Statements have been made and generally agreed upon among OC and tendency forces that racism is the central contradiction dividing the U.S. working class today; and further, that racism is the main obstacle to building multi-national unity in the party-building movement. The truth in these statements is verified in the day-to-day reality of the working class, and of our movement. Yet, despite our recognition of these contradictions, the organized expressions of our movement are still overwhelmingly white. This situation prompted the National Steering Committee (NSC) of the Organizing Committee for an Ideological Center (OCIC) to establish an Anti-Racism Task Force, whose goal is to promote a struggle among our comrades for a deeper understanding of the centrality of racism in the working class, and particularly the depth and impact of white chauvinism in the communist movement which presents a real and serious threat to the development of multi-national unity in our tendency. We advance this document with that goal in mind.
Racism is the system of oppression and exploitation of national minority peoples developed and used by the ruling class to reap superprofits and to keep the working class divided. The ideological component of racism is white chauvinism – a system of ideas which say that national minority people are inherently inferior to white people. Driven by the need for greater profits and the fear of a united working class rejection of capitalism, the ruling class uses white chauvinism to support and legitimize its systematic oppression and exploitation of national minority peoples, and to keep the working class divided.
The ruling class strives to get the maximum production from all workers for the lowest possible wages, but pays national minority workers lower than the average wage for the same work – creating a superprofit. The bourgeoisie also provides national minorities with the worst consumer goods (housing, food, etc.) for the highest prices, creating an additional source of superprofits. The ruling class systematically discriminates against national minority workers – last hired, first fired. The higher rate of unemployment among national minority workers, as a result of national oppression, forces them to accept lower wages and worse working conditions because any job is better than no job at all. The ruling class uses the depressed wages and working conditions of national minority workers to drive down the wages and worsen the working conditions of white workers as well. When three workers are working on a job, and the one who is a national minority is laid-off, the two remaining white workers have to perform a job that was previously done by three people. Thus, the systematic exploitation and oppression of national minorities is central to the ruling class’ ability to exploit white workers.
Racism is the ruling class’ most powerful weapon in the class struggle. It cripples the class struggle. In the South, where racism is the most pervasive, the workers’ movement is the weakest. The ideology of white chauvinism is particularly important for the ruling class to promote in order to keep white workers from uniting with their most powerful allies. As long as white workers embrace the ideology of the ruling class, as long as white workers accept the ideology of white chauvinism, the revolutionary heart of the class struggle is cut. White chauvinism keeps white workers from uniting with the liberation movements of oppressed nationalities. It holds white workers back from uniting with national minority workers and demanding a decent wage, safe working conditions, etc., for all workers.
The ideology of white chauvinism is promoted by the ruling class in order to obscure the fundamental contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. White workers are led to believe that if it weren’t for affirmative action, they’d have jobs; if it weren’t for national minorities moving into their neighborhoods, their property values wouldn’t go down; if it weren’t for busing, their children would have a quality education; if it weren’t for those lazy welfare cheats – a synonym for national minorities – taxes wouldn’t be so high. This ideology is so pervasive that even the poorest white worker who is in the same condition as his/ her national minority neighbor, thinks he/she is better off simply because he/she is not a national minority. Even though they may both be unemployed, the white worker thinks that at least he/she really wants to work. The national minority neighbor is just lazy and trying to use our tax dollars to buy a Cadillac and live easy. Acceptance of this ideology on the part of white workers keeps them from uniting with their most natural and powerful allies–their fellow national minority co-workers and the liberation movements of the oppressed national minorities. National minorities in the U.S. are overwhelmingly proletarian in class composition. Black workers comprise nearly one-third of the entire industrial proletariat. Given that national minority workers face both class exploitation and national oppression, and that the nature of the liberation movements of oppressed national minorities have historically been revolutionary, national minority workers are the most advanced in the class struggle. The movements of oppressed national minorities have consistently fought for democratic rights and equality. The victories of these movements have consistently represented victories for the entire class. But the ideology of white chauvinism has kept white workers from uniting with these movements and with their fellow national minority workers, and thus the class struggle is crippled.
During this period of economic crisis, the ruling class is working hard to weaken the working class and promote and use whatever divisions in the class it possibly can. U.S. imperialism is facing a crunch. It is facing a decreased ability to compete for markets (witness West Germany and Japan), and struggles for socialism in Latin America, Africa and Asia have limited its ability to exploit the raw materials and labor of these continents. The ruling class, which is always trying to squeeze blood from the working class, is now escalating that campaign. Attacks on the class are coming in many forms, including speed-ups, plant closings and relocations to areas with a high degree of non-unionization, attacks on affirmative action, the closing of public hospitals, urban removal for the growth of finance capital, and a drive for drastic decreases in federal spending for social services coupled with a phenomenal increase in the military budget. These attacks on the working class are designed to make sure that profits are maximized. In the face of a crunch, the ruling class is cutting back on spending (for safety in the plant, environmental protection, labor costs, etc.) and squeezing even more from the working class.
A central component of the ruling class’ campaign is to deepen the wedge between white and national minority workers and to fan the flames of national chauvinism. “Theoreticians” of white supremacy like Jansen and Shockley are gaining public attention, television shows and commercials promoting the grossest stereotypes of national minorities and “foreigners,” criminologist’s developing theories on why national minorities are so violent, the escalated recruitment drive of the Ku Klux Klan, the escalating police brutality, and racial violence in the neighborhoods are all part of the plan. It’s part of an effort to keep the class fighting internally, blaming each other, rather than uniting against its enemy. And the effort to fan the flames of national chauvinism is an attempt to create sentiment for war.
The extent to which this campaign is not combatted is the extent to which the bourgeoisie will further weaken the proletariat. That’s why it’s especially important, now more than ever, for communists to take up a consistent and vigilant struggle against racism. To do otherwise is to assist the bourgeoisie in its attack on the working class. Communists have to wage a campaign against white chauvinism among white workers and promote a struggle for equality. Communists have to wage a struggle against racism and the ideology of white chauvinism which keeps the class divided and keeps white workers from taking up the struggle for equality and uniting with their natural ally – the liberation movements of the oppressed national minorities.
The starting point for communists to take up such a campaign against white chauvinism is to struggle against it among themselves. It is absolutely hypocritical and idealistic for any white comrade to think that the struggle against white chauvinism among white workers is in any way divorced from the struggle against it within the communist movement. How can you advocate socialist revolution when you yourself don’t think it’s necessary? How can you struggle against a white worker’s white chauvinism when you yourself hold the same views about national minorities? This is not to say that you can’t struggle for the correct political line in a mass struggle and still hold onto white chauvinism. You can struggle for including affirmative action in a rank and file caucus program and still maintain a white chauvinist view of national minorities. But your ability to struggle consistently and sharply for the correct political line is blunted by that ideology. A white communist in our movement is a shop steward. He knew a Black skilled tradesman was running for election in the union. So the white communist proceeded to talk to all the other Black skilled tradesmen to support the one who was running. But he didn’t talk to the white skilled tradesmen about it and they were the majority of skilled workers at the plant. This comrade’s white chauvinism led him to believe that the Black skilled tradesman was not the best qualified for election – even though he clearly was. The comrade’s white chauvinism compromised his ability to struggle with the white skilled tradesmen who he knew held the same views about the worker running for election. And he undermined the leadership of the Black worker.
The Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee (PWOC) paper, “Racism in the PWOC,” gives a good description of white chauvinist ideology (i.e., the views about national minorities), its historical development, and the various components of white chauvinist ideology. Comrades should refer to that paper for a background on the historical development and various aspects of white chauvinist ideology. What we will discuss here is the forms of white chauvinism – overt racism and racist paternalism – and petty-bourgeois chauvinism and its interaction with white chauvinism. We will examine their impact on the communist movement.
