obama’s “blackness” you might check out this excellent piece in this months New York Review of Books called “Obama and Sweet Potato Pie.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22059
TellNoLies said
Ugg,
Barack Obama is Black. His unique biography didn’t protect him from being treated as Black and, more importantly, presented with the choice he decided to identify as Black. He did community organizing work in mainly Black communities, he married into a Black family, joined a Black church, and he was elected to the Illinois State Senate by a predominantly Black district. There is something more than a little repugnant about denying this.
It is certainly true that Obama’s biography has made him an enormously talented code-switcher and that his appeal to many white people derives precisely from his ability to put them at ease about things they shouldn’t be put at ease about. He is not generationally of the civil rights movement and has maintained a certain distance from the established leadership of the Black community. But he is much more representative of the Black community than Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas not because of his biography but because of his politics. And that is why he enjoys a degree of popular support among Black people that none of them could ever hope for.
You argue that Eric is guilty of exaggeration and I actually agree. But not even his most lurid characterization of Obama as victim compares with the all-out denial of reality entailed in arguing that he isn’t Black. Your dogma denies the possibility of a Black man becoming president. So when it happens, rather than modify your theory you simply insist that the black men in question isn’t.
I disagree with Eric on a number of points, and I think the victim of a lynch mob metaphor breaks down when you are talking about the likely next most powerful man on the planet, but it is precisely arguments of the sort you are making that discredit revolutionary politics and make the line peddled by the CPUSA and others seem appealing. Pwogwessivism, if you will, is the price we pay for white chauvinism and puerile sectarianism.
The question of whether or not to vote for Obama will soon be behind us. I am not as sanguine as Eric about what that will mean. I think an Obama presidency will present a whole new set of challenges to radicals and revolutionaries that we are not at all prepared for. I think, for example, that we really will have to deal with charges of attacking the first Black president when we hit the streets after he escalates the war in Afghanistan. But I am not at all interested in attempts to argue that he is not Black.
redflags said
Pwogwessivism, if you will, is the price we pay for white chauvinism and puerile sectarianism.
Really?
Linda D. said
Ugg: “You’ve got to ask yourself if you’ve really done anything to help the black people that you’re cynically wearing on your sleeve. And you’ve got to ask yourself whether you’ve really done what needed to be done to help organize people to defend themselves against the coming attacks.”
And I have to ask, WHO ARE THE REAL CYNICS commenting on this post by E. Mann?
To me, some like Ugg, ultimately have a very one-sided and cynical view of the people. While some of you, based on your understanding of imperialism, have pointed out what is on the imperialists’ agenda, you have completely bypassed the other all-important element, and who you leave out of the equation. As “revolutionaries” who supposedly have a more far-sighted and materialist view, you have dissed and dismissed a very broad section of the masses, and to my mind, you haven’t really answered why those people would be circling around Obama in the first place. Nor have you addressed what the subjective and more conscious forces should actually be doing in a changing political climate and landscape. In Ugg’s comment above, he relegates (and denigrates) the masses, and in particular African Americans (but also including the subjective forces) to strictly being on the defensive. Ugg and some others reduce Black people (and by innuendo other oppressed nationalities) to some unthinking consolidated bloc, who are strictly being dupped; on the other hand, white people are reduced to voting for or supporting Obama because of some white liberal guilt. How cynical (and condescending) is that?
To paraphrase Lenin—as revolutionary communists we need to understand all classes. And yes, we also need to be “tribunes of the people.” As materialists, we need to analyze the political climate, subjective forces and objective situation—but not just to expose the rulers and their machinations—or in this case their use of electoral politics (in a “bourgeois democracy”), but understand the dynamics going on within the more progressive people themselves.
I do not know, nor claim to know, what Ugg and others’ actual practice is, and I am not trying to attack any of you personally; however, much of what you have put forth doesn’t appear to bode well in terms of your interaction or struggle with the more progressive forces amongst the people. I say that, because from your comments there appears to be some underlying contempt for the very people we NEED TO unite with, who in many cases are not as myopic as you appear to be. I think you have boxed yourselves into a corner, and are even further distancing yourselves from the progressive sections of the masses. You seem to not be taking stock of the volatile political situation, the higher aspirations of the people that have emerged in opposition to the ruling class—both the most reactionary as well as the more liberal-sounding wings.
And much of the current thinking amongst the progressive masses is predicated on decades-long and gallant struggle, even though much of that struggle has been co-opted. Is it a bad thing that people are against racism, the war (Iraq in particular), changing attitudes about los inmigrantes, etc.? Would the outright racism and attacks in and around Jena have even more import in today’s climate, as opposed to several months ago? The way some of you look at it is simply a matter of the white supremacist’s hegemony (in both the ideological sphere, and in the material world), or some future “difficulty” in exposing Obama (and who he really represents) because you’ll be labeled a racist. (Talk about white liberal guilt!)
