[Marxism] An exchange on racism. Clinton and Obama campaigns, and Black oppression

[Fred Feldman]

1.Joaquin Bustelo submitted the following by Robb Chavez:

I think that you are a pernicious influence on the Presidential debate.
You've taken what were previously batty, but harmless abstractions on the
national question, and turned them into brickbats for the Obama campaign's
ugly "racism" slurs against Hillary Clinton. I read your ever-slimier posts
on the Marxism list, and am horrified at how far a large segment of the
"Left" (Sirota, Giordano, Kos) has sunk in its mindless idolatry of the
"idea" of Obama.

To think that a Cubano, a "Marxist," no less, would stoop so low. You are
beginning to resemble more the Miami gusanos in your tone and mendacity,
than any supporter of the Cuban Revolution. You are playing with social
dynamite.

2. Fred Feldman responded to Robb Chavez:
Well, my first thought when I read this was, Hey, what about me! I'm as bad
as he is. That was, not uncharacteristically, egocentric. Obviously Robb
Chavez has ties with Joaquin from Latino and other struggles that I do not
share. He didn't intend to hurt my feelings.

It strikes me at first read that Chavez's starting point is defense of
Clinton against the racism charges. I don't know if that is a reflection of
support for Clinton or has some other motivation, though I suspect it might.


Without a long song and dance, I will say that I consider the racist
character of the Clinton campaign to be self-evident, both in the loss of
the Black vote and the single minded fight for the white supposedly
blue-collar, and definitely more alienated from Blacks vote.  And also by
her tendency to stereotype white workers who support Obama -- and the vote
clearly shows there are many of them, at least one-third -- as though they
were just "latte liberal" professors and business executives.

This was the organic nature of Clintonian triangulation once the Blacks
abandoned them. The Clinton-Democratic Party strategy of the 90s and beyond
was based on triangulating away from the Black, organized labor and liberal
base toward those whose alienation from the Democrats took the form above
all that they were pro-Black and thus elitist (which most capitalist
politicians are of course, if not all), antiwhite, and by reason of being
antiwhite, anti-"American". 

Once the Blacks walked out from under the Clintons, they were left primarily
with the relatively anti-Black white base to rest on, and they have done so.
This has been the core of their campaigns in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana,
and coming up, West Virginia. This was reinforced after Edwards dropped out
of the race, eliminating the more populist "prolabor," and non-race-baiting
competitor for the white vote. 

They no longer triangulate. The  white point of the triangulation, who are
more anti-Black or suspicious of Blacks or afraid of Blacks, are now
their base. I'm sure they wish the Blacks were still on the reservation, but
they are not, at least as far as the Clintons are concerned.

However, I thought the most important comment Chavez made was, "You are
playing with social dynamite." In essence, I believe he hit the nail on the
head, although I would like to think that neither Joaquin nor I is
"playing."  We both understand that revolution is not a tea party.

But that is the way I also see the determined and stubborn response of the
Black community to Obama campaign, once they saw he could get a significant
body of white and other support.  And I would point out that a large, hard
core of his white support has also proved stubbornly resistant to the
race-baiting campaigns against him -- Rev. Wright, etc. Yes, I think this
is a sign that social dynamite is accumulating at the foundations. I don't
think we should play with it, I think we should turn toward it.

This doesn't require supporting Obama in my opinion -- I support
Cynthia McKinney's valuable propaganda effort to advance a more fighting
perspective -- but it certainly puts a serious priority in fighting the
campaign to bar his election on fundamentally racial grounds: "unelectable,"
alleged links to Islam, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Farrakhan, et al.

You refer to Joaquin's "batty, but harmless abstractions on the
national question." Here again I have to claim my aliquot part of the
criticism.

Following are the two fundamental conceptions that have come to guide a lot
of my thinking and action (to the extent that I am still able to be active)
on the Black question and the national question more generally in the United
States. Anyone is free to regard them as batty, but I can assure you on
personal knowledge, that they are NOT intended to be harmless:

(1) What is the national territory of the Black nation in the United States
of America?

The national territory of the Black nation in the United States of America
is the continental territory of the United States of America.

(2) What is the political destiny and objective of the struggle of the Black
nationality in the United States of America?

The political destiny and objective of the struggle of the Black nationality
in the United States of America is state power in the United States of
America.

