There is yet another aspect of the “anti-imperialist” strategy which we did not touch upon in the body of this paper.
Many of the “anti-imperialists” say that we must recognize the leadership of the third world workers inside this country. At least one major group, with predominantly white leadership, seems to have hacked down from this position because it proved to be an embarrassment in arguments with certain third world groups.
This idea is based on the fact that the third world is far in advance of the U.S. in revolutionary development and struggle and also on the fact that the struggles of black and other third world workers in this country is in advance of the white workers.
This idea has certain aspects that are correct. But there are other aspects that are very wrong and harmful. One is the idea that white workers are going to somehow spontaneously follow the militancy and lead of third world workers. This sometimes does occur in trade union situations. But the trade union situation is the very best situation from the point of view of black and white unity – and it is far from always being true even there. In the communities and national life as a whole, there is much less evidence for this theory and a great deal against it. Militancy in the black communities often leads to the opposite in the surrounding white communities.
Once again, what is required is propaganda and work among the white workers on the basis of their own conditions showing how their interests are the same as black and third world workers. That is the main thing that will move the white workers in the right direction, not mainly the leadership or militancy of third world workers.
Shortly before we were ready to send this article off to the printers, it was pointed out to us that our article inadequately recognizes the change that has taken place in R.U.’s line. R.U. is no longer guilty of tailing after third world struggles and neglecting the white working class. If anything, just the opposite. R.U. now pays attention to the white working class, but in our opinion often capitulates to the backward and chauvinist side of the white working class. Witness their position on busing, on “affirmative action”, on narrow nationalism being the main danger in the new communist movement, etc. Formally speaking, R.U. still adheres to the u.f.a.i. line. But in this respect R.U. has broken with what one can regard as the “spirit” of the u.f.a.i. line – only, it is true, to make another error.