The PWOC paper discusses the two poles of racist ideology – overt racism and racist paternalism – and how they are each expressions of the same underlying assumptions about national minorities. Overt racism is described as open race hatred and naked force, while racist paternalism is described as “Christian concern, kindness, and sensitivity” as they were expressed in the early days of colonialism and slavery. They were each based on the assumption that the national minority “savages,” being “uncivilized, lacking culture, prone to violence, incapable of self-government, and motivated more by biological, animal instinct, than human reasoning” – are in need of brute force to be kept in their place, or kindness, sensitivity and uplifting. These poles of racist ideology have been revised as history has progressed, but the revised expressions are variations on the same theme. Overt racism expresses itself in our movement in white comrades who demonstrate open, unveiled white chauvinism in relation to national minorities. They openly attach racist stereotypes to national minorities and treat them according to these views. However, racist paternalism is the main form that white chauvinism takes in the communist movement. This racist paternalism is largely influenced by the bourgeois liberalism that developed in this country. (See “Racism in the PWOC” p.5)
The ideology of white chauvinism permeates the Communist movement like all other sectors of U.S. society. Communists have no protective wall to escape the influence of white chauvinism. With the advent of the movements of the 60’s, the New Left adopted the bourgeois liberalism that directed their paternalistic activities and views of national minorities. The communist movement has this heritage and bourgeois liberalism is alive and well among white Marxist-Leninists.
Bourgeois liberalism is primarily expressed in the communist movement by white comrades thinking that the way to be antiracist is to be a “friend of the colored people.” They get involved in a mostly Latino rank-and-file caucus at work and fight racism vigorously with the rest of the caucus members. But they don’t struggle with white workers at the workplace for the same anti-racist stand. They learn Spanish, the history of Latin America, and Hispanic culture. They show the Latino workers that they are on the side of “colored people” and can really “relate” to them. Some may even marry or develop an intimate relationship with a Latino to show the depth of their “anti-racism.” Rather than struggle with white workers to take up the demand for equality on the shop floor and against the white workers’ white chauvinism, they run and tell the caucus members how racist the white workers are and how they make fun of the way Latinos talk. The white comrades of course show that they don’t hold the same views of Latinos because they understand Spanish and enjoy all aspects of Hispanic culture. They actively disassociate themselves from those racist white workers and show that they are true “friends” of the colored people.
The underlying assumption behind the “friend of the colored people” approach to the struggle against racism is that national minorities are irresponsible, lazy, prom to violence, and stupid not because they are inherently that way, but because they haven’t been given the opportunity to be uplifted by benevolent white people such as the comrade in the mostly Latino rank-and-file caucus. What the national minorities need is a white “friend,” who can help them fight for educational opportunities, jobs, and better living conditions.
The “friend of the colored people” views racism as “colored folks’ problem” and views him/herself as the benevolent white missionary reaching out to lend a helping hand to the downtrodden and oppressed. This perspective negates the fact that racism is the central contradiction dividing the working class and that it is in the interest of white workers to struggle against it. The “friend of the colored people” thereby liquidates the struggle against racism by negating the leading role white people have a responsibility to play in the struggle against racism. White comrades who adopt this view don’t see the importance of taking up a struggle against white chauvinism among white workers and winning them to the struggle against racism. Instead, they see themselves as playing the role of the helper, uplifting the downtrodden.
The bourgeois liberal, “friend of the colored people”, views racism among white workers the real obstacle to equality. The view is that if it weren’t for the “backward” white workers who oppose bussing, national minorities could get a quality education; if it weren’t for the “backward” white workers who oppose affirmative action, national minorities could get jobs. The “friend of the colored people” approach says that white workers are incapable of struggling against the ideology of white chauvinism, incapable of understanding that the struggle against racism is in their own interest. That’s why the white comrade in the mostly Latino caucus does not struggle with white workers to join in the fight for equality at the workplace. He/she views the white workers as incapable of taking up the struggle against racism in the first place and mainly responsible for the discriminatory practices on the job in the second place. The bourgeois liberal sees white workers as hopelessly racist, and views him/ herself as thoroughly antiracist–his/her “friendship” with national minority people is proof of that.
