In a message dated 1/19/2005 1:00:38 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Waistline: All classes of African Americans were in motion and the white sector of the industrial proletariat was passive.
Lil Joe: Where does this history come from? In reality in the 50s and 60s the American trade unions were very active winning economic gains, and also supporting the Civil Rights Movement which was represented by SCLC, SNCC, and the NAACP but opposed by the NOI and Malcolm X. Since 30% of Organized labor was Black it is self-contradictory to say the American labor movement was 'passive' as it was in the Civil Rights movement - especially the UAW. That is the reason DRUM/UAW emerged, which has to do more with proletarian praxis than the reactionary religious NOI preaching Black capitalism and abstention from Civil Rights struggles to destroy racial barriers. Comment The trade unions - especially the UAW, is not the "white sector of the industrial proletariat" (my exact words.) Further, Reuther opposed Civil Rights for a very long time and only shifted his position concerning Civil Rights within the union and outside the union as the result of immense pressure. He died opposing integrating the UAW in fact. The trade Unions and especially the UAW - for various political reasons, were pressured into supporting the Civil Rights Movement and after the 1967 Rebellion in Detroit was compelled by the polarity it created to changed it internal policy. Every one of course (who was actually involved in the events) remembers how Walter Reuther was placed at the head of the "March On Washington" alongside Dr. King. Malcolm X gave a very famous presentation - in Detroit, concerning this political development. From the early and mid 1950s the base of opposition to the UAW's white chauvinism and segregation of the union was based in the Negro Labor Council and Local 600 led by such giants as Nicolas Hood, Coleman Young Jr. and George Crockett Sr. After the House un-American Activity Committee basically destroyed the National Negro Labor Council with Coleman Young destroying its membership list, rather than submit (this famous and historical presentation is available on line by plugging in Coleman Young Jr.). The next organizational expression of the fight to desegregate the UAW - not the workplace, was the Trade Union Leadership Council (TULC). (This phase of history of the trade union movement is bound up with the white chauvinism and wrong orientation of the CPUSA and the SWP - and government attack and penetration, that allowed for the political vacuum of the time.) Reuther was of course a rank white chauvinists and the entrenched white chauvinism of the UAW, (along with the Steel Workers Union and most other unions in the American Union) was shattered on the rock of the 1967 Detroit Rebellion and an earlier run for City Council by an African American Minister supported by the remnants of the old NNLC. What actually took place was the UAW leaders were compelled to reverse policy and in 1968 allowed for the election of the first black local union president (in our area), Homer Jolly Sr. at Local 51. It just so happens that Local 51 is the Local Union I remain a member of after my retirement. The point is that individuals look at things different and we speak as individuals as opposed to "this is the Marxist position." It is not coincidental, but the confluence of various events that makes 1967 and 1968 the nexus of a series of events that would echo throughout America. You dishonesty on elemental question is striking. It would be more prudent for you to speak of events you can authenticate. First of all I do not speak of the American Labor Movement. You state "it is self-contradictory to say the American labor movement was 'passive' as it was in the Civil Rights movement - especially the UAW." I speak of the white sector of the industrial proletariat and not even the trade unions because this is a separate question, and each major union must be looked at in its concreteness. Further, however you define the American Labor Movement (your words and concept not mine), it has always been more than less passive, with momentary assertions from its industrial sector. There is a reason for this but that is not the point right now. Here is the basic problem. The Trade Union Movement is not the white sector of the industrial proletariat. The industrial proletariat is not the working class. The American Labor Movement seems to me to be a broader category than the working class, since in American history farm laborers and even the sharecropper would fall under the category of labor. The deeper question is that you have no experience to authenticate any of your statements, while on the other hand . . . I do. Therefore I shall write the history as I understand it as opposed to how you understand it since you were not there and offer zero source material. The Nation of Islam was of course founded in Detroit and lead for many years by the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, to whom all praises are due. Its membership has always been overwhelming proletariat and industrial proletariat in Detroit and the outlying areas. The separatism of the Nation express the two historical tendencies in the African American Liberation Movement. By this is not meant the social phenomena of African American organizations, which requires no validation or justification. The formation of the African American people is unique. Their consolidation was not based on common land or religion. Common land does not mean common geography, but rather the internal economic dynamic that have characterized the formation of nations and people during the transition from landed property to bourgeois property relations. The force that formed the African Americans into a people (and a section of Marxism disputes the peopleness of the African American people, although the African American views their peopleness as a validity requiring no explanation) has always been the legal and estra-legal pressure of the whites. Consequently there could only be two tactics in the