In the US, it is almost, more than almost, that we have, not two different working classes, but a working class that has two separate historical origins, with black labor representing the underpinning of capital in its role as a pre-industrial proletariat in the plantation economy. The "non-black" portion has a different history, and the inability of workers movements in the US to even pose the question of power when it was posing the question of power--i.e the great workers struggles in Toledo, Flint, Twin Cities, San Francisco in the 30s was a manifestation of its inability to strike at the core of US capital, racism.
Message ----- From: <billbartlett at dodo.com.au> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Criticism, Self-Criticism, and a few other things.
> At 10:07 PM -0600 31/12/02, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > > That means, at the start, jettisoning all analyses that
> >> don't focus on class, and class as the revolutionary agent.
> >
> >But that is ALWAYS the question: What, under given historical
> >conditions, does focusing on class _mean_. My assumption is that in the
> >United States focusing on class means focusing on the struggle against
> >working-class racism, which means uniting those parts of the class
> >(white or black, male or female) who will struggle under that banner.
>
> At a guess, I'd say that in the context "focus on class" means focusing on
class as opposed to focusing on race. You seem to disagree?
>
> Anyhow, my impression is that we are so far from any agreement on even a
definition of class under current historical conditions that perhaps the
focus of race is a way of avoiding the issue. But it seems to me that lack
of class consciousness is a root cause of racism, so to focus on race is
perhaps to focus on symptoms rather than cause. You could persuade me
otherwise though, why do you reason otherwise? Is class just too hard?
>
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas