Paternalism is presently the predominant form of racism in the PWOC. It serves to undermine our political life arid undercut our struggle for multinational unity and multinational leadership. Racist paternalism has two essential, interrelated components one being a blindness to the real strengths of Black people, the other a profound underestimation of the capacity of Black comrades to overcome political weaknesses and develop their leadership in the communist movement.
The most frequent manifestation of paternalism is a patronizing recognition of Black cadres’ abilities and a liquidation of genuine criticism and ideological struggle aimed at the political consolidation of our Black members. Our white cadre tend to view themselves as being “sensitive”, “concerned”, and “understanding” of Black oppression but these sentiments only serve to cover a complete lack of respect and underestimation of Black people generally. Like the l9th century missionaries that preceded them, the paternalism of white cadre in the PWOC is based on the premises of white supremacy.
Probably the most universal manifestation of paternalism in the PWOC is liberalism in the relations between white and Black members of the organization. This liberalism is a non-struggle, pat on the head approach to anti-racism. Actually, it is extraordinarily racist both in its content and in its consequences.
Recently in the MIC 2 there was a systematic review of cadre on the basis of their self-evaluations. Comrade Y’s self-evaluation came to the cell for a collective discussion. Universally the cell’s response to her evaluation was that Y had failed to give enough attention and focus to her strengths. One cadre after another presented to the meeting their views on Y’s political abilities. In this manner they believed they would be aiding in Y’s political development. No criticisms were raised. No struggle with Y’s weaknesses occurred during the meeting. Everybody, except Y, as we shall see, felt fine.
One week later comrade T’s evaluation was discussed in the cell meeting. Cell members raised many good criticisms of T’s weaknesses. Sharp struggle developed in the meeting in an attempt to help T come to terms with her political weaknesses and thereby develop her leadership as a communist, as a cell member and mass worker. Since one discussion was insufficient to consolidate this process other meetings were held with T, further discussion was held in the cell and a plan of rectification was taken up.
In a cell meeting on racism in the MIC 2 a few weeks later Comrade Y expressed her views on the contrasting attitude cell members adopted first to her own and then to T’s self-evaluation. She said that, “every year when it comes time for my cell to discuss my evaluation, the same thing occurs. Everyone says that I’m underestimating my strengths and then goes on to list what they are. No criticisms are raised, no struggle with me takes place. The cell’s willingness to criticize and struggle with comrade T represents a genuine interest in her political development. The cell is trying to help T move from A to B. But in my case the cell is content for me to stay at point A. This is because the cell members believe that I am incapable of going from point A to B.”
Here we have a graphic illustration of racist paternalism playing itself out in the PWOC. The cells attention to Y’s “strengths” is clearly a patronizing, opportunistic, hypocritical and transparent cover for the racist views which shape the white comrades’ relations with Y. For, as Comrade Y so clearly states, the reality is that cell members have absolutely no confidence in her ability to develop as a Marxist-Leninist. If cell members recognition of Y’s strengths were genuine and objectively based they would have no reservations about criticizing her weaknesses and struggling with her to overcome them. Instead, white comrades in the MIC 2 are content to pat Y on the head, tell her she has been a good communist and then move along to give their attention to the development of another, white, cell member.
The fact is that MIC II members have no real recognition of Comrade Y’s strengths and grossly underestimate her as a communist. Comrade Y has years of experience as a trade unionist; she has demonstrated in this work a high degree of initiative, consistentcy and leadership ability. For years Y has been one of the ablest PWOC cadre when it comes to communist agitation and propaganda work. On several occasions, in the context of the Southwest Workers Federation, she has presented a summation of this work, and thereby stimulated the development of rank and file organization in other trade unions. Yet how many cadre in the MIC II, or elsewhere for that matter, even see these qualities? How many have turned to Y, for example, to learn how to deal with their face-hiding tendencies? Or to get guidance on trade union-questions? Few...if any! Is it any wonder then that white PWOC cadre are reluctant to criticize and struggle with this comrade? White chauvinism in the PWOC renders comrade Y invisible!
In the DC racist paternalism had a profound impact on the development of Black leadership within the PWOC and played a significant role in reducing this form to a body of all white communists, a most serious defeat for the struggle against racism and for multi-national leadership in the PWOC. Here too liberalism was the chief expression of the DCs racist paternalism.
