Re: [Marxism] Communists and black liberation
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I'm pretty sure I have been open and honest about the fact that Stalin was awful but that he pulled a clever ruse on a large number of foreign Leftists for a few decades. I don't know how one could read my statements as anything but that and I frankly don't have any patience for this type of liberalism masked by revolutionary verbiage. It is worth noting that, although Malcolm X said the CP was being divisive, his ideas and thinking were based in Frantz Fanon, who in turn was informed by Marxism-Leninism. The contradiction between what was said of and by Stalin and his actions in Russia in reality is a tragedy of epic proportions. You obviously don't care about that. Best regards, Andrew Stewart > On Feb 21, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Joseph Green wrote: > > Andrew Stewart wrote: >> My latest piece on the history of the Old Left and African Americans. >> >> http://www.rifuture.org/have-a-radical-black-history-month-communism-and-black-liberation.html >> >> Best regards, >> Andrew Stewart > > It's unfortunate that Stewart's article poses as a defense of Stalin, as he > ended up as the butcher of nationalities in the Soviet Union. He presided > over the reversal of the Leninist policy towards nationalities, and his > regime carried out the bloody mass deportation of entire small nationalities. > These stands were based on his presiding over the dying out of the Russian > revolution; under Stalin, the Soviet Union became the land of a new, > oppressive state-capitalist system with a new bourgeoisie. > > But Stewart's article also raises the issue of the history of the CPUSA's > work against the oppression of the black masses. The pluses and minuses of > the CPUSA's work against racism at the time when it was still a revolutionary > party are important to consider. At the that time, it defended the interests > of the black people in a way different from that of all other left trends in > the general movement. "On the history of the CPUSA and the CI on the black > national question in the U.S." goes into some of this history. > > I list the subheads below, and the full article can be found at > http://www.communistvoice.org/WAS8511CPUSA-BNQ.html > > On the history of > the CPUSA and the CI on > the Right to Self-Determination > > (From the Workers' Advocate Supplement, vol. 1, #9, Nov. 15, 1985) > > Subheads: > > Introduction: > -The CPUSA Has Become a Corrupt Party Defending the Liberal Bourgeoisie > -The Neo-Revisionists and National Fetishism > -Learn from the History of the Communist Movement > > On the history of the CPUSA and the CI on the black national question > in the U.S. > (Based on a Speech at the 2nd National Conference of the MLP,USA) > > -The First Years of the CPUSA > -The Emergence of the CPUSA > -The IWW -- The Industrial Workers of the World > -The Trade Union Education League > -The African Blood Brotherhood > -Backward Features of the Left Wing of the Socialist Party > -Overcoming Social-Democratic Carry-Overs > -The CP, However, Didn't Yet Grasp the Revolutionary Role of the Black > People's Movement > -The 6th Congress of the Communist International on the Black National > Question > -The 1928 Resolution of the CI on the Negro Question in the U. S. > -The Work of the CPUSA Moves Forward > -The 1928 Resolution Found Fertile Ground in the CPUSA > -Resistance to the CI's Analysis of the Black National Question > -The Debate Leading up to the 1930 CI Resolution > -The 1930 Resolution of the CI > -Apparently a Scheme for a Secessionist Revolt > -Limits on the National Fetishism in the 1930 Resolution > -Rapid Growth of the CP's Influence Among the Black Masses > -Liquidationism and the Black National Question > -National Fetishism Helps Sidetrack the Repudiation of Browderism > -Nation-Building and Anti-Assimilationism Versus Leninism > -Omitting the Question of the Revolution > -The Neo-Revisionists Champion National Fetishism > -Oppose National Fetishism While Carrying Forward the Struggle Against Racism > and National Oppression! > [Notes -- July 2008] > -On the Workers' Advocate Supplement > -On Stalin > _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Communists and Black Liberation
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * We have to look at the CP dialectically. There was a whole other side to the CP at the grass-roots level that we can characterize as dynamic, militant and successful. People like Maurice Isserman and Mark Naison, part of a new generation of historians, have begun to focus on this aspect of CP history. Studying the writings of historians such as these is very important to those of us who are trying to construct a new socialist movement in the United States. More can be learned from their writings about how socialists can reach the masses than all of the literature generated by American Trotskyism. In an essay "Remaking America: Communists and Liberals in the Popular Front", Naison discusses how the CP made the decision to implement the Popular Front in a very aggressive manner. Browder and the American Communists made a big effort to stop speaking in "Marxist-Leninese" and discovered many novel ways to reach the American people. They concentrated in two important areas: building the CIO and fighting racism. There is an abundance of information about its union activities, but new research is bringing out important facts about its links to the Black community. A "Saturday Evening Post" writer observed in 1938 that CP headquarters "is a place where every Negro with a grievance can be sure of prompt action. If he has been fired, the Communists can be counted on to picket his employer. If he has been evicted, the Communists will guard his furniture and take his case to court. If his gas has been cut off, the Communists will take his complaint, but not his unpaid bill to the nearest office... There is never a labor parade, nor a mass meeting of any significance in the colored community in which Communists do not get their banner in the front row and their speakers on the platform." On the cultural front, the CP dropped its traditional rigidity in the most amazing fashion. In 1936, for example, the "Daily Worker" actually polled its readers to see if they wanted a regular sports page. When they voted in favor six to one, the paper hired Lester Rodney, who was not even a party member. Rodney, largely on his own initiative, opened up a campaign to integrate major league baseball. John Hammond, a friend of the CP, put together a series of Carnegie Hall concerts that brought the best jazz talent together in an interracial setting. The success of these concerts inspired Hammond to such an extent that he started a nightclub called Cafe Society that also invited a racially mixed audience. On opening night, Teddy Wilson, Billie Holiday and the comedian Jack Gilford performed. The party also spawned a new folk music culture. On the west coast, Woody Guthrie offered his services to California farm workers organizing under party auspices. Eventually Guthrie wrote a column in the west coast CP daily newspaper. On the east coast, the party drew the black folksinger Huddie Ledbetter (Leadbelly) close to its ranks. He was a fixture at parties and meetings. Eventually Leadbelly made a disciple of a 21 year old journalist-musician by the name of Pete Seeger. Naison observes, "Guthrie, Ledbetter and Seeger, employing rhythms and harmonies harking back to 16th century England and Africa, but writing of contemporary themes, created music that both sentimentalized and affirmed the populist aspirations of US radicals, enabling them to feel part of the country they were trying to change." full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization/lenin_in_context.htm _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Communists and Black Liberation
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * This review published in Socialist Worker (Canada). ken h Left of Karl Marx: the Political Life of Black Communist Claudia Jones, http://www.socialist.ca/node/3018 _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Communists and black liberation
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Andrew Stewart wrote: > My latest piece on the history of the Old Left and African Americans. > > http://www.rifuture.org/have-a-radical-black-history-month-communism-and-black-liberation.html > > Best regards, > Andrew Stewart It's unfortunate that Stewart's article poses as a defense of Stalin, as he ended up as the butcher of nationalities in the Soviet Union. He presided over the reversal of the Leninist policy towards nationalities, and his regime carried out the bloody mass deportation of entire small nationalities. These stands were based on his presiding over the dying out of the Russian revolution; under Stalin, the Soviet Union became the land of a new, oppressive state-capitalist system with a new bourgeoisie. But Stewart's article also raises the issue of the history of the CPUSA's work against the oppression of the black masses. The pluses and minuses of the CPUSA's work against racism at the time when it was still a revolutionary party are important to consider. At the that time, it defended the interests of the black people in a way different from that of all other left trends in the general movement. "On the history of the CPUSA and the CI on the black national question in the U.S." goes into some of this history. I list the subheads below, and the full article can be found at http://www.communistvoice.org/WAS8511CPUSA-BNQ.html On the history of the CPUSA and the CI on the Right to Self-Determination (From the Workers' Advocate Supplement, vol. 1, #9, Nov. 15, 1985) Subheads: Introduction: -The CPUSA Has Become a Corrupt Party Defending the Liberal Bourgeoisie -The Neo-Revisionists and National Fetishism -Learn from the History of the Communist Movement On the history of the CPUSA and the CI on the black national question in the U.S. (Based on a Speech at the 2nd National Conference of the MLP,USA) -The First Years of the CPUSA -The Emergence of the CPUSA -The IWW -- The Industrial Workers of the World -The Trade Union Education League -The African Blood Brotherhood -Backward Features of the Left Wing of the Socialist Party -Overcoming Social-Democratic Carry-Overs -The CP, However, Didn't Yet Grasp the Revolutionary Role of the Black People's Movement -The 6th Congress of the Communist International on the Black National Question -The 1928 Resolution of the CI on the Negro Question in the U. S. -The Work of the CPUSA Moves Forward -The 1928 Resolution Found Fertile Ground in the CPUSA -Resistance to the CI's Analysis of the Black National Question -The Debate Leading up to the 1930 CI Resolution -The 1930 Resolution of the CI -Apparently a Scheme for a Secessionist Revolt -Limits on the National Fetishism in the 1930 Resolution -Rapid Growth of the CP's Influence Among the Black Masses -Liquidationism and the Black National Question -National Fetishism Helps Sidetrack the Repudiation of Browderism -Nation-Building and Anti-Assimilationism Versus Leninism -Omitting the Question of the Revolution -The Neo-Revisionists Champion National Fetishism -Oppose National Fetishism While Carrying Forward the Struggle Against Racism and National Oppression! [Notes -- July 2008] -On the Workers' Advocate Supplement -On Stalin _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Communists and black liberation
