The following minority position on the “National Question or Racism” was presented at the Conference by the “New Voice.” It was presented in disagreement with the position on Independence for the Negro Nation which was adopted by the majority of the participants at the Conference.
* * *
The question of the relations between race, nationality, and economic classes has become important in the left in recent years. Marxists, who realize that economic classes are the basis of modern society, are bound to take a class look at the implications various theories about race and nationality.
In the U.S. racism is one the prime techniques in implementing the exploitation of the working class. It has been a basic tool of “divide and conquer” in this country for hundreds of years. Over the years the ruling classes have succeeded in evolving various forms of racist ideology. In other words, blatant racism has become unpopular among a growing proportion of the population.
In recent times, the most effective forms of racism take the stance of anti-racism. But before we go into racism that superficially appears to be anti-racism but us really pro-racism, let us briefly review the economic and political functions of racism.
The primary purpose of racism is to split members of the lower classes on the basis of race. In our society this means splitting the wage and salary earners on the basis of race. They are split and kept squabbling among themselves by the ruling class, who are businessmen. Some may ask, how is the propagation of racism in the economic and political interests of businessmen? The connection is not obvious at first glance.
The businessman is in business to make a profit. The lower his costs, other things remaining the same, the higher his profits. In general, labor cost is one of his principal costs. Therefore the lower the wage, the higher the profit. The primary function of racism is to keep wage and salary earners split, economically and politically. If their ability to join together in unions is cut down, then their ability to raise their wages or prevent reductions will be impaired. Thus their wage and working conditions will be worse than if they worked together. The lower wages represent higher profits for the businessmen. Racism benefits the businessmen and hurts the wage and salary earners of all races.
By the same token, when wage and salary earners are split on the basis of race, they are less effective politically. Not only are the wage and salary earners’ political organizations weaker and less effective in fighting the businessmen but they often end up fighting, each other instead. Racism helps the businessmen keep from being identified as “the enemy.”
What are the two principal varieties of racism that masquerade as anti-racism? They are (a) “liberal racism” and (b) “nationalism.”
“Liberal racism” is the theory that only the racial minorities (blacks, Chicanos etc.) suffer from racism. Not only does the white worker not suffer from racism, but he actually benefits from it, (White skin privilege). Thus, the only reason a white worker would oppose racism would be for ethical or moral reasons, not for economic ones.
“Liberal racism’s” manifestations are familiar to all of us. Here are a few typical expressions that reflect this or another: (1) “the subject of Shockley’s talk is insulting to the Black Community.” (2) “Racism is a moral problem. It is a problem in the heart of the white American.” (3) “The main obstacle to fighting racism is the racism in all of us.” (The “White Chauvinism” and “White Blindspot” theories are variations of this). (4) “The principal bulwark of racism and its principal beneficiary is the white worker (particularly the blue-collar).”
This form of racism is not only common among academics and students, but is becoming more popular among some of the more militant groups in the working class. All the media, including the movie and T.V. industry, push this form of racism. “All in the Family” immediately comes to mind.
Of course the businessman is the one who benefits from people believing the “liberal racist’s” pitch. Consequently he supports it and propagates it. (He happens to own almost all the communications, media). He wants the white worker to believe that he (the worker) profits from racism and racial discrimination, that he has a privileged position, being hired first and fired last, getting the better job and education, and getting higher pay. The businessman wants the white wage and salary earner to think that his economic interests are different and opposed to that of the blacks, Chicanos, etc. He wants the white worker to think that the only basis for a fight against racism is for ethical and moral reasons, and that only the non-whites have an economic reason for opposing racism.
The businessman says that white workers profit by racism. This is false of course. Superficially, it appears to have some truth to it. This is the material basis for the ”divide and conquer” tactic. Non-whites do make out less well than whites. That is, the non-white is kept in a significantly lower position, economically socially, and politically, than is the white. But the truth is that both white and non-white workers make out worse than if they were united (namely, wages are lower, unemployment higher, and political consciousness and power lower.) To verify this, one need only look at the South-where supposedly the white wage and salary earner is more highly privileged vis-a-vis the black worker than in any other region of the country.
The white working class in the South has the lowest wages and least political power of white workers in any part of this country. This degraded position is due mostly to the success of racist propaganda. Thus, it can be seen that racist propaganda (Shockley, Jensen, et. at.) is an insult to the white wage and salary class as well as the non-white, since it works against the economic and political interests of all wage and salary earners.