Comrades L and Sh, in different ways, had demonstrated real potential to assume the responsibilities of leadership in the PWOC. Comrade L had for many years proven herself a capable defender of the PWOCs line in the mass movement and her ability to give communist leadership was one of the key factors in the development of UPCAAR into a vibrant, multi-national mass organization. Comrade L is also one of the best mass agitators in the organization. L’s main weakness has been individualism, which expressed itself in her reticense about assuming responsibility for tasks she is unfamilar with and in her unwillingness to aggressively promote her views and engage in ideological struggle within the organization. Comrade Sh was a developed Marxist-Leninist, with years of political experience and the capability of assuming independent responsibility for many of the tasks facing the DC. His principal weaknesses were subjectivism, nationalism, sexism, and liberalism in the ideological struggle internal to the organization.
White chauvinism within the DC erected an enormous barrier in the struggle to develop L’s and Sh’s leadership. Comrade L’s assignment in the DCs initial division of labor was as Officer for Black liberation. She was to undertake an investigation of our cells and fractions to determine the character of the organizations relations with Black workers and activists in various arenas of the mass movement. On the basis of this investigation and analysis the DC planned to develop a plan of work for building the multi-nationality of the PWOC. In the initial stage of the DCs existence a number of meetings were held between the D.O. and L to figure out our approach to this assignment. Shortly afterward a report was made to the DC as a whole.
Meanwhile within the DC Comrade L was not participating in the discussions to anywhere near the degree she was capable. L’s political experience and understanding of solidarity work, independent political action, and the Black liberation movement were not being brought to bear in the DCs deliberations and many of the DCs perspectives and decisions suffered as a result. In relationship to her officership little if any initiative was taken to follow through on the assignment. These weaknesses on L’s part were direct expressions of her individualism. However to stop here would be a one-sided and racist view of what was going on in the D.C.
For months DC members were conscious of the above stated problems. Yet there developed, not struggle, nor criticism, but a conspiracy of silence within the collective life of the DC. No one raised any questions as to why it was that at the Black Political Convention, at the national minorities conference and in the Black liberation Commission L assumed a more aggressive and leading role! No one insisted that the DC take up this most glaring contradiction. Instead DC members sat there and their white chauvinism allowed them to imagine that L had nothing to contribute to DC meetings. Moreover the DC’s lack of respect for L’s strengths led them to conclude that she could not overcome her individualism. Once again racist paternalism rendered a Black comrade invisible!
And the impact of the DCs liberalism was many-sided. First of all, through its silence the DC completely liquidated its responsibility to develop L’s leadership which could have occured through a struggle with her individualism. Secondly, the silence of the DC was itself a statement to L of the DC’s lack of confidence in her ability to come to terms with her individualism. And in this case this paternalism could do nothing else than deepen and aggravate the very tendencies the DC should have set out to consciously combat. For L’s individualism is rooted in her own lack of self-confidence and insecurity, yet these sentiments were being re-enforced weekly by the manner in which the DC related to this Comrade. Finally, the conspiracy of silence meant that the DC’s collective attention to the task to which L was assigned, building the multi-nationality of the PWOC, was liquidated and this only served to compound the impact of white chauvinism in our leading body.
Racist paternalism in the DC created the worst possible context in which to test Comrade L’s capacity to play a leading role within the organization. With the passage of time paternalism could do nothing else than reduce this Comrade to a token member of a leading body. And again the basis of this paternalism was a lack of respect for L’s strengths, leading to a profound underestimation of her ability to come to terms with her political weaknesses. Toward the end of L’s tenure as a DC member there started to develop a struggle against racist paternalism. It was recognized that due to the racism of the DC and L’s individualism it would be necessary for her to step down as a DC member.
Yet in the aftermath of this decision a tendency arose in the organization critical, not of the DC’s paternalism, but instead the EC’s neglect of Comrade L’s political development. The orientation of this tendency was to blame the absence of a Leadership Training Program as the fundamental failing of the EC and the reason for L’s having to resign. In essence this line represents a call for a continuation of the organizations paternalism in relation to L and it is both racist in it content and in its consequences.