fight. One was to separate into a political and or economic entity, and as a group seek equality with white America. Their physical dispersal throughout America prevented this, as well as the terror of the whites. Yet, segregation - which originated in the North as a by product of the freeing of roughly 30,000 slaves, meant a certain isolation and sperate development. Here is why David Walker and "Walkers Appeal" erupted into history as the document that polarized and galvanized the anti-slavery movement in the early 1800s. Walkers Appeal predates the First International by many years - was not the International founded September 28, 1864? Walker was dead then. In as much as we are talking about what you call the "Black Movement" (your words) and I am speaking of the African American Liberation Movement and the evolution of the African American as a people, I would trace this labor movement aspect from the Coloured National Labor Union (1870s) with its affiliates in 23 states and its association with the First International. Nothing wrong with different individuals with different experiences and histories and legacies seeing their direct experience and history different. I view American history different - obviously. Therefore, I authenticate my experience by stating the framework of my activity for the period involved. This means speaking in the first person tense so as not to confuse anyone. I speak of two distinct by converging lines of development in the evolution and emergence of the African American people as a historically distinct people. - North and South. The other tactic was to fight to integrate through desegregation and equality. The natural and consistently expressed drive of the African Americans has been to become equal members of American society. There has always been bitter struggle over tactics but there has never been serious struggle over goals. The Nation of Islam's reluctance to enter politics is mirrored in the refusal of the vast majority of African Americans - indeed, the entire American peoples, to enter political as such. I have no opinion on this one way or another. Nevertheless the defeat of segregation did alter the political equation and the political juncture in the evolution of the African American Liberation Movement is considered the curve that is Birmingham 1963 and then Watts 1965 and finally the political manifestation that is Detroit 1967. I personally find nothing particularly offense in the Nation of Islam official Theology or that of the King James Version of the Bible. Their rhetoric of the "white man as the devil" struck a deep cord within the black masses because they had been treated in a manner that is most certainly the handiwork of the devil and evil beyond comprehension. In fact I use to enjoy their cartons by brother John 2X, if memory serves we correct. In terms of my description of "Black Radio," I mean what it has always mean and expressed in American history. I of course seek no ones approval or validation for my use of concepts authenticated in the history of the African American people. It does not matter what you think "Black Radio" means in connection with Claud Anderson. You state: >That was the only 'revolutionary' statement Malcolm X ever made). Malcolm's advocacy was not 'class war' but race war: "Black Revolution."< I understand this to mean that Malcolm X advocated race war or a conflict between Anglo Americans and African Americans. May I suggest you check out http://www.brothermalcolm.net/ and authenticate your statement that Malcolm X advocated "race war" - your exact words. Here are his recording and writings. Who but an aggressor and chauvinists would imply that a group advocating armed resistance against an armed force is advocating race war? Now the events of 1967 and 1968 Detroit was not enough to break the deeply engrained white chauvinism of the UAW. Another series of events collided. The death of Walter Reuther in an airplane crash on his way to the union resort - Black Lake, and the political polarity in the police force - the emergence of the Black Guardians, and the electoral and government structures were coming to a head. Much of this is written about in "Detroit, I Do Mind Dying" - which I spoke of earlier. The election of Coleman Young Jr. brought things to a head and spilt the UAW, when the leading trade union leaders refused to support Young and instead endorsed Mel Ravitz. This was fought out within the CAP (Community Action Program) involving millions of dollars and command of a political apparatus. The black trade unionist in the main opposed the union's endorsement and then all hell broke out. In this climate Nelson Jack Edward became the first black executive board member only later to be assassinated. Much of this has been repeated written about and should not one give themselves the opportunity to check out the facts? Puffing oneself up and shouting class struggle from the roof top and teaching the workers means very little. Your assessment of African American Liberation and what the black masses and their leaders need to do is understood. Why not try and tell this to them and win them over to your ideas? I am sure they are eager to hear your ranks about who is a reactionary Christian and what they need to do to carry out the class struggle. I prefer to stay on solid and safe ground and speak of things that can be authenticated. As for the activity of Stan Goff and my comments on his presentation of self determination, you need not worry yourself. Waistline. PS. You did lie about Nelson Peery being a founding member of the old League of Revolutionary Black Workers and need to withdraw that statement. Why do you lie? Do you also withdraw the characterization concerning the "reactionary Christian . . ." ? Do you dispute that I have accurately spoke of the UAW in the time frame of the late 1950s to the election of Coleman Young Jr? For the record one can consult the official proceeding of the UAW Constitutional Convention - Second, and actually read what Reuther stated concerning blacks. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