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Again, Gerald Horne, a tenured professor that writes about black history and labor history has said something quite different from what you have. I advise you to take it up with him and do some actual scholarship. Best regards, Andrew Stewart > On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:22 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > >> On 2/20/16 4:17 PM, hasc.warrior.s...@gmail.com wrote: >> If that is the case, my discussion and research on the topic with >> Gerald Horne and several others who are involved in the scholarship >> indicated that theoretical nuances is far different than how the >> public reaction in America developed. > > This is the Marxism list. If you don't want to be criticized, don't post > links to articles that make the case for Stalin. I know that this might sound > like ancient history but I was educated in Marxism by Trotsky's bodyguard Joe > Hansen. > > Stalin's movement was based on bureaucratic fiat. The Black Belt theory > developed during the Third Period, an ultraleft disaster of biblical > proportions. In the USA it was hardly a factor in the CP's impact on American > society but in Germany it helped to lead to the rise of Nazism. > > We are still paying for the CP's mistakes. There was a basis for a working > class party in the 1930s but the CP sabotaged it because it saw the DP as a > useful ally in the popular front (until Hitler made a pact with Stalin.) What > did it mean for the CP to function effectively as the left wing of the DP > when this was essentially the party that defended slavery and Jim Crow and > whose Dixiecrat wing was never challenged by FDR? A *racist* party that the > Daily Worker extolled? > > From an interview with Ira Katzelson on his book "Fear Itself", a debunking > of New Deal myths: > > Q: Your book is very moving on what you call the “southern cage” and FDR and > the Democratic Party’s Faustian bargain with southern Democrats -- to > preserve white supremacy and segregation laws in order to pass New Deal > legislation. I think the level of racism and oppression in the south may stun > some younger readers. > > A: We might begin by recalling that in the 1930s and 1940s -- before the 1954 > Brown v. Board of Education decision -- we had seventeen states in the Union, > not just the eleven that seceded during the Civil War, but seventeen states > that mandated racial segregation. Not one representative from those states, > ranging from the most racist like Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, to the most > liberal and not racist like Claude Pepper of Florida, ever opposed racial > segregation in this period. So you had seventeen states, thirty-four United > States senators and a disproportionately large House of Representatives > delegation because seats are apportioned on the basis of population not > voters, and this was a period when the South had a very low turnout, low > franchise electorate. > > There were rules like the poll tax and literacy tests to keeps black from > voting, and those rules also kept many whites out of the electorate. So you > had a small electorate, a one-party system and therefore great seniority for > Southern members of Congress with control over key committees and legislative > positions of leadership -- that is, disproportionate power. > > And the Democratic Party in this period -- the agent of the New Deal in > Congress -- was composed of a strange-bedfellows alliance of a Northern, > principally immigrant, Catholic and Jewish, big-city, labor-oriented > political base, together with a Southern, largely non-immigrant, non-urban, > mostly Protestant, rural base. They could not have been more different in > those respects, yet together they composed the Democratic Party. To secure > party majorities for New Deal legislation, it was necessary to keep the two > wings together, which meant that the south had a veto over all New Deal > legislation. > > After 1938, the Southerners composed a majority of the Democrats in Congress > because Republicans began to make a comeback as they won Democratic seats in > the North. But [the Republicans] did not win Democratic seats in the South. > In 1940, every U.S. senator from the South was a Democrat just at the moment > when the Republicans had begun to make a comeback in the House and in Senate > seats outside the South. The consequence was that, in the 1940s, it wasn’t > just that Southern members of Congress could say no to what they didn’t like. > They actually were the authors of the preferences that shaped every single > legislative outcome in the 1940s. > > Nothing could be passed into law against the wishes of the Southern members > o
Re: [Marxism] Communists and black liberation