First of all this line implies that L’s failure to participate in the DC discussions is the result of her lack of political understanding as opposed to her individualism and thereby underestimates L’s level of political development. Second of all it completely mis-directs the organizations attention in its effort to promote L’s leadership in the future, for it targets study rather than individualism as the chief problem. Finally it turns reality on its head, for in fact, it was the EC that played the leading role in taking up the struggle against the real problem, the white chauvinism of the DC. Frankly comrades, we are not at all surprised that such a line would arise in the organization in the aftermath of L’s resignation from the DC. For it is an expression of the deep-seated paternalism that operates throughout the organization in relation to Black comrades.
Comrade L has been a member of the PWOC for many years. On the basis of her ability and potential she should be a leading member of the organization. Yet racism in the DC, as well as in the community cell and in the fraction has instead served to undermine this comrade and undercut the realization of her leadership potential. Here we have another graphic example of the destructive consequences of our white comrades “sensitivity,” “concern,” and “understanding,” of the problems of one of our Black cadre.
In order to restore Comrade L to a position of leadership in the organization we must organize, not a study program, but an all-sided campaign against racist paternalism in the PWOC.
Comrade Sh was coopted into the DC in early February of 1979. His principal areas of responsibility were in the Black liberation movement and in our work around independent political action. Comrade Sh was initially on the EC of the IPA fraction and later became its chair. Shortly after Sh’s cooptation into the DC there was a growing recognition of some of his political weaknesses. He had a marked tendency toward subjectivism which colored his analysis of political events and developments and made him fairly defensive in the face of criticism. Sh also had a tendency toward nationalism which expressed itself in his capitulation to racism within the organization and a conciliatory tendency in the struggle against narrow nationalism in the Black liberation movement. Moreover he was guilty of sexist paternalism in his relations with women, in and outside of the organization.
Month after month passed with the DCs paternalism allowing it to overlook, downplay, or soft-pedal Sh’s ideological weaknesses. Nevertheless these weaknesses would continue to assert themselves and have the effect of making Sh feel that he was merely a token member of the DC, since his weaknesses prevented him from playing a leading role on many of the questions before the DC and struggles going on within the organization. Here again paternalism, viewed subjectively, as being sensitive, understanding and concerned about a Black comrade leads, in practice, to the very opposite results.
By its long silence on Sh’s nationalism the DC was stating its lack of confidence in Sh’s ability to develop a Marxist perspective on the struggle against racism. By its silence the DC was saying that Sh could never overcome his subjectivism, sexism, and liberalism in the ideological struggle. The DCs paternalism in relation to Sh demonstrated a real lack of respect for this comrades ability to grow and said instead that he had attained the limitations of his political development, he can go no further, for after all Sh is Black and what can we really expect from him.
And here too a non-struggle, no-criticism relationship developed on the basis of the DCs failure to concretely appreciate Sh’s political strengths. Comrade Sh brought an enormous amount of political independence, initiative, and organizational experience to the D.C. He was firmly grounded on the international question, had a good handle on the tactics of building a left-center alliance, and was an aggressive and consistent agitator and propagandist. Sh led the organizations work during the independent political movement, began to build a trade union form within the BUF, and single handedly represented the PWOC in an important two-line struggle around Afghanistan within the Coalition against Military Intervention in Iran. Yet only recently a question was raised within the DC about Sh’s strengths, as if they didn’t exist, as if this comrades role had been invisible!
The racist paternalism of the DC took an especially concentrated form in relation to Comrade Sh as a result of the particular weaknesses that he brought to that body. On many occasions Comrade Sh would raise to DC members his feelings of distrust for white people and describe his past and present experiences which were the foundation of these sentiments. Oftentimes he would become alienated as a PWOC member and attribute this to the fact that we are a predominately white organization. These types of discussions would fuel the paternalistic tendencies operating within the D.C., and oftentimes completely paralyze DC members in the ideological struggle with Sh. All they could do was feel sorry for him.
Yet at the same time Sh’s cynicism about white people would cause him to soften the blows when the DC was taking up a racist error of one of its own cadre or the errors of rank and file cadre in the organization. Here we begin to see the DCs racism as a marriage of opportunism. For in return for being liberal with Sh, particularly liberal in relation to Sh’s nationalism, the DC in return maintains the ideological basis for Sh to liquidate the struggle against the DCs racism. This unholy alliance served to undercut the struggle against the DCs errors in relation to racist violence in S.W. Philly for here Sh’s legitimate concern for the reaction within the Black liberation movement dovetailed with the DCs liquidation of the struggle against racism in S.W. Philadelphia.
Still another example of the DCs paternalism toward Sh covering its racism occured when he made a sexist error in relation to L, and DC members, including women cadre who normally play a quite forceful role in the struggle against sexism, allowed the error to pass unchallenged, although everyone was aware of what was going on.
The unholy alliance of paternalism and nationalism also played a profound role in the dynamics of the Take Back the Night struggle in the community cell. From the beginning the relations of white members of the community cell to Comrade Sh were characterized by the most deep-seated paternalism. Not only was Sh Black, not only was he having problems trusting white people but on top of this, he had a serious health problem. Here paternalism struck with a vengeance placing Comrade Sh beyond any and all criticism.
Likewise, on the basis of nationalism and sexist paternalism Sh liquidated criticism and struggle with community cell members. For example, when the Take Back the Night struggle erupted Sh played a concilatory role. In the community cell as well as in the DC he made excuses for A, he made excuses for B, and he argued that he was not being liberal but rather didn’t understand the politics of centrism. Sh’s centrism in the Take Back the Night struggle, his disorientation and growing feelings of alienation from the organization during this period, is a striking demonstration of the profound impact of paternalism in the PWOC. And this paternalism, operating at several levels, played a not insignificant part in his leaving the organization.
First of all the DC’s failure to take up Sh’s development from the beginning, through sharp ideological struggle, placed him in an unfavorable position to deal with the issues and dynamics of the Take Back the Night controversy. For in the context of the TBN struggle Sh’s weaknesses, nationalism, liberalism, and sexist paternalism, became the motive forces of his political stance. Yet it is also the case that community cell members played a most backward and racist role in their relations with Sh during this period.
By the time that the TBN struggle gained force in the cell, the DC was in the process of breaking with racist paternalism. Sharp ideological struggle began to develop with some of Sh’s principal political weaknesses. But due to the history of paternalism in the DC, as well as to Sh’s subjectivism and defensiveness in the face of criticism, the struggle with him became an extremely difficult one. This sudden rupture with paternalism quite logically made Sh feel alienated, betrayed, and uncertain of himself. This was the price he DC paid for its past racist errors. And the result was that an additional basis was created for Sh’s unity with the minority bloc in the community cell, unity around the so-called unprincipled methods of struggle in the PWOC. The legacy of paternalism in the DC served to throw Sh into the waiting arms of white chauvinism in the community cell.
In order to defend their racist line around the TBN broadside the minority bloc was all willing to have Sh as an ally, and this alliance only served to deepen and consolidate the already existing tendencies toward non-struggle with him. So when Sh mput forward his criticisms of the way in which he was being “treated” in the DC the “friends of the Black people” in the community cell and elsewhere bent over backwards to demonstrate their “support” for Comrade Sh. In the community cell one racist error, on top of another racist error, developed, and had an extremely destructive impact on Sh. For at a critical point in history of his membership in the PWOC, a point in which the leadership of the organization taking up a serious struggle for his development, the minority bloc in the community cell re-inforced and aggravated his every backward tendency, and thereby played a not inconsequential role in his leaving the organization.
And since Sh left the organization some of his “friends” (seriously comrades, with friends like these Sh really didn’t need any enemies) continue to promote a paternalistic, chauvinist perspective on his problems with the organization. Sh was “driven out” of the organization, they proclaim. The DC was much too “heavy handed” in dealing with him. What was required was more “understanding” and “sensitivity” to Sh’s situation. For those comrades in the PWOC who hold to this point of view we must say; to you Sh was not a communist deserving of respect, to you Sh was not a cadre with real strengths, and real weaknesses, requiring ideological struggle to secure his development, to you Sh was Black, to you Sh was invisible.
Another example of a serious error of paternalism occuring in the context of the TBN mobilization took place in a D.C. meeting where the organizations participation in the march was being debated with Comrade Z present. In its initial deliberations the DC failed to deal seriously enough with its anti-racist responsibilities in the context of the TBN demonstration. Insufficient work had been done to develop a broadside and criticism of the demonstrations slogans, insufficient attention had been given to the task of political consolidation at the base of the organization. The result was that in the cells our attitude toward the march was reduced to an announcment, and there was hardly any discussion of the racism of the event. Comrade Z, through discussions with members of the organization recognized the racism of the DCs leadership to the mobilization, and immediately called to determine what was going on. He was then invited to the DC meeting to discuss the question.
A struggle developed in the DC on the basis of Z’s criticisms. Comrades Br, Ad, and L played the leading role from the DCs side both in terms of uniting with Z’s criticisms of the DCs racism but also in combating a sectarian overreaction on Z’s part to the weaknesses manifested by the TBN Coalition as well as by the D.C. In the course of this struggle Comrade La intervened. Rather than demonstrate his unity with Z’s criticisms of the DCs racism and take up a struggle with a sectarian overreaction to these weaknesses, La identified the principal error of the DC as having been to expect our Black cadre to take up agitation in the Black liberation movement around the entire question. Here we have an example of paternalism that is thoroughly racist and sexist in its content.
First of all La reduced Z’s entire intervention to the idea that he was unwilling to take up the issue of rape in the Black liberation movement, that is to say, what was happening here was that Z, to cover his tailism around the struggle against sexism was opportunistically calling for the DC to withdraw its support for the demonstration. And to deal with this contradiction La’s approach was to pat Z on the head and excuse him from his political responsibility. Second of all it was racist in that it side-steped the criticism that Z was raising of the DCs racism, and thereby skirted La’s responsibility for these weaknesses. Thirdly it completely liquidated the organizations responsibility to the womens movement which was to put forward a forceful criticism of its racism and on this basis build its multi-national unity. And finally in the context of the struggle within the DC it was thouroughly sexist because it sought in an opportunist and racist fashion to build unity with Z at the expense of the women in the DC who were struggling for a correct position.
The racist paternalism characteristic of the internal life of the PWOC is also mirrored in our cadre’s relations with Black activists and workers outside of the organization. In many cases this paternalism leads to the most rank and vulgar forms of tailism and is often self-serving in its content. One such case is a recent discussion that occured between Comrade A and a leading activist in the Black liberation movement. This comrade considers himself a Marxist but holds to a nationalist perspective on the question of building multinational communist forms in this period. This was the topic of discussion with A. Later on, since she seemed somewhat disorientated about the matter she was asked where she stood on the question. A’s responce was, “well, (since) B...said it was necessary for Black revolutionaries to limit their work to the Black liberation movement it must be right.” When pressed on the issue and forced to deal with the practical consequences of her unity with B...A tended to retreat from her position.
Here again, we see the depths of racism in the PWOC, in relation both to B...as well as to the Black members of our organization. For to unite with B...on this question was a statement of our own cadres lack of respect for his political commitment and ability to be won to a Marxist view of the question, as well as a statement on how A views Black members of the PWOC. For if it is incorrect to build multinational unity in this period due to the fact that it implies capitulation to racism what does this say about Black members commited to building the PWOC? It can only say that they are willing to be token members in a predominately white organization and are willing to tolerate its white chauvinism. The irony here, the racism here, is dramatized when we consider that the Black members of the PWOC are presently engaged in a vigorous campaign against racism in the PWOC and it is precisely comrade A who is proving most defensive and most resistant to accepting Black leadership on the question of her own white chauvinism!
The lack of confidence and respect manifested by PWOC cadre is reflected daily in our relations with advanced Black workers in the trade union movement. The prevailing view, as it is reflected in our practice, is that the advanced Black workers are at best capable of playing a subordinate role in the rank and file movement, and the idea that these workers can be won to Marxism-Leninism seems utterly utopian to most of our cadre. After all, goes the inner thoughts of our white members, these people have been denied an “education,” how can we really expect them to become communists! The results of this thought process, this utterly racist view, is that white PWOC members refuse to engage in real ideological struggle aimed at winning the advanced to Marxism-Leninism and into the organization. When push comes to shove, and the pressure is on, what happens is not that our cadre, despite their reservations begin to take up the struggle, but instead they turn to a Black PWOC member to do this for them, thereby only compounding one racist error with another.
A good example of this paternalism in our relations with the advanced manifested itself in our efforts to build the conference of national-minority, Marxist-Leninists last Spring, first of all, only two Black workers were won to even consider participating in the conference, and this itself is an expression of the paternalism characteristic of the organizations political relations with Black workers in the rank and file movement. But even those workers that were won were not attracted to the conference on the basis of political unity or an understanding of its role and goals. For until D and P met with Comrade Z the week before the conference they had never seen the 18 principles of unity of the OCIC, ad little if any discussion with the white cadre they’d worked with around the party-building perspective of the PWOC, and weren’t really very clear about what the conference was about. So when it came to the political development of B and P, racist paternalism served to liquidate this task, and place it instead on the shoulders of a Black member of the organization. Every honest PWOC cadre would have to admit that they too have often turned to a Black member of the organization, rather than themselves, engage in ideological struggle with the advanced.
