|
Marxism
Irrelevant?
By Aduku Addae As a precaution I must disassociate myself from Marx because
such as I am about to deliver cannot do justice to the
encyclopedic breadth, depth, and height of this man's intellect.
Generations of much more capable men than myself have struggled
to decipher the knowledge that he gained in his lifetime. I
would be the worst fraud to attempt to link my endeavor with his
name.
In speaking of matters related to the struggle of the working
class against dispossession, economic exploitation and social
oppression I must make something clear; I am not a member of any
sectarian Marxist cult. I am none of these things:
Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, and Maoist. I
have no party and I do not have a mass following. And for those
who are afraid of ghosts, I am not Marcus Garvey, come back to
haunt your souls, in the whirlwind. Nevertheless I
hope that those I am attempting to prod awake will not be
frightened into disparaging me in this outrageous manner: "Dont
tell me, let me guess. A voice from the Meadowlands (the Trot
races), a case of Diarrhea (the runs, the Trots), CIA
proprietary, a LaRouche douche bag,
or just short brained and ill." This kind of
thing "does violence" to any civilized effort to
debate serious questions. Such an assault moves me to cuss
rass. And when I cuss rass I am a hair's breadth away from a
fisticuff. This is why, as a matter of principle, I avoid
Marxists. They come across as arrogant farts that are
self-possessed and wholly impressed by the size of their anal
vocabularies. And that just pisses me off.
Further, I disassociate myself from the “religious” sects of
Marxism to possess myself of the license to speak irresponsibly,
even foolishly, but especially irreverently. I proceed in
this manner in the hope that the alert listener (reader) will
"pick sense outta nonsense" as the old Caribbean adage
exhorts. I am going to speak far more boldly than I am
accustomed to, for, I am utterly convinced that the old feet
(not head) and the “greybacks'” have not gained any wisdom
in spite of all the years that passed them by.
Someone said to me recently "Marxism was an appropriate
tool for the industrial age. But, at least, I have misgivings
about its continued effectiveness in the post-industrial
era." It moved me to preaching on the subject.
Marxism is a peculiar theology. It ranks up there with
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and those
"isms" which purport to offer a cure for universal
evil. It is the modern church replete with its prophets
and saints, scribes and Pharisees, denominations, clergy and
congregations. Its description as "an appropriate tool for
the industrial age" is apt only in the context of a
pronouncement on the appropriateness of cultic religious
organizations and institutions to the social context of the
"industrial age." The existence of these institutions
validates their “appropriateness.” People always need
something to lean on, some kind of crutch, or, opiate to lessen
the sting of life. Misgivings about "its [Marxism's]
continued effectiveness in the post-industrial era" is part
of the general misgivings that 21st century people have about
the other branches of religion. The question can be answered by
taking a look at how other religions are faring. Religion is
doing great. Marxism is faring only slightly less good. It
is alive and ready to assault the people with its message of
redemption.
I have a dire prediction to make. Marxism will join the other
religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) in one
grand apocalyptic struggle – in the battle of the
"beasts" and bigots. (Now that's going to piss off
some Marxists!).
Germane to the question of Marxism's relevance is the matter of
the class struggle. How will Marxism influence the class
struggle? In its many misguided currents Marxism has shown
a capacity for regimentation and inflexible hierarchical
structure in organization. Its proselytizing technique
(characteristic of evangelicals) and mastery of propagandist
methods will produce legions of converts to carry forward their
crusade as they surge into prominence on the upsurge of the
tidal wave of the struggles to come. The sectarian nature
of their program will, however, prove their undoing. The
Marxists are going to destroy each other over difference in
"political line."
We saw the prologue to their
demise in Stalin's purges, in the blood orgy of the Khmer Rouge
and in my favorite Caribbean farce, the Grenadian
“revolution” (where, it must be remembered, Bernard Coard
initiated a coup detat that cost the life of his (former) friend
and comrade, Maurice Bishop). The destiny of the Marxist
dogmatists is sealed in pathetic dog-eat-dog self-destruction.
In terms of the class struggle, the Marxist will have a costly,
diversionary and destructive influence. They will give in the
future what they have given in the past, blood and mayhem.
Yet the class struggle will go on. The workers will wade through
the sectarian bullshit to the essential kernel of Marx's
theoretical insights thereby equipping themselves with the tools
to fully, and unconditionally, liberate themselves. The
proletarian revolution is a social act not the sectarian
practice of a bunch of self-possessed and misguided morons. So,
when I am asked if Marxism is irrelevant, I answer unequivocally
in the affirmative. Marxism is irrelevant to the final
outcome of the class struggle. It is not the working class
movement and it is not the embodiment of the consciousness of
the proletariat.
Marx's work, however, is indispensable. I hope the distinction
is clear.
Black people hold an old peeve that Marxism-Leninism never
effectively dealt with the question of racism. There are many
instances, they say, particularly in the United States, where
the Communist Party, Trotskyites, and Stalinist organizations
have insisted on putting the class struggle before the struggle
against racism. They are absolutely right. The
Marxist-Leninist have never effectively dealt with the question
of racism. And they have steadfastly insisted on putting the
class struggle ahead of the struggle against racism.
Well, here's the deal. Racism divides workers. Marxists perceive
that the immediate concern in the struggle against capital is to
get workers to unite. It is hard to argue with this imperative.
You would think, therefore, that they would want to struggle
against this source of division to heal the breach within the
ranks of the proletariat in the effort to unite them against
capital. The Marxist strategy instead allowed this breach to
fester. This is totally inconsistent with the stated
objective (unity in the ranks of the proletariat). They are
either imbeciles or they had an ulterior motive.
We have to give unto Cesar what is Cesar's. Racism had tactical
significance for 15 years after the Bolshevik revolution. The
Soviet Union needed the support of Black people to survive.
(Remember how they feted Claude McKay and George Padmore, etc.).
So Stalin gave practical support to the struggles of Black
people until the rise of Hitler and the Nazi regime.
Subsequently, under the threat of a militarized Germany, he
bartered away his support for the anti-colonialist struggle, and
for so-called African self-determination in the USA, to the
colonial powers for support against the Nazi threat. This
abandonment of the "racial struggle" was, at that time
at least, perceived as a purely tactical consideration.
The racist dogmatists who populated the Marxists parties,
however, codified it as part of the Marxist-Leninist script for
the duration of the cold war.
Black people have to own up to a few things in this matter
though. Racism was put on the back burner of the socialist
agenda here in the USA principally because Black people have
always been an insignificant element in the ranks of left wing
parties. They could not force an anti-racist mandate in
these rigidly centralist and racist organizations in such small
numbers as they occupied the ranks. When Black people become the
backbone of workers' organizations, or, better still, form their
own workers' organizations they can place the anti-racist
struggle at the top of the agenda, if they so desire.
It must be said that Black communists have always spoken against
the racist attitudes of their white comrades and against the
institution of racism in the wider society. They have done
so valiantly at every juncture in history. If their efforts have
not been noticed it is because there has been so few of them.
(You know how we say it: Hard enough to be black, don't need to
be red. Can't blame a brother for that.)
Having said all of the preceding, I must go on to say that the
"racial struggle" is essentially diversionary.
Struggling against racism is like struggling against Willie
Lynch's ghost. It is a total waste of time. Once black
people wake up to the true cause of their condition, and begin
to LEAD the fight against capital, the race question will be
solved. The race question is intricately tied up with the unique
socio-economic condition of Black people in America, which
condition places them at the bottom of the proverbial barrel.
Racism cannot survive the upheaval of a revolution made from the
bottom up because, as we know, this implies the most radical and
comprehensive transformation of social relations.
There is another dimension to this peevish charge. Addressing
the "question of racism" implies a scientific
theoretic investigation into the social, historical, and
economic essence of the phenomenon that is racism. The
Marxists (most varieties) failed to render a thoroughgoing
critique of racism and they still find themselves subscribing to
the metaphoric and mythological notions characteristic of
conventional wisdom in their attempts to deal with the subject.
An essay, "Critique of The Black Nation Thesis,"
written by a group called Racism Research Project,
self-identified as "Marxist," both accuses and redeems
the Marxist from this failure. The essay, available on the
Internet at www.marx2mao.org/Other/CBNT75.html,
through the most incisive argumentation demolishes the
aforementioned thesis and deliver a stunning critique of racism.
This essay uncovers the essence of the matter in declaring that
"racial formation is a forceful
dispossession-disinheritance imposed on a segment of the
population for the purpose of rationalizing the systematic
denial of certain benefits of social development."
It goes on further (in a footnote) to make the critical
observation that "the overthrow of racism will involve the
abolition of racial categories by denying them of their
socio-economic base." The struggle against racism is
identical to the struggle against capitalist subjugation.
The insistence on putting the "class struggle ahead of the
struggle against racism" is a rank misconception. The
notion that these are distinctive struggles, and that there is a
need to assign priority, derives from the failure to render the
problem to thoroughgoing critical analysis. There is
absolutely no basis for differentiation. The struggle is one.
There is a popular notion that holds that the industrial
proletariat has diminished in numbers and strength. This
notion is fed by a deep-seated despair that has taken hold of
workers worldwide. The fear is that if the industrial
proletariat has diminished and continues to diminish then the
vision of an impending clash between workers and capitalist is a
losing proposition for the proletariat. This scenario is
not the apocalypse that it is made out to be.
Contrary to such intimations the "post-industrial"
proletariat has not diminished in numbers. Proletarians have
increased phenomenally. Their numbers have increased in the
service trades across the globe. Moreover, globalization and its
handmaiden, the WTO, have displaced the rural peasantry in
Africa, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. Where once
there was an overworked peasantry there is now a hungry and idle
proletariat. This proletariat is only momentarily powerless. A
change is in the offing.
Here is how you can recognize the signs. In the USA
"white collar jobs" are taking flight diffusing across
the border in the trail of the millions of blue-collar jobs that
had gone before. An interesting dynamic emerges. Political labor
has its interest tied up with keeping jobs at home. Capital,
driven by the profit motive, has its interest tied up with the
incessant search for cheaper labor. This is an unhealthy
tension in the labor-political union. Workers worldwide are
beginning to understand that their interest is best served by
gaining the same kind of mobility which capital has secured for
itself. As soon as American workers begin to chase the jobs that
are leaving America for foreign countries and immigration
barriers in these countries become an impediment to
"American interest" the changes will come. Big labor
(the corrupt unions) is going to see to it.
Commentators have bemoaned the decline in worker militancy.
They point to the fact that in the service industry, the fastest
growing employer of American labor, there is an absence of
organizational structure and leadership. The service
sector is still very much a cottage industry. They are low value
added and low wage operations. The labor force in this sector is
transient, comprised of workers who are basically stopping over
on their way through college, or, who are simply biding their
time until they can find better jobs. The commentators offer a
bleak prognosis; the promised battle between labor and capital
is not in the offing. Well good, for, there is much work to be
done.
The commentators contrast these workers to the
telecommunications workers who enjoy much more stable long-term
arrangements. Their highly skilled in-demand-labor affords them
leverage to press their demands against management. They are
militant but it is also said that they show no sense of class
solidarity. The reason, of course, is that their bread is
buttered and they are happy. This is not cause for despair.
The commentators see greater gloom when they look at the workers
in the computer industry. It is said that among these
workers there reigns all kind of petit bourgeoisie tendencies,
reactionary, as well as progressive trends. This is the
petit-bourgeois-worker manifesting vacillating tendencies,
reflecting in thoughts and actions the condition of his being.
The computer industry is in a state of volatility -- one day a
worker the next a petty capitalist. This sort of situation
breeds schizophrenic tendencies. People don't know what side
they are standing on, so they have to act accordingly. This is
really nothing to fear.
There is light, however, at the end of the tunnel.
Concentration in the service trade as capital goes in search of
profit will bring in its train larger groups of workers and the
concomitant worker organizations and leadership. Competition
from outside the country will drive the telecommunications
workers to solidarity with other workers on a national scale.
And there is even now a sorting out of the roles in the computer
industry. That was part of what the dot-com bust was about.
The capitalist and workers are finding their respective roles.
Working class apathy finds its reflection in the totally corrupt
and at times outright reactionary trade unions. The unions have
declined into dues collecting machines and are collectively the
appendage of a political party. In essence, therefore, the
working class in the USA is completely bereft of organizational
representation. There is no working class agenda just
political expediency, graft, and compromise between big business
and union management.
This co-optation of the workers traditional organ of struggle
sets in train a continuous process of erosion of the safeguards
against inhuman conditions of labor. As the labor
conditions deteriorate and regresses to a state comparable to
19th century Europe the radical tendencies of that age may well
re-emerge. Naked persecution invariably provokes intense
resistance. Where the unions are absent, or, negotiation
precluded, rebellion is the proven alternative. One way or
another the struggle goes on.
It is often lamented that there exists no national black working
class organization with real anti-capitalist agenda and that
there is a widening gap between the black middle and working
classes. The widening gap between the black middle and working
classes reflects the worldwide trend of differentiation between
the "haves and the have-nots." A national working
class organization can hardly be far off. The
anti-capitalist agenda is unavoidable. It is a global historical
imperative. There is no alternative
More than at any other time in history, capital is now
identifiable as the scourge of society. The communist
boogieman is gone and "terrorism" is not living up to
expectations as an enemy of "democracy."
The rapacious nature of capital is laid bare in the draconian
structural adjustment programs of the IMF and World Bank that
have been foisted on people all over the world. And now that the
repressive and militaristic reflexes of capital have kicked in,
and murder for profit has commenced in full view of the world,
the workers' reflexes, which drives them to mass organization,
is kicking in. The worldwide anti-war protest is indicative of
this. The tide is rising. The question is, is Black
people ready to LEAD? * * * *
*
posted 10 December 2007 |
