Though he disagrees with me, Nathan has understood me; and I thank mightily him for that. It turns out that this congress may not have been organized in opposition to the AFL-CIO and the DP, as Nathan noted, but as a counter to the politics of reactionary nationalism (there is even the possibility that despite the rhetoric the organizers of this conference had every reason to lead people back into the Democratic Party or the AFL-CIO, which may make sense of who the most vehement defenders of this Congress have been).
I reiterate that a racially exclusive conference in terms of speakers invited, participants involved or atmosphere created is no way to go about countering reactionary black nationalism, and will not repeat the arguments I have given for this conclusion. I also disagree with Yoshie that the real problem with the left in this country is its whiteness. Take *The Nation* for example. Because it is a mirror for progressive middle class people--professionals, govt servants, academics--it cannot really focus on the minority and otherwise oppressed proletariat. That's why it will give a column to Alterman who talks out of his ass about class, instead of a Jane Slaughter, Kim Moody, Peter Rachleff, Brecher and Costello, Reed Jr or Elisabeth Martinez. The real problem is not whiteness but class.
Michael E emphasizes the advantages of blacks-only discussions; while I remain very skeptical, I think this is best as sessions within a broader Congress of the kind I suggested, i.e., one organized against the institutionalized liberal-left (DP, AFL-CIO and, yes, *The Nation). James H's rebuke of Carrol for dismissing me as a naive racist because of my reasoned skepticism towards an autonomous black congress, whatever its sincere radical intent and statement, is much appreciated. Carrol found it disingenuous and racist that I could lump together all black nationalists, seemingly forgetting that Marable and West at best waffled about the Million Man March. Michael Y claims that the BRC can only be a radical boost to the labor movement but does not refute the reasons I gave for my skepticism.
Charles B faults me for failure to comply with Lenin's theses on nationalism and for softness towards white racism and segregation (which racially exclusive congresses may only strengthen) and intersperses his post with excerpts from mine, though the passages quoted are used more as pauses to catch his breath than arguments to be refuted.
I only want to reply to his accusation that my posts have reeked of racism. He blames me for using "colored" and "Negro". I referred to minority bidnesmen as 'colored' as a way of distinguishing them and their interests from those of the 'black' masses; as Charles doubtless knows, ordinary African Americans often mock bourgie blacks for a reluctance to self-describe themselves as black. Colored was used then to make a class point. I referred to Negro intellectuals in the course of one post as a way of mocking the insidious reduction of black intellectuals as experts only qualified to opine on what has historically been called the Negro question. This tragic constriction of black intellectual life is discussed profoundly by Reed, Jr in the intro to his DuBois book. As tragic is the tendency to reduce the social question in this country to the question of racial inequality and blacks (as the Thernstroms and D'Souza are anxious to do) much as the social question was once reduced by renegade socialists in Germany to the Jewish question.
I remain opposed to Stalinism, social democracy, left or structural keyensianism (I have been thinking about Palley's book), third world and black nationalism (progressive, reactionary or otherwise)--all the terrible things of the 20th century we are now free to leave behind, if we only dare to be free. best, rakesh