The businessman’s message to the black worker is that the white worker is his or her main enemy. He or she is the one with whom you have to compete for jobs; he or she is the one you most often hear give expression to racist remarks; and he or she is the one hired first and fired last. This distortion, which amounts to falsehood, is pushed at all non-whites, particularly by the liberals (“All in the Family”). On the other hand, who is the black’s truest friend? You guessed it. The well-educated white businessman, and those well-educated groups which hope to rise high in his management or professional hierarchy. You seldom hear members of these groups uttering racist remarks in public. Instead, they sponsor brotherhood weeks, and they are always happy to hire racial minorities in case of strikes. All this talk addressed to black workers is the other side of the “divide and conquer” coin.
Thus, we see that the examples quoted above of apparently anti-racist sentiments are really pro-racist. This is so since they reflect the assumptions (1) that only non-whites suffer from racism; (2) that the interests of whites and non-whites are opposed; (3) that whites profit from racism; and (4) that racism is a moral problem, not an economic and political phenomenon.
Another major form of racism masquerading as anti-racism is Nationalism. The term ’nationalism’ is used in many ways.
We will primarily address ourselves to that form of nationalism that has for its ultimate goal physical separation on a racial basis. Two groups of this nature immediately come to mind – The Black Muslims and the Republic of New Africa Group.
Most of the groups believe that they are culturally distinct from the prevailing United Statesian Culture. They believe that the only salvation from racism in the U.S. is the formation of a new nation on the basis of race. This new nation is to be located in some part of the U.S. For example, The Republic of New Africa (a black nationalist group) wants to set up its nation in the 5 states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
Of course, the contention that there is a black nation or a Chicano nation, etc. in this country is patently untrue. Two necessary prerequisites of the four criteria of a nation listed by Stalin, (1) a separate and distinct culture and (2) the occupation of a separate part of the country, are missing. These are the prerequisites accepted by Marxist-Leninists including Lenin and Stalin. The social minorities (after they have been in the U.S. for a generation or two) have no separate culture. They only have slight variations from the dominant U.S. culture. They have no separate area of the country which they occupy almost exclusively. They are scattered among the whites and other races in the areas they live in.
What is the theoretical base for racial nationalism (e.g. black nationalism) in the U.S.? Basically it is the belief on the part of the racial nationalists that whites (all whites) will always attempt to dominate and exploit non-whites. Whites will continue to do this because they profit, economically and politically from it.
Many nationalists (though not all) believe that whites are inherently vicious and would continue to discriminate and exploit non-whites whether they profited economically from the practice or not). Most nationalists are not very clear on this last point but in most cases they seem to believe it. This is pure racism of course, and what you would expect in a racist society. Therefore, the only way non-whites can keep from being exploited by whites is to remove themselves entirely from their reach and form a separate nation.
Thus it can be seen that the reason given by racial nationalists for separation is the falsehood circulated by the “liberal racists” – namely, that white workers (who represent 80-90% of all whites) profit from racism. It has already been pointed out that this is false. The white worker loses through racism, though not as much as the non-white worker who sees only that the white is better off. Superficially it looks as if the white worker profits from the system. And this is what the businessman’s propagandists tell him and the white worker. Perhaps an example would make the true situation clear.
One of the arguments that will help to demonstrate the falsity of this “liberal racist” propaganda is one that is often given by businessmen to develop support for the exploitation of colonies. This argument goes as follows: The population in general and the working class (both black and white) in particular should support the subjection and exploitation of colonies by U.S. businessmen. They should support colonialism because they benefit from it. The cheaper and greater quantities of raw materials leads to cheaper and greater quantities of goods at home. Hence everyone benefits. Also, because the standard of living is so much lower in the colony than in the imperialist country, labor is much cheaper there. Raw materials which are cheaper to begin with are made even cheaper by being produced by this cheap labor. Also this cheap labor can be used to perform the labor intensive phases of some manufactured goods that are light in weight and high in value (e.g. electronics, clothes, etc.) Hence all workers (of all races) in the U.S. benefit from exploiting, the resources and labor of the colonies.
In order to administer and hold on to these colonies a large bureaucracy and military is needed. Thus many extra well-paying and interesting jobs are created for people of all races. There if the Army, Navy, Air Force, the Green Berets, A.I.D., the Peace Corps, the C.I.A., etc. The white may make out better than the black in the U.S. but both the black and the white in the U.S. make out considerably better than the citizens of the colonies. Hence, not only the U.S. white but the U.S. black profits from the exploitation of the colonies. This is more or less the argument of the businessman’s propagandists. And, of course, it is false. Just as false as the “liberal racist’s” contention that the white worker profits from racial discrimination against non-whites. Why is this so?
