I have not quite picked up your ideological basis for the absolute anti-nationalist arguments you are making regarding the BRC. It seems that the main "left" logic underlying your posts assumes the necessity of Black/White unity for achieving radical change in the U.S., and that therefore Black nationalism or separatism of any type undermines this main goal of the left.
If that is true, let me say I agree that Black/White unity is key for the proletarian revolution here, but I disagree that all Black nationalism or separate organization undermines working class unity. I will argue in part based on the discussions by Lenin of rights of oppressed nations to self-determination and equality. You may not subscribe to this approach, but if not, nonetheless, Leninism has at least equal reputation as your ideology as a pro working class revolutionary ideology. In other words, The logic of Lenin's argument on self-determination is not antithetical to the goal of uniting the workers of the world and the U.S.
>>> Rakesh Bhandari writes:
Carrol says:
>In fact quite often, *within*
>the "black nationalist" movement there are denunciations of "nationalism"
>rather more vitriolic than Rakesh is able to come up with. It is an
>extraordinarily complex "movement" with many variations.
>>>Rakesh:
However vitriolic these friendly critics of nationalism may be (and is there anything more absurd than the idea that Afro-Americans constitute an independent nation, though ambitious colored businessmen do emphasize that the purchasing power of blacks is equivalent to many third world nations as a way of encouraging more minority franchising by the big corps, reducing the glorious national project to black owned McDonald's and specially made black Santas for Kwanzaa in the bantustans),>>>
Charles: Picking up at your rhetorical level, well, yea, something more absurd than the idea that African Americans constitute an independent nation is your implication that we do not. If your ignorance of American history is really this great, I'm not sure if there is enough point of agreement to even argue.
But continuing ,w hat is an "independent" nation ? A group of people with history, culture, language, and land sufficiently unique such that they have a right to secede from the nation dominating them. This is the right to self-determination. This issue of whether a group constitutes an "independent nation" only arises in the context of imperialist and colonialist domination and oppression, in the relationship between conquerers and conquered.
What is your criteria for deciding whether a group constitutes an "independent nation" ?
The application of the abstract concept of an independent nation to concrete reality, as ususal, is not neat and precise like a physics problem. African Americans , though lacking indigenous land for the obvious reason that they were kidnapped from their homeland, have significantly independent culture, language and history, because of the very fact that their conquerers and enslavers enforced fiercely as much segregation and social separation as was feasible while still relying so utterly on the work and activities of Blacks. Overall, this "independence" from whites was summed up in the WHITES' idea of "race". False biological idea that it is. it is an idea that gripped that masses and has been a definite force in material-social reality. I would use the term "nationality" rather than "nation" to mark this hybrid phenomenon.
The logical point I want to make is that the right to self-determination and secession implies the choice to secede (or separate) or not to secede and form a separate state.. It implies that a group that fully "qualifies" as a separate nation might choose not to secede. In which case they would still have the same distinguishing and independent characterisitcs; and would likely express that independence in some forms short of forming a separate state. This would be to achieve the unity and strength necessary to fight for equality within the multinational state. in which they choose to remain.
The other logical point is that only an overly simplisitic view sees the right to self-determination or to SEPARATE by conquered nations or natonalities as detrimental to the larger goal of uniting all the workers of all nationalities and colors. If you put any stock in Lenin's thesis, this should give you pause in your theory of absolute anti-nationalism.
One of the worse errors in your formulation is ignoring the obvious fact that Black people in the U.S. have to continue struggling for their equality and liberation in the US. racist society, given the white working class is not ready to overthrow capitalism. To expect Black people not to get together independently from whites for strategizing for that struggle, seemingly because a few intellectual ,"left" conservatives are concerned that it might bother some white workers who blacks need to unite with ultimately, to expect that is truly ABSURD, in your term above. From real historical experience, waiting for whites to divest of racism is like waiting for Godot, waiting for hell to freeze over.
What you as a non-Black and whites should concentrate on is divesting the white conquering nation of racism. To the extent that Black people become aware of your arrogant criticism of Black self-organization, you aggrievate the absolutely main cause of working class division : WHITE RACISM . In this case in the form of paternalism; or " whites know better than Blacks what is good for them "
But any way, in this case , you don't even know what is best for Black people or the working class as a whole, so it is not paternalist ,but infantiliist.
>>>Rakesh
critics still defended the Million Man March, and seem to have voted for or
acquiesced to the formal exclusion of non-blacks from the Black Radical
Congress.