Undeniably there are contradictions amongst the people—but that is not the same as the people’s contradictions with the rulers.
But I have yet to read in a lot of the commentary, what is the mood of the masses (i.e. all and any progressive forces in this groundswell), except to trash Eric Mann for his naivete. And further, the biggest critics have reduced the progressive sentiments of the masses around Obama, and in particular Black people, to a pretty obvious, and single-minded denominator, and, with the exception of say KaFrank and a few others, have not spoken to what the role of the subjective and more revolutionary-conscious forces could and should be in all this. It’s doom and gloom and we’re all on the defensive.
What kind of a revolutionary pole are we extending to the people, who in fact, at this moment in time, are in motion?
To quote KaFrank:
“Every revolutionary from India and the Philippines that I have spoken to about the election does NOT hope that Obama wins and McCain loses–exactly because they are preparing the people they lead to struggle in the trenches against the next commander in chief of US imperialism, no matter who wins. Supporting Obama, for them, is holding out the potentially deadly illusion that an Obama administration will bring with it a kinder and gentler imperialism.”
“…preparing the people THEY LEAD to struggle in the trenches against the next commander in chief of U.S. imperialism, no matter who wins.” Are the cynical commentators preparing anyone?
Am going to give a personal and mini example of how I think some of the more cynical among us are selling the people short. During the primaries, one of my daughters got into a heated argument with some of her co-workers. Some were asking—“Gee who ya gonna vote for? Obama because he’s Black, or Hillary because she’s a woman?” My daughter was outraged…and a lot of her replies were, “I’m lookin’ at the issues, and where these candidates fall out on the war, a woman’s right to choose, same sex marriage,” etc. This is not to say that my daughter and I haven’t had our own disagreements about electoral politics (although my daughter understands the limitations and machinations of electoral politics), or Obama’s agenda, etc. We also have many more points of unity than not. But the point is, she, along with our family and the majority of their friends, are thinking about all sorts of issues, which definitely includes national oppression—something my family faces every goddamn day. (And a year ago, when I was making an art presentation to about 150 mexicanos, I mentioned that the latest polls in the U.S. say that over 70% of the population is against the war in Iraq, etc. The response to this was for everyone in the “audience” to stand up and applaud vigorously.)
Would like to juxtapose two excerpts from Mike. He both discusses some of the contradictions that the bourgeoisie faces, as well as what the people need to struggle over:
(Zerohour in quoting Mike): “this is not some sinister hidden committee, or some monolithic fraternity of imperialists — but a complex, fractious, evolving process of decision-making involving levels of power, centers of power, and different instrumentalities (military, media, funding, etc.) But the fact remains that ultimately (and essentially) the decision is made by a ruling class (in the sense that they approve the major candidates, and often decide which of them will ascend).”
On the other hand, in Mike’s article, “Obama vs. Revolution” (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/mike-e-obama-vs-the-revolution-those-changes-people-really-need/):
“I often think about asking people: Where were you when the revolution met you?
“What were you doing? What did you actually see and understand that made you think some profound change is needed? What kind of ideas were floating around? What macro events were hitting home — setting the terms, putting everyone through some changes.”
Mike also pointed out: “We have often discussed Mao’s concept of “hasten and await.” There are objective changes that we must “await” — that turn the objective conditions more favorable to reaching millions. But we can also hasten those openings by building and consolidating revolutionary forces, identifying the ways of conducting revolutionary work under non-revolutionary conditions, and struggling to win people away from the illusions and destructions of tailing the liberals.”
To this Zerohour added: “Again, no disagreement, but why does this mean we can’t have a tactical involvement with such a campaign?”
Back in June of this year, Mumia issued a statement: “Is Obama’s Victory Ours” (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/mumia-is-obamas-victory-ours/) and in part said: “Politics is the art of making people believe that they are in power when in fact, they have none. It is a measure of how dire is the hour that they’ve passed the keys to the kingdom to a Black man.”
How do we make use of that “dire hour” that the bourgeoisie finds itself in?
Am going to repeat something I said in an earlier comment:
“Obama aside, how do any of you see uniting with those whom I perceive as having “better sentiments” (in terms of say, anti-war, anti-racist, etc. attitudes) — the many who are for now uniting around Obama? Frankly, those are the people I am concerned with, whether or not they harbor some illusions re the elections, or bourgeois democracy.”
The first response to that:
“Always an important question linda d: how do we unite with others who see the world differently?”