This is deliberately not only algebraic, but even a bit oracular, and I
admit I am not prepared to answer any questions at all about precisely  how
this tendency will play itself out. It is deeply rooted (maybe since the
first recorded arrival of Black slaves in 1619), as deeply rooted as "white
privilege." And US history is not simply a tale of oppression an
but quite fundamentally a tale of struggle against oppression and
exploitation, and of the fight against racism.

It should be remembered that Blacks were brought to the United States not as
a people and not because they were Black primarily, but simply as raw
material for savage class exploitation as chattel slaves. Racism did not
cause this social relation but arose to justify and maintain it, and to turn
the exploited whites toward their masters and against what became, for a
long time, the largest exploited class in the country. 

The entire development of Black people into a nation took place in the
context of the class and social struggles in this country as it developed.
Many cultural elements were brought from Africa but no elements of
nationhood. That is a 100 percent "American" development. And the vanguard
role of Blacks in the working class and as a central oppositional force in
US capitalist society has roots in this historical context of class
exploitation, racial oppression, and what has developed into a nation
aspiring to forms of self-determination as yet undetermined. 

The importance of the historical continuity of Black oppression and
exploitation in shaping Black consciouness in the US was brought home to me
during lunch break at a steelworkers-organized plant in Linden, NJ, where I
worked for a year or so about a decade ago. A Black guy pulled up in his car
and asked a Black worker about job possibilities there.  The worker gave him
an uncertain answer and then commented, "We are still in chains, my brother,
we are still in chains."

Failure to grasp this social conflict as an opportunity, and not just a sad
tale of division and American backwardness, has always been a crippling
factor on the left and in the revolutionary movement, and a weakness of even
the best "white skin privilege" histories and theories (Theodore Allen's,
for instance). The latter tend to see the presence of Blacks primarily as a
source and  mainstay of reaction in this country, whereas it is much more
fundamentally a source and mainstay of revolutionary possibilities.

3. Joaquin responded to Fred

Fred comments:
"Well, my first thought when I read this was, Hey, what about me! I'm as bad
as he is. That was, not uncharacteristically, egocentric. Obviously Robb
Chavez has ties with Joaquin from Latino and other struggles that I do not
share. He didn't intend to hurt my feelings."

Actually, maybe I'm not recognizing the person with the name but I've got no
recollection of who this comrade might be. So I'm not so sure he meant no
disrespect.

Fred: "Without a long song and dance, I will say that I consider the racist
character of the Clinton campaign to be self-evident, both in the loss of
the Black vote and the single minded fight for the white supposedly
blue-collar, and definitely more alienated from Blacks vote."

*  *  *

And you're not the only one. Look at this from the NY Daily News:

Ugly truth why Hillary Clinton won't quit 
BY THOMAS M. DeFRANK 
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU 

Wednesday, May 7th 2008, 4:00 AM 

While the case for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race is shakier than ever,
one ugly reason for staying in could be found Tuesday amid the ruddy,
sun-kissed Hoosiers who cheered her on to victory at the Indianapolis
Speedway.

With Clinton posing alongside pioneering Indy speedster Sarah Fisher, there
were almost no African-Americans to be seen. Many in the white,
working-class crowd were simply not ready to back Barack Obama - for reasons
that are disturbing. 

"I'm kind of still up in the air between McCain and Hillary," said Jason
Jenkins, 32, who cited information from a hoax e-mail as a reason to spurn
Obama. 

"I'll be honest with you. Barack scares the hell out of me," he said. "He
swore on the Koran." 

Obama did manage to pull in many white voters, but still encountered similar
sentiments from a man who refused to shake his hand at a diner in Greenwood,
Ind.

"I can't stand him," the man said. "He's a Muslim. He's not even
pro-American as far as I'm concerned." 

*  *  *

Full is here: 
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/05/07/2008-05-07_ugly_truth_w
hy_hillary_clinton_wont_quit.html> 

Fred:
"The political destiny and objective of the struggle of the Black
nationality in the United States of America is state power in the United
States of America."

What you say here makes sense, and I'll admit I'd never quite framed it with
that much clarity. But I think it is right. I've been wording it in terms of
the democratic right to participation, representation, inclusion and so on,
but there is also the state power side of the national question, although in
terms of how traditionally it is conceived, this just doesn't quite fit. But
it makes sense to me, perhaps because of the inseparable intertwining of the
class and national questions, i.e., a separate Black state is hardly
conceivable carved out of the current U.S. state, it makes sense only
presupposing the destruction of that state.
Joaquin