While racist paternalism leads to patronizing, non-struggle relations with Black comrades, overt racism plays itself out as liquidating these relationships altogether or openly refusing to accept leadership from Black comrades in the organization. Overt racism is an expression of the operation of classical stereotypes of Black people as intimidating, overbearing, emotional, incompetent, except of course, in areas of responsibility having to do with other Black people. This is the “bad neighborhood,” “bad people” mentality. And it has been particularly acute in relation to Black comrades in the organization who have demanded equality and respect from our white members.
Some of the most consistent expressions of overt racism in the FVJCC have occurred in relation to Comrade Z. The most common expression of racism in relation to Z. is the very widespread tendency to not even acknowledge his role as a leading member of the PWOC. For example, during the crisis around TMI, when there was a great deal of conflict within the organization about the EC’s approach to the situation, some white comrades would approach Z. and ask, in an angry tone, “did you hear what they did,” as if Z. was not even a part of the “they” these comrades were referring to. And on many other occasions as well, when comrades have been critical of the EC they have approached Z. completely, blinded to the fact that he is an EC member.
But even more common is the tendency to completely by-pass Z’s leading role when guidance is required from the EC. Rarely is he contacted or even consulted with, in informal situations about questions which our cadre are trying to get a better handle on.
Instead white cadres turn to a white EC member even though there is not a particular organizational channel to that individual. Of course, when there is a question about the Black liberation movement or the need to get advice on how to “deal with” a Black worker Z. is the first EC cadre asked for assistance. Z. is Black, therefore the only things he is thought to be capable of speaking to are the “Negro questions,” all other matters should be brought to the attention of white EC members. This is a mentality operating on a pervasive scale within the PWOC, and it has rendered Z. too, invisible.
During the recent struggle around the personal relations question Z. was playing a leading role within the SC. There were countless members of the organization who were in disunity with the EC’s point of view. Numerous initiatives were taken to talk to Si. , to Zu., and in some cases even to Sa. Yet hardly anyone, including Zu. an EC member, took any steps to discuss their differences with Z. The reason for this was that our white comrades assumed that since Sa was living with Z., and since Z. has no mind of his own, and besides is thoroughly sexist, for as J. states in her self-criticism she “assumed” that all Black men are sexist, it was unnecessary to discuss this matter with him.
A couple of years ago a struggle developed in the MIC around Je’s sexism in relation to the cell chair. Many cell members participated in the process, and offered sharp criticisms of Comrade Je. However it was Z. that played the leading role in the struggle. At one point after Z. had offered his views on Je’s conduct, Je, responded in an extremely angry tone, “I don’t have to listen to your fuckin bullshit.” This was an outrageous, insulting, and racist response to Z’s leadership and should have been taken as such by every PWOC cadre present at that meeting. Yet there was no real response from our white members, and in fact, after the meeting Z. got criticized, by among others, Comrade Sa. for overreacting to Je’s racist comment! Here we have on a number of levels an example of the most vulgar expressions of overt racism operating in the PWOC.
Another illustration which through discussion came to graphically reveal the underpinnings of this type of racism can be seen in the reaction of MIC II cadre to Z’s participation in the cell meeting on the personal relations struggle. Quite naturally Z. went to the meeting to struggle for the EC’s point of view. But the reaction of four of the cells white members was not that Z. had proven himself a capable leader by exposing the sexism and racism of the minority point of view, but rather that he was “subjective and overly emotional.” Why does Z. always seem to do these things to our white comrades, one must ask themselves?
In his book Soul on Ice, Eldridge Cleaver develops a caricature of the way in which racist ideology has depicted the Black male, and sums this up as the “super-masculine, menial.” Black men can perform all and any feats of physical strength and endurance, yet at the same time they are mentally incompetent, cannot think, but only express their “emotions.” It is this image of the super-masculine menial that is indissolubly bound up in racist ideology with the rape of the white woman. For while Black men pose no threat to whites in terms of the thought process they are indeed a rather large threat in relation to the sexual process.
It is this stereotype that will lead whites to stone a Black family that moves into their neighborhood, since they do not want their daughters to come into contact with Black men. And it is this stereotype that shaped the reactions of MIC II members to Z’s presence at their cell meeting. All that they could see was that he was “overbearing, intimidating and emotional.” For our white cadre in the MIC II Comrade Z. was invisible.
The PWOC is not an equal opportunity employer. Don’t be fooled by the sign over our door, for in practice we use a scientific approach to the art of racial discrimination. One such example of how Marxism-Leninism can be used to foster racism occurred in relation to the organizations search for a childcare coordinator. In the Spring of 1979 the PWOC’s infant-care coordinator, a Black woman, was asked if she was interested in moving over to the school aged program. At that point she wasn’t interested because of the additional time and energy it would require.
Sometime later the organization decided that it could not maintain two paid childcare workers. But the childcare committee did not at this point return to R. to inform her that the only job that would be available was the school aged program and ask her if she were interested in taking it. Why not? Because our childcare committee chair had “some misgivings about her reliability.. .related to questions of lateness and attendance.” Were any of these criticisms raised to R.? Was there struggle with her about these problems? No...no questions asked...no struggle. Very nice, very carefully...a white woman was hired to fill the post. R. was then dismissed. Here we have a “communist” approach to racism!
Still another expression of overt racism in the PWOC is that most aptly described as “communist segregation.” This is an approach to assignments which grows out of the racist assumption that