(1) The profits from colonial exploitation all go into the hands of the businessmen. The lower costs merely result in higher profits. The wages in the U.S. are determined by the strength and organization of the labor movement in the U.S., not by the cost of raw materials in the colonies.
(2) The cheap labor of the colonies does not benefit the laboring, class in the U.S. On the contrary, it hurts it. The use of the cheaper colonial labor to produce the labor intensive stages of a commodity increases unemployment and under-cuts the wage rate in the U.S.
How does this result come about?
Colonial hiring is the hiring of foreign laborers instead of hiring U.S. laborers. Hiring the South Korean instead of a U.S. laborer has just the same effect as hiring immigrants from Mexico or the bringing over of the Italians and Polish immigrants in the late 19th century. And for the same reason- lower wages. Not only does it increase unemployment among the workers who are already in the U.S. but it undercuts the wage rate. The lowest wage rate sets the floor for the entire wage structure. Further, the higher the unemployment the more people there are fighting, for the same job. This also drives the wage rate down. And what about the extra jobs overseas? They are mostly in the military and this involves a great risk of getting killed or mutilated trying to keep people who are poorer than U.S. workers in subjection.
So it turns out that neither white nor black workers make out from colonial exploitation. Rather they lose from it. And this is so even though superficially it looks as if even the black U.S. workers profited from it. Wasn’t the black U.S. worker’s standard of livings education, etc., much higher than those of the colonial people? Yes, certainly. Then it follows that he must profit from the exploitation of the colonial peoples.
So says the businessman’s propagandists. But we know the reason for the U.S. black’s higher standard of living is that he is exploited to a lesser extent by the businessman than the colonial people are, rather than that the black is exploiting the colonial people. The relation between the black U.S. worker and the people in the colonies is exactly the same as the relation between the white U.S. worker and the black U.S. worker.
To summarize, nationalism is a form of racism. It is a movement by a group of non-whites to separate themselves on the basis of race. It, therefore, serves the function desired by businessmen, that is to divide wage and salary earners on whatever basis. It is part of the old ruling class tactic of “divide and rule.” Consequently, when a nationalist propagandizes in favor of his program, his is the voice and thought of the businessman and old plantation master infiltrated into the black brown, etc. community.
In a racist society nationalism is not unexpected. Non-whites are educated to be racists and to think in racist terms just as well as whites are. Thus early forms of resistance against exploitation would often be organized on a racist or semi-racist basis. In so far as this early or semi-nationalism on the part of non-whites leads to building self-confidence in themselves and their ability to organize and resist, it is progressive. But this is true only at this preliminary stage. If nationalism persists past this stage, and they continue to organize on a racial basis instead of a class one, then they become racists pure at simple. They become the spokesmen for the businessmen among their own race.
Businessmen are aware of the value of nationalist movements to them. This is demonstrated by the fact that the big business foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, etc.) have been pumping money into nationalist as well as pacifist movements. This was particularly the case when militancy among racial minorities, workers and students was high. Once things calm down a bit, we can expect the flow of funds to decline.
There are many groups that consider themselves to be leftist or Marxist and that advocate support of nationalist or semi-nationalist programs for minority races. In so far as they do this, they are not leftist or Marxist, but rightist and capitalist (i.e. pro-businessmen). They are counter-revolutionary because they put race ahead of class, that is, they are racists rather than class-conscious revolutionaries. There is no more diplomatic way of saying it. And advocating and supporting racist programs for racial minorities inevitably follows from the “liberal racist” position that whites don’t suffer from but actually profit by racism. Like the nationalist (among racial minorities) the “liberal racism” propagandist advocates and spreads racism among white wage and salary earners. All such theories about White Blindspots, white chauvinism, or white skin privilege are examples of “liberal racism.” Not unexpectedly, if you are a racist among whites, you will be a racist among non-whites.
As all Marxist-Leninists know, the basis of modern capitalist society is class. Race is a secondary phenomenon, it is a part or aspect of labor-capital class conflict. Working class organizations should devote most of their time to making wage and salary earners class conscious. The businessman would like to substitute, and put in the primary position, race-consciousness, individualism, etc., or anything to distract attention from themselves and to get the workers to fight each other’. There are only two positions. You either work for the working class or for the business class. If you advocate nationalism (racism) regardless of your subjective intentions then you are in effect working for the business class. You are a mis-leader. You are a Trojan horse among the working class.
Racism is a class question, not a national question.