Still another expression of racist paternalism in the PWOC is the tendency toward abstract equality, a tendency to obliterate the uneven development that is a consequence of racism in bourgeois society. Black people are equal, period. Any statement to the contrary is necessarily racist. This is the mentality of the abstract advocates of equality and it in mentality that frequently leads to serious racist errors within the organization.
In the Spring of 1979 the WRLP requested a speaker from the RL caucus to talk about problem of the runaway shop. Since the other speakers at the educational were going to be white it was suggested that a Black worker at the Budd plant represent the RL caucus. Efforts were made to get one of the caucuses’ leading members but he declined. Our cadre then approached a shop steward who was open to the idea but wanted first to get an outline “sample” speech to get a better sense of what it would mean. However with less than a week to go he pulled out.
Our cadre then approached Comrade D and asked him if he were willing to give thespeech. He was somewhat hesitant, having never spoken in public before and especially so since there was only a few days before the planned educational. But our comrades in auto urged him on nevertheless. D got a pat on the back, was told that he had nothing to worry about, and that “he could do it.” One hour was spent going over the speech with him.
At the educational D was forced to read the speech and it was obvious to the white audience that he was not its author. To make matters worse Comrade Zu jumped to the floor and gave a speech of his own, thereby compounding the racism in the situation. This experience quite rightfully embittered Comrade D to the tokenistic “anti-racism” practiced by the PWOC, particularly so since with sufficient time and preparation he could have developed a good speech.
The flip-side of the organizations relations with its Black cadre is the self-righteous breast beating variety of anti-racism which has not infrequently been manifested within the PWOC. The driving force of this lack of humulity in the struggle against racism, is the desire to “win favor” with Black comrades as opposed to a real commitment to winning white to an understanding of their own racism. And the underlying root of this self-righteousness is oftentimes paternalism itself.
A good example of this self-righteous anti-racism and its hypocracy occured within the EC of the MIC II. Soon after the Greensboro demonstration against Klan violence Comrade Y raised a criticism of MS. The responce of the cell EC was to write a scathing criticism of S’s racism. The transparency of the racism in this responce can be seen by the fact that one of the cell EC members was herself present when the error was made, yet no one in the cell EC really probed or challenged this comrade to determine whether she too, by remaining silent, had commited a racist error. Moreover, at the time of this discussion racism was running rampant in the MIC II yet for the most part it was not being challenged by sharp ideological struggle. Taking all of these realities into account it must be concluded that the white cadre in the MIC II cell EC were on the one hand posturing for Comrade Y’s favor and on the other acting on the paternalistic assumption that this is “our Black” and as such “we intend to vigilantly respond to your racism.” This is as anti-racist as when the slave master lashs out at another white who harms “his slaves.”
The self-righteous anti-racist tendency in the PWOC is akin to the “some of my best friends are Black” syndrome. Comrades measure their “anti-racism” not on their commitment and practice in the struggle against racism with white workers but instead on the basis of their ability to have Black friends. This tendency is expressed in a particularly acute fashion in our relations with white and Black workers. All too often white cadre tend to see Black workers as their “friends,” while at the same time they maintain their distance from the white masses. This same phenomena is expressed in the residential patterns of PWOC members. Living in Germantown is as if one had an “anti-racist” badge fastened to their chest, while living in Fishtown or SW is something of an embarassment. Liquidating the struggle against racism among whites hanging around with Black folks. Here we see the duel edged sword of bourgeois liberalism shaping the practice of white members of the PWOC.
Racist paternalism is having a destructive impact on the relations between white and Black cadre in the PWOC, and an equally damaging effect on our political relations with Black and white workers. To a Black cadre in our organization, as well as to Black people generally, paternalism is as humiliating, as destructive and as vile as being called a racist epithet. For in both cases it is an expression of white supremacy, a statement of the inferiority of the Black people, a commentary on the fact that white PWOC members view Black cadre as capable of assuming only a tokenistic position of leadership and responsibility in the communist movement. Paternalism is an insidious disease that must be eradicated from the internal life of the PWOC.