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * On 2/20/16 4:17 PM, hasc.warrior.s...@gmail.com wrote: If that is the case, my discussion and research on the topic with Gerald Horne and several others who are involved in the scholarship indicated that theoretical nuances is far different than how the public reaction in America developed. This is the Marxism list. If you don't want to be criticized, don't post links to articles that make the case for Stalin. I know that this might sound like ancient history but I was educated in Marxism by Trotsky's bodyguard Joe Hansen. Stalin's movement was based on bureaucratic fiat. The Black Belt theory developed during the Third Period, an ultraleft disaster of biblical proportions. In the USA it was hardly a factor in the CP's impact on American society but in Germany it helped to lead to the rise of Nazism. We are still paying for the CP's mistakes. There was a basis for a working class party in the 1930s but the CP sabotaged it because it saw the DP as a useful ally in the popular front (until Hitler made a pact with Stalin.) What did it mean for the CP to function effectively as the left wing of the DP when this was essentially the party that defended slavery and Jim Crow and whose Dixiecrat wing was never challenged by FDR? A *racist* party that the Daily Worker extolled? From an interview with Ira Katzelson on his book "Fear Itself", a debunking of New Deal myths: Q: Your book is very moving on what you call the “southern cage” and FDR and the Democratic Party’s Faustian bargain with southern Democrats -- to preserve white supremacy and segregation laws in order to pass New Deal legislation. I think the level of racism and oppression in the south may stun some younger readers. A: We might begin by recalling that in the 1930s and 1940s -- before the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision -- we had seventeen states in the Union, not just the eleven that seceded during the Civil War, but seventeen states that mandated racial segregation. Not one representative from those states, ranging from the most racist like Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, to the most liberal and not racist like Claude Pepper of Florida, ever opposed racial segregation in this period. So you had seventeen states, thirty-four United States senators and a disproportionately large House of Representatives delegation because seats are apportioned on the basis of population not voters, and this was a period when the South had a very low turnout, low franchise electorate. There were rules like the poll tax and literacy tests to keeps black from voting, and those rules also kept many whites out of the electorate. So you had a small electorate, a one-party system and therefore great seniority for Southern members of Congress with control over key committees and legislative positions of leadership -- that is, disproportionate power. And the Democratic Party in this period -- the agent of the New Deal in Congress -- was composed of a strange-bedfellows alliance of a Northern, principally immigrant, Catholic and Jewish, big-city, labor-oriented political base, together with a Southern, largely non-immigrant, non-urban, mostly Protestant, rural base. They could not have been more different in those respects, yet together they composed the Democratic Party. To secure party majorities for New Deal legislation, it was necessary to keep the two wings together, which meant that the south had a veto over all New Deal legislation. After 1938, the Southerners composed a majority of the Democrats in Congress because Republicans began to make a comeback as they won Democratic seats in the North. But [the Republicans] did not win Democratic seats in the South. In 1940, every U.S. senator from the South was a Democrat just at the moment when the Republicans had begun to make a comeback in the House and in Senate seats outside the South. The consequence was that, in the 1940s, it wasn’t just that Southern members of Congress could say no to what they didn’t like. They actually were the authors of the preferences that shaped every single legislative outcome in the 1940s. Nothing could be passed into law against the wishes of the Southern members of Congress. And most things that passed into law, especially after 1938 and 1940, matched almost precisely the preferences of the Southern wing of the Democratic Party in Congress. - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151867 _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40ma
Re: [Marxism] Communists and black liberation
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * If that is the case, my discussion and research on the topic with Gerald Horne and several others who are involved in the scholarship indicated that theoretical nuances is far different than how the public reaction in America developed. You are being tremendously combative and condescending here and I don't think that is necessary, especially considering that as a film scholar I have seen massive gaps in your criticism but don't exactly make a spectacle of it. Best regards, Andrew Stewart > On Feb 20, 2016, at 3:55 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > >> On 2/20/16 3:12 PM, Andrew Stewart via Marxism wrote: >> My latest piece on the history of the Old Left and African Americans. >> >> http://www.rifuture.org/have-a-radical-black-history-month-communism-and-black-liberation.html >> >> Best regards, >> Andrew Stewart > > Andrew, Stalin's understanding of the national question was highly > problematic as Jim Blaut pointed out in an article: > > http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/021.html > >Stalin put forward a fully diffusionist theory of nationalism in 1913; > ironically, his point of departure was Lenin's earlier views, before Lenin > had analyzed the dynamics of colonialism and imperialism. > >Stalin's 1913 essay, “Marxism and the National Question,” has had immense > influence on Marxism down to the present, mostly because its basic