Thus bourgeois liberalism is clearly bound up with petty-bourgeois chauvinism. Comrades maintain a racist paternalistic view of and relationship with national minorities, and hold a profound disdain for white workers. Petty-bourgeois white comrades in our movement think that by virtue of their “education” and liberal “enlightenment” that they “understand” the problems of national minorities. Their view of white workers, however, is that they are totally incapable of comprehending anything but the football scores and which brand of beer is best, much less the struggle against racism. These comrades in fact maintain the same view of white workers that the bourgeoisie does.
Our movement is mostly white and petty-bourgeois in composition. It is important for us to understand and struggle against the ideology that influences our practice in keeping national minorities and working class people out. Petty bourgeois chauvinism serves to maintain the class composition of our movement and bar working class people from entering. The fact that our movement is overwhelmingly petty-bourgeois in composition attests to that. It shows what little confidence comrades have in the working class’ ability to grasp Marxism-Leninism and take up the struggle to develop the program, strategy and tactics for the U.S. revolution. Petty-bourgeois chauvinism leads comrades to believe that those currently in the movement, mostly white and petty-bourgeois comrades, are the only ones capable of taking up the tasks before us. The view is that workers are incapable of playing a leading role in our movement. This is the view of the petty-bourgeoisie.
The struggle against white chauvinism in the communist movement is pivotal to changing the class as well as racial composition of our movement. The bulk of advanced workers in the class struggle who will be won to communism are national minorities. Once white comrades are able to see and understand white chauvinist ideology in themselves, they will be equipped to take it up in the working class and unite with advanced workers to build a multi-national vanguard revolutionary party. But they must also struggle against petty-bourgeois chauvinism which prevents them from seeing the real strength and capabilities of working class people. They must struggle against the bourgeois liberalism that leads them to be “friends of the colored people” while totally liquidating the struggle against racism where white comrades have a particular responsibility to take it up – among white workers.
When white comrades are unable and unwilling to wage an ideological struggle against racism among white workers they have no basis for uniting with them on the need to build a multi-national party. And white workers can see the hypocrisy of white communists who lecture about the struggle against racism knowing full well that the white communist maintains the same view of national minorities that he/she assumes the white worker has. This gives the white communist little credibility in the eyes of white workers.
Our movement has a “white only” policy for new people and a segregationist policy for national minority comrades already in it. The most graphic example of the segregationist policy is comrades’ attitude toward the National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference. The essence of much of the criticisms of the Planning Committee (PC) from white comrades was the national minorities have no right to unite around politics. The PC should have invited people based on their color, regardless of their political perspective, the argument contends. In other words, “we’ll take care of the party-building and you take care of colored affairs.” The segregationist policy says that national minority comrades should be and are only capable of being concerned with racism, the national question, and mass work. White comrades do not expect any more from national minority comrades than that, and in fact promote the ghettoization of the tasks of national minority comrades. So national minority comrades are approached to talk to other national minorities and recruit them, they are consulted around how to take up the struggle against racism and white chauvinism in the local center or in a mass form. But do white comrades ever think of talking to a national minority comrade about his/her understanding of the ideological underpinnings of ultra-leftism? Or Lenin’s polemics with the Narodniks? White comrades don’t think of doing that because their overt racism says that national minorities have no understanding of Lenin’s theoretical formulations. Their racist paternalism leads them to think that if anything, they have to teach national minority comrades about the essence of Lenin’s work. Either way, they don’t think they have anything to learn from national minority comrades about Marxism-Leninism.
The “whites only” policy for those outside the organized communist movement has many expressions ranging from the overt racism – “there are no national minority Marxist-Leninists out there” – to racist paternalism – “those we know have to be taught how to take up the all-sided tasks of Marxism-Leninism”.