I argued that only as part of a congress on the broader problems with the institutionalized left could blacks find allies among other workers (so yes as a first choice I don't think there should be a black radical congress and certainly not one formally closed to non-blacks), understand themselves as part of an actual material force which can meet the material force of capital, and thus overcome the kind of reformism which comes from the sole reliance on capital which follows strategically if one presumes the inherent racism, conservatism and contentment of the non black masses.>>>
Charles: The common thesis of participants in the BRC is not that racism, conservatism and contentment of the white masses is "inherent", but an actual historical fact, against the real material self-interests of those white masses, but an irrationality that Black people especially are incapable of irradicating.
Part of the tragic and painful historical evidence of that is the long term (late 1800's _marked by the Plessy vs Ferguson case establishing segregation as law- through 1960's ) struggle FOR INTEGRATION by Black masses , which has essentially been rebuffed by white society. A big part of the absurdity of your position is your evident ignorance of this stone hard historical fact. Black people have been trying to integrate with whites for 100 years plus. When they are rejected , and develop institutions of "meeting" with themselves for self-protection against genocidal (UN Convention Against Genocide definition) system, some "left" conservatives have the nerve to criticize them in the name of "unity." Go talk to white people about unity and integration. They have rejected Black people's outstretched hand for decades.
Rakesh: That is, if blacks see themselves as an isolated minority--and this supposition is reinforced by racially exclusive fora--to whom can they turn but capital and mustn't they then push forth only those kinds of reforms which may be in its interest: anti-discrimination laws towards the end of removing market imperfections and consecrating the rule of law; the creation of majority minority districts which may have the unintended effect of getting more Republicans elected; business set asides which may help corporations penetrate minority markets, etc.>>>
Charles: "isolatED" not self-isolating minority: that's the key difference. Of course, not everybody, in fact most people in the Black community are not radicals or marxists. Of course, some Black people are consevatives even and promote Black capitalism, "turn to capital" etc. The white working class majority have failed to make the revolution. You want Black people to live their lives in waiting, without achievement or accomplishment in society as constituted -capitalist- waiting for your theoretical unity to come about and make the revolution. Again, this is infantile arrogance and armchair "leftism".
>>>Rakesh:
I have serious doubts that--whatever the sincere intentions of Manning
Marable--a black radical congress, standing alone, will not degenerate into
a weak form of reformism, the beneficiaries of which will be mostly petit
bourgeoisie. In whose interest is the formation of an autonomous black
congress? The civil rights establishment of lawyers and politicos who will
attempt to convince oppressed blacks that enforcement of
anti-discrimination laws are the key to their emancipation? Those
politicians who will enlist the support of the black community in their
run-offs in majority minority districts? Can an independent black congress,
not integrally connected to a larger movement, do more than this in
practical terms? Can a larger movement, drained of the energetic
participation of blacks, itself avoid degeneration?>>>
Charles: It is false that the BRC is not or does not seek to be integrally connected to a larger movement, such as it is. Given that your statement implies that the BRC should be connected to a larger revolutionary and not reform movement, there is not much to be connected to , is there ?
I guess the larger problem of your analysis here is that it is ultra-leftist, failing to recognize any role for reformist struggle within revolutionary struggle. Lenin , a white man,analyzed infantilism and ultra-leftism in general in _Left-wing Communism an Infantile Disorder_, a copy of which I picked up at the BRC. Ultraleftism is one of the original "left" conservatisms.
Rakesh:
>
>Also, I believe some other posts on this thread have muddied the waters
>with references to Farrakhan. This only shows naivete, and probably though
>unintentionally *racist* naivete about the black liberation movement.
Oh, I am a naive racist, am I? I suggested ways in which an autonomous black liberation movement becomes trapped in petty bourgeois and viciously reactionary politics if it begins with the supposition that isolated and despised, blacks can only turn to themselves and effect, in Cornel West's words, black operational unity in order to achieve power.
Charles: Infantile and naive. You are definitely arguing a "left" racist position, although I guess you are not actually white. Fortunately, the vast majority of white radicals (though they are a small proportion of the whole population) have learned the lesson that Carrol and others are trying to teach you. Given your sharp rhetoric, you should not dish it out if you can't take it. Flinging around words like " Negro" and "colored", even if you are not white, is a form of non-white racism. That exists in the age of Clarence Thomas, who is more of a racist than the vast majority of white people, given his power.
Nobody at the BRC proposed "ONLY TURN(ING) TO THEMSELVES". A main idea is uniting with yourselves in order to bring more strength in uniting with others, the only ultimate solution to everyone's problems -Black and white unite and fight. But that principle is not absolute. It must be unite with opposites, like self-determination. That unity and struggle of opposites is a dialectical approach.
Rakesh
> They will have to either join the WSJ or lead very lonely lives.]
Well, if one is not a true believer, one may never feel lonlier than in
the midst of conferences organized in terms of her ostensible identity.
>>>
Charles: Witty but dumb, sort of like "left" conservatism, a unity and struggle of opposites. --------------------------
Charles Brown