thrust is > to argue that nationalism is essentially a bourgeois phenomeno and national > movements are not, in most cases, progressive and they will not, in general, > succeed in forming new states, an argument that has almost always been used > by those Marxists who reject nationalism in general or oppose some particular > national movement (see Blaut 1987). Stalin's theory starts with the axiom > that national movements are simply an aspect of the rise of capitalism; they > are progressive only when capitalism is commencing its rise in a particular > region; they are not progressive—— are either frivolous or reactionary—in all > other circumstances. Capitalism has now fully risen, says Stalin; therefore > national movements are not progressive, although (putting forward the > Bolshevik position) the right of peoples to struggle for independence must be > recognized. This is pure Euro- Marxism. It sees capitalism as a wave > diffusion spreading out from Western Europe across the world's landscapes, > and nationalism as nothing more than a part of that diffusion;hence > as”bourgeois national- ism.” > > --- > > That does not get into the question of why so many Blacks ended up hating the > CPUSA, which involved its practice. When A. Philip Randolph began organizing > a March on Washington in 1941 to protest the KKK and demand desegregation in > the army, the CPUSA denounced him as undermining the war effort. > > The CPUSA did a lot of good things in the 1930s and 40s to fight racism but > given its bureaucratic methods and its subservience to the Kremlin, it was a > poor substitute for the kind of organizing that was necessary. > > When Malcolm X began building a Black nationalist movement in the 1960s, he > was denounced by the CPUSA for being "divisive", which was the strange > inverse of its "Black Belt" program. In the 1920s, they pushed for it despite > the lack of a mass movement for it and when Blacks began pushing for Black > control of the Black community in the mid-60s, they opposed it. > > When you keep making big mistakes like this, you lose credibility. That is > among the reasons the CP is falling apart like all other Leninist sects. > > > _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Communists and black liberation
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * On 2/20/16 3:12 PM, Andrew Stewart via Marxism wrote: My latest piece on the history of the Old Left and African Americans. http://www.rifuture.org/have-a-radical-black-history-month-communism-and-black-liberation.html Best regards, Andrew Stewart Andrew, Stalin's understanding of the national question was highly problematic as Jim Blaut pointed out in an article: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/021.html Stalin put forward a fully diffusionist theory of nationalism in 1913; ironically, his point of departure was Lenin's earlier views, before Lenin had analyzed the dynamics of colonialism and imperialism. Stalin's 1913 essay, “Marxism and the National Question,” has had immense influence on Marxism down to the present, mostly because its basic thrust is to argue that nationalism is essentially a bourgeois phenomeno and national movements are not, in most cases, progressive and they will not, in general, succeed in forming new states, an argument that has almost always been used by those Marxists who reject nationalism in general or oppose some particular national movement (see Blaut 1987). Stalin's theory starts with the axiom that national movements are simply an aspect of the rise of capitalism; they are progressive only when capitalism is commencing its rise in a particular region; they are not progressive—— are either frivolous or reactionary—in all other circumstances. Capitalism has now fully risen, says Stalin; therefore national movements are not progressive, although (putting forward the Bolshevik position) the right of peoples to struggle for independence must be recognized. This is pure Euro- Marxism. It sees capitalism as a wave diffusion spreading out from Western Europe across the world's landscapes, and nationalism as nothing more than a part of that diffusion;hence as”bourgeois national- ism.” --- That does not get into the question of why so many Blacks ended up hating the CPUSA, which involved its practice. When A. Philip Randolph began organizing a March on Washington in 1941 to protest the KKK and demand desegregation in the army, the CPUSA denounced him as undermining the war effort. The CPUSA did a lot of good things in the 1930s and 40s to fight racism but given its bureaucratic methods and its subservience to the Kremlin, it was a poor substitute for the kind of organizing that was necessary. When Malcolm X began building a Black nationalist movement in the 1960s, he was denounced by the CPUSA for being "divisive", which was the strange inverse of its "Black Belt" program. In the 1920s, they pushed for it despite the lack of a mass movement for it and when Blacks began pushing for Black control of the Black community in the mid-60s, they opposed it. When you keep making big mistakes like this, you lose credibility. That is among the reasons the CP is falling apart like all other Leninist sects. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Communists and black liberation
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * My latest piece on the history of the Old Left and African Americans. http://www.rifuture.org/have-a-radical-black-history-month-communism-and-black-liberation.html Best regards, Andrew Stewart _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