White chauvinism has our comrades not even thinking about uniting with national minority advanced forces around the 18 points of unity and the need for a single ideological center. It has our comrades thinking that the national minority Marxist-Leninists they know have too many weaknesses (nationalism, ultra-leftism, individualism, etc.) to join in the party-building process. How many white petty-bourgeois intellectuals have white comrades seen as “easier” to talk to about party-building than national minority comrades? They see the weaknesses of the white petty-bourgeois intellectual as less important and severe as those of national minorities. And they have no confidence in national minorities’ ability to overcome those weaknesses. White chauvinism has our comrades viewing national minority Marxist-Leninists who have been Marxist-Leninists for the past ten years as people who need to be uplifted and enlightened rather than united with. They don’t see the strengths these national minority comrades have, and view themselves as understanding better and being more committed to Marxism-Leninism than national minority comrades. White comrades may be “friends” with the national minority advanced forces they know. They may be neighbors, work together, have dinner together, but the white comrades never think to talk to them about party-building and the 18 principles of unity – just racism, work, and Aretha Franklin. White comrades may be “friends” with national minority comrades, but they only talk td them about racism and the national question–not how the national minority comrades see uniting the tendency.
While our comrades maintain a white chauvinist view of national minorities, national minorities represent the bulk of advanced workers in the class. Our comrades’ white chauvinism says that national minorities are incapable of taking up the all-sided tasks of party-building, yet national minority Marxist-Leninists have an advanced understanding of these tasks. The advanced character of the contributions of national minorities to the class struggle and the party-building movement is directly linked to the revolutionary nature of the liberation movements of oppressed national minorities and the class composition of the majority of the national minority population. The struggles national minorities engage in are not won without a fight. The bourgeoisie responded to the Civil Rights Movement with attack dogs, black-jacks, and guns. These are the struggles that have taught national minorities concretely about the real nature of the state under capitalism, the limits of bourgeois democracy and the relationship between capitalism and racism. These struggles have armed national minorities with a concrete understanding of the absolute necessity to defeat capitalism as well as the need for organization and leadership in order to win a struggle for socialism. These struggles have shown national minorities the various forms of opportunism that emerge within the class struggle and liberation movements of oppressed national minorities, and sharpened their ability to struggle against those forms at opportunism. This is the understanding that national minorities bring to the party-building movement. The effort to build multi-national unity is not just to have a good head-count to show off. The effort to build multi-national unity is to insure that the program, strategy and tactics we develop is truly revolutionary in content, and that we establish a genuine advanced detachment of the working class. And racism is the main obstacle to building multinational unity in our movement.
White comrades must assume their responsibility for playing the leading role in the struggle against racism. They have to look honestly at their racist practice in relation to national minorities and struggle against the white chauvinist ideology that has impacted that practice. They have to be prepared to face it and struggle each and every day against the influence that white chauvinism has on them. And they must take it up consistently and vigorously with white comrades in our movement and with white workers. To do otherwise is to liquidate the struggle against racism.
If white comrades abandon the struggle against racism in our movement the burden of the struggle is placed on national minority comrades which places serious limits on the struggle as long as national minorities are forced to assume the primary responsibility for struggling against racism in our movement; the character of our movement will not just remain the same, but become more white and isolated from the mass movement. When national minorities have to assume the burden of struggling with white comrades around their racism, the overt racist response on the part of our comrades is that they are being unjustly attacked by a bunch of lunatics. And the racist paternalistic response is to get behind the national minorities and “help” them, be sympathetic, but not assume responsibility for their white comrades. The “whites only” policy and the segregationist policy in our movement will be maintained. And most national minority comrades are bound to leave under those circumstances.
For white comrades to refuse to take up the struggle against white chauvinism in our movement is to protect the white and petty-bourgeois strata that presently comprises and dominates the bulk of the organized party-building movement. It means that protecting the current racial and class character of our movement is more important to comrades than socialist revolution.