My response to the response is—this is not just some “important question” (as if in the abstract). Also, I wasn’t talking about people who see the world differently, but more so, who amongst those forces can we unite with who share some of our loftier aspirations, and who for now, in different ways, are challenging the status quo. Who are the people questioning and struggling against the reactionary ideologues of this system? It is obvious that one of the main differences we have with many of those forces is what is ultimately really needed and how to get there…but those people are also providing a fertile ground for revolutionary ideas to take hold. And the changing objective and world situation is also a vital part of the equation. It is not just a matter of a “good idea” to unite with as broad a part of the masses as possible and mobilize and prepare them further for revolution. The masses are not some postscript to the revolutionary struggle. What the hell are we talking about when we talk about revolution anyway? Who are our friends, and who are our real enemies? Have we abandoned the concept that “the masses are the makers of history”?
While I agree with a lot of what Zerohour said, and perhaps I misunderstood what he added, I don’t agree that “but why does this mean we can’t have a tactical involvement with such a campaign?” As revolutionaries, I don’t think either tactically or strategically we need to be involved in Obama’s campaign. What we do need to do both tactically and strategically – if we are ever gonna make revolution – is discern and unite with the better sentiments and aspirations, listen to, engage with, those same masses who are progressive, even revolutionary-minded themselves, and who in fact are in motion, and who are in struggle against many of the things we abhor about this system. And if those same people take to the streets in the future, and more of their illusions are further shattered, and they are protesting what evidently will be Obama’s plan for further war and aggression against Afghanistan (or further moves against Pakistan, Iran and Syria), further attacks on immigrants, oppressed nationalities, etc., we better well be there! But not posturing like, “I told ya so.” We need to learn how to apply mass line. We need to neither dismiss the people, nor be condescending saviors.
RW Harvey said
There is no doubt that these are complex questions, and they are important questions beyond Nov. 4th election day since it looks like Obama will be the next president.
It is hardly dismissive of the people to have an analysis of Obama as an imperialist politician and on that basis should not be supported, just as it was hardly dismissive of the people when radicals and progressives argued against the war in Vietnam (can anyone recall demonstrations of 25 people?), or when non-Black progressives joined in supporting the civil rights movement: there was plenty of arguing AGAINST what could be called “the masses” (or the majority opinion of the time) and that was not dismissive — it was struggle around what stand to take and what actions followed from that stand.
We all know and have witnessed people coming into motion (and going out of motion) around any number of issues in society. Motion, in and of itself, does not signify progressive movement (much less revolutionary or anti-imperialist movement). How is Obama’s campaign a challenge to the status quo? C’mon, let’s stop confusing our righteous hatred of oppression and racism with supporting the masses who support Obama! Quite contrary to the idea that these masses in motion are providng fertile gorund for revolutionary ideas to take hold, the potential for revolutionary ideas are being more and more subsumed under the illusion that America really does work.
Last point for now: revolutionary forces in America are not on the offensive (if this is what we’re summing up regarding Obama then heaven help us). For those around Kasama, they are (importantly) regrouping. This American empire is clearly in crisis and it remains as deadly as ever. Rather than “doom & gloom” a sense of gravitas is a vital part of our assessment. Despair is not countered with revolutionary cheerleading; it is countered with sound analysis, material preparations (hasten & await), and an awareness that the nature of shape-shifting reality always holds within it surprising potentiality.
Linda D. said
Nando makes this point on another post (but essentially same subject matter):
“But in the most profound way, forming a strategic united front with the liberal imperialists is an abandonment of revolutionary politics, and an entry into the real morass of reformist politics — regardless of justifications raised to the contrary.”
I couldn’t agree more. But just to clarify—in no way and never would I call for a united front with “liberal imperialists” (“imperialists” being the operative word. I am not advocating support for Obama, although admittedly, and for instance, all along on Kasama have advocated that we take a stand against (and expose) racist attacks, slurs, and slams. This has little to do with Obama, but more to do with fighting racism and taking a staunch position against national oppression. To look at this particular “issue” as something simply embodied in the electoral race for prez., and mainly about Obama, is to say the least limiting, and bordering on the absurd. However, there are those who think that by electing Obama, somehow that helps to erase racism and national oppression from U.S. society. It’s a grand illusion, and that is one of the illusions we need to shatter. And frankly as things go forth, that illusion will take a lot of blows, whether or not we expose it or not. More likely I tend to think that Mao was right–”where there is oppression there is resistance.” But that doesn’t inherently mean revolutionary resistance.
Thus, I am also not advocating that there shouldn’t be a full and comprehensive exposure of Obama, and in particular his own imperialist designs as part of whom he is, at the core, united with.
I think your point about the masses in motion is well taken. More often than not, sections of the masses or progressive-minded people are in motion spontaneously, which helps explain the ebbs and flows of different struggles. And we can see throughout history, how many, if not most, of those righteous and well-meaning battles have been co-opted. (In part, while I think objectively the rulers were able to be more flexible, and maneuver at different junctures, it also points up some of the weaknesses within the subjective and more revolutionary forces as well.)
But I have to ask—what effects—although at the time maybe not that transparent—have say the civil rights movement, the Black and Latino liberation struggle, the wars of national liberation, anti-war movements, etc. had and are having (perhaps more subliminally) in the current situation? Were they simply isolated incidents? (As you personally undoubtedly know, the first anti-Vietnam war “demonstration” I attended consisted of 10 people and 3 years later, was marching in NYC as part of a demonstration of 500,000 protestors—of every nationality. Am sure you can cite many examples from your own personal experience as well.) But what does it mean to “create public opinion…”? and under what conditions or circumstances?
You said (and I hope I’m not taking this out of context) that—“there was plenty of arguing AGAINST what could be called “the masses” (or the majority opinion of the time) and that was not dismissive — it was struggle around what stand to take and what actions followed from that stand.” Well AT THE TIME seems to me to be relevant, because the “times they’ve been a changin’” and I see part of that change amongst a significant section of the people, in an ideological sense. Seems to me, part of our tasks, as revolutionaries, is to broaden and deepen, in tandem with other revolutionary-minded folk, the understanding of those same progressive forces who are, in great numbers, looking at (or some starting to look at) the world differently. And I am not basing my thoughts on some voluntaristic thinking, which thinking we were well groomed in ala the rcp.
Here is what I guess is my overall thinking, and why I was admittedly pretty pissed off at some of what I was reading. As part of our analysis of both the objective situation (worldwide), as well as a materialist analysis of the rulers—we need to be in touch with what is going on in different pockets and amongst different sections of the more progressive people. Revolutionary and progressive ideas and struggle have certainly been in an overwhelming lull. There is a lot of polarization going on—albeit, not how we would ultimately like to see it.
You say: “Quite contrary to the idea that these masses in motion are providng fertile gorund for revolutionary ideas to take hold, the potential for revolutionary ideas are being more and more subsumed under the illusion that America really does work.”
Well, certainly there are no guarantees—either way, but this is not a fâit accompli. But why do some people continue to present only the negative, and not want to take advantage, as revolutionaries, of both the contradictions that the imperialists have as well as some forward motion (or movement) amongst the people and more progressive forces? I think Mao’s concept of “hasten and await” is a materialist one. And I think that we have an opportunity to (to quote Mike yet again) “we can also hasten those openings by building and consolidating revolutionary forces, identifying the ways of conducting revolutionary work under non-revolutionary conditions, and struggling to win people away from the illusions and destructions of tailing the liberals.”
But in order to win people over, we need to examine and engage people around why it is (and for different reasons) they are feeling so passionate about electing Obama. It is not just the case that they want to feel good (or better), or elect the first Black president; although in my experience there is definitely the illusion of “returning to some semblance of ‘bourgeois democracy’.” And my question remains: where will we be when many of those illusions are shattered? I am in agreement (mostly) with your saying: “Despair is not countered with revolutionary cheerleading.” (Pom pom’s have never been my dress code of choice.) But just as I think it is important to not view the ruling class as some monolith (or some overwhelming behemoth), it also doesn’t serve revolutionaries to view the people as monolithic either. Not only is this situation “complex” as you pointed out, it is very contradictory. How do we make use of those contradictions in a way that will serve the people and our overall struggle? How do we unite with people (and people in motion—who in various ways are in fact going against the system and some entrenched ideology) not as either doomsayers or as cheerleaders? Is there a change going on in the political landscape at all, or is it just the “same ol’ same ol’?
To get personal–Over the last 45 years, I have to say in all honesty I’ve gone through bouts with and periods of a lot of scepticism and even cynicism. It’s hard not to, especially given some of the wrenching experience with the likes of the rcp. But one of the lessons I think I have learned over the years is, while I have always considered myself revolutionary-minded, in spite of earthshaking setbacks, and someone, like many, who knows in principle, and hasn’t wavered as to where my allegiances lie, I have had to get a grip on the fact that making revolution, building a new society in which the overwhelming majority of the people are liberated, is EXTREMELY complex. There is no straight-line to revolution, and my hope is that we try and avoid some of the mechanical thinking of the past. It is true that for now revolutionary forces are not “on the offensive”—but that doesn’t mean that we have to simply be reactive either, or like a lot of the practice in the rcp, simply come up with “brainstorms” – in my opinion, a pretty warped view of not only potential rev. forces, but missteps in terms of time, place and condition. On a positive note–Yes, Kasama is regrouping forces, and in that process there is struggle (a positive thing) in reconceiving the of making revolution. To me, as some old comrade noted, K. is “refreshing”; especially since we’re not being handed a bunch of stilted and dogmatic verdicts.