From all that has thus far been said it should be quite evident that there has been a profound underestimation of the strength of white chauvinism within the PWOC. For in practice white PWOC members have acted as if ones commitment to Marxism-Leninism and to “class unity” is a sufficient basis to assume that racist errors and weaknesses are unlikely to exist, except perhaps with a few exceptions. This mentality utterly fails to grasp the depths of racism in our society and the constant influence this ideology exerts on our class and members of our organization, and most of all its leads to flabbiness and complacency in the struggle against racism.
The roots of this underestimation of white chauvinism are two-sided. First it is based in white chauvinism itself, for many of our cadre have themselves been blind to many of the racist errors that are being committed by their comrades. But what has also allowed racist weaknesses to go unchecked is a deeply ingrained liberalism, a liberalism that is particularly acute with respect to white chauvinism, as well as a marked tendency toward defensiveness when racist errors are identified and taken up.
On countless occasions PWOC members have been exposed to racist errors, errors they are conscious of as such. Yet all too often their only response is to whince, become red-faced, try to forget what they just heard, explain it away or by some other subtrefuge turn away from their responsibilities as communists. And if, heavens forbid, they can bring themselves to raising a criticism, they are usually extremely polite, careful in their choice of words, quite apologetic, and quick to accept even the most flimsy, half-hearted self-critical response.
One of the gravest weaknesses of our DC during this past period has been its liberalism in the struggle against racism. Last Spring DC members made some serious racist errors in connection with our response to the racist violence in SW Philadelphia. These errors were quickly pointed out by EC comrades living in that neighborhood, and were then raised within the DC. Fairly early on a number of DC members were won to a recognition of the racism that underlay the DC response. Yet it took literally months before the DC as a whole was consolidated on the errors it had committed. And one of the chief reasons for the protracted character of this struggle was the impact of liberalism and defensiveness in the DC discussions.
The struggle against racism in the DC was carried through by means of the “wet noodle” approach to ideological struggle. Through every manner and means DC members would couch their criticisms in the most diplomatic possible forms, mitigating circumstances would be identified, the seriousness of the errors would be underplayed, their impact diluted. Every conceivable measure would be employed to shield the comrades most responsible from sharp ideological struggle and criticism.
On the other side there arose an extreme defensiveness, particularly on the part of Comrade Ad. At first Ad. felt that everything was being blown all out of proportion to its significance. After all she had only made a passing reference to a possible course of action, and even though it may have been incorrect, it didn’t mean that much anyway. Soon after she reasoned this whole to-do was a result of the subjectivism of our comrades in the SW. Then as the criticisms were being written up and demands made to develop them further Ad felt as if her DC comrades were knit-picking or trying to discredit her. Here we have a profound defensiveness on the basis of subjectivism and white chauvinism, and an unwillingness to accept responsibility for ones ideas and the consciousness that they reflect.
The effects of liberalism and defensiveness within the DC were manifold, superficial rather than real unity would be the limitations of the discussions, numerous drafts of the self-criticism had to be written, endless time consuming discussion had to take place, and most importantly the ideological understanding required to prevent the DC from committing future errors of the same type was made extremely difficult to achieve.
In the auto cell we can see another example of the debilitating effects of liberalism in the struggle against racism. Over a year ago criticisms were raised of the auto cell for paternalism and overt racism in its handling of the WHLP speech made by Comrade D. Yet it wasn’t until recently that the cell was able to put forward a self-criticism to the organization. Clearly the burden of this racist irresponsibility belongs on the shoulders of Comrades Q. and Zu, the two cell members directly responsible for the errors. Yet no comrades in auto saw it as their responsibility to call these comrades to task and demand that a collective discussion be held and a self-criticism written. The impact of this liberalism has been to compound the original errors, since in consequence of the cell’s irresponsibility the criticisms were not quickly consolidated with D. and with each passing month the bitterness of this experience has become more deeply seared into his consciousness.
The liberalism of the auto cell is unquestionably more deeply rooted and devastating in its effects than that of any other PWOC cell. Imagine, not a single criticism has been generated by auto cell comrades of other cell members since the whole question of white chauvinism as an internal problem was squarely placed on our agenda last Fall. Yet in a long history of work in the industry not a single Black worker has been recruited into the organization. It is unthinkable that racism is not having a deadly impact on our tasks in the auto industry, yet no auto cadre seems to see it as their responsibility to look seriously at this problem, identify racist weaknesses and raise criticisms for discussion in cell meetings.
Liberalism like white chauvinism is a disease within the PWOC. It is a disease based, not just on the desire of our white comrades to maintain their friendships with other white comrades, their relations with Black comrades is apparently irrelevant here, but even more importantly on their desire to maintain a situation in which their own racism will less likely face a serious challenge.
Liberalism is an unprincipled, opportunistic peace with white chauvinism in the PWOC. It rests on a tacit agreement that I won’t criticize you, if you won’t criticize me. It is an unholy alliance which eats away at the inner fabric of our organization, undercuts our work in the mass movement, and impedes the development of class unity. That liberalism is an unprincipled peace designed to protect ourselves from criticism is brought into sharp relief when we examine the incredible extremes of defensiveness that result when criticisms around racism are finally raised, when this unprincipled truce is broken, when the conspiracy of silence is breached; it’s as if one is being not criticized but betrayed.
As was mentioned earlier, while in Greensboro, Comrade S. committed a serious racist error in relation to Comrade Y. Y. and S. were in the bathroom washing up. Y. became upset when she noticed that a portion of skin on her face had darkened. She had gotten windburned. S. then responded, “don’t worry about it, no one will notice anyway.” Afterall, S’s response implied, Black peoples skin is neither sensitive nor attractive in comparison to that of whites, and besides Y. is invisible.
Soon after the Greensboro trip S. was criticized for her racism. Her response was to deny that she ever said anything like that and insisted that someone else had made this comment; her error being that of liberalism. Here we have an example in which a cadres defensiveness was so acute that she was willing to accuse Y. of lying and while she herself was lying about what had occurred in the washroom. S. feared that to face up to this weakness would reflect on her as a person, that it would raise questions about her responsibilities within the organization, that it would be embarrassing to face her comrades.. .every argument passed through S’s mind except the one that was most politically responsible, that she had a political commitment to herself and to our class to honestly face her own white chauvinism. A fundamentally honest comrade was here, due to her defensiveness around racism, forced into a position of dishonesty.
Over a year ago Comrade Al. made a qmite serious error of racist paternalism in relation also to Y. While at a cell EC meeting in which Y. had accepted an assignment to type up an article for the Organizer, Al. found it necessary to advice Y. where should could find the spacing lever on the typewriter. Quite rightfully Y. was incensed by this remark. And on the way home (due to the EC’s liberalism) a white cell member criticized Al. for racism. What follows is an example of the stages approach to defensiveness.
The initial line of defense was that she was positive she had not committed a racist error, for after all she had not thought to herself that, “Y. is Black, Black people don’t know how to do things. I’ll ask her if she knows about that lever. I knew I had only wanted to be helpful.”
Phase II of Al’s defensiveness took the form of criticizing herself for “objective racism,” – which in the minds of communists is about as severe as illegal parking. She was now willing to admit that Y. had indeed become angry when asked if she knew where the lever was, so therefore it must have been racist. Of course the reason this happened was not at all due to the missionary mentality which underlay the question, no!...it was the result of Al’s failure to take into account the history of Black oppression and thereby underestimate Black peoples “sensitivity” to such insulting questions!
Phase III followed a rather pointed struggle in the cell EC. Al’s response was to quickly unite with the criticism no matter how harsh it was made to sound. Of course it is difficult to say what her reaction may have been had Y. not been present at this meeting. After this discussion Al. re-wrote the criticism now conceding that her assumption was racist and thanked everyone for helping her to see the light in this most mysterious matter.
Over a year has passed and still it is not altogether clear that Al has come to appreciate the depths of her white chauvinism. It is a sad commentary on the effect that defensiveness has on the political development of white Marxists-Leninists.
But the really classic example of the dynamics of liberalism and defensiveness in the struggle against racism is the line that developed in defense of white chauvinism in the TBN struggle; classical in the sense that this line has been raised before in the history of the U.S. communist movement, and in the sense that it gets raised today in our tendency whenever the struggle against racism begins to assume some serious form.
In the very initial meeting in which A’s paper became the subject of criticism and struggle, Comrade B’s response was that the cell chair was trying to “crucify a candidate member.” Comrades just think about this for a minute. Criticizing A’s racist line, in the eyes of B, amounts to her crucifixion.’ As time progressed other similar defenses were erected to defend A’s racism. Cell members argued that the struggle was being conducted as if racism was a mortal “sin,” the cell leadership was accused of “subjectivism,” and of having a “moralistic” approach to the struggle; it was argued that cell members were being “stereotyped,” peoples, views ’caricatured’ and all those with the “courage of their convictions,” were being “brow beaten” by the cell leadership.
As the struggle around TBN unfolded it was these caricatures of the leadership that became the glue welding the TBN bloc together, and on their banner they unfurled the slogan, “defeat the unprincipled methods of struggle” characteristic of the leadership of the PWOC. In this manner the bloc made its appeal to white chauvinism throughout the organization. Comrades they said, “the leadership of the PWOC, by its ’unprincipled methods of struggle’ is attempting to deal a blow to white chauvinism in the community cell. We cannot allow them to do this. For imagine what will happen if they get away with this in relation to Comrade A. It will only be a matter of time before they get to us. Then your turn will come. Racists unite! An injury to one is an injury to all!”
As the OC resolution on the TBN struggle states: “It is no accident that an appeal for generalized liberalism sprung from the TBN bloc’s effort to defend its racist line. The struggle against white chauvinism has continually been a central part of the PWOC’s ideological agenda. It has generally sparked the sharpest controversy and has constantly called for the most ruthless exposures of opportunism. It is therefore understandable that efforts to debase the ideological struggle in the PWOC should center around blunting the struggle against white chauvinism.”
Defensiveness in the PWOC around the struggle against racism is both an expression of white chauvinism and a consequence of the history of liberalism in the struggle against it. The only antidote to this mire we now find ourselves in is sharp ideological struggle against racism. Comrades may become sullen, they may cry, they may question their ability to continue as a communist, they may wonder whether they are bad people, they may feel guilty, embarrassed and disorientated, they may get angry, they may shout, they may walk out of the room, they may threaten to resign, they may accuse you of being a racist for your incorrect methods of struggle.. .all of these are possible responses.. .no all of these will be responses to an intensification of the ideological struggle against white chauvinism within the PWOC. But we cannot afford to flinch...for feeling sorry for ourselves will never work as a method of steeling us as class fighters, and communist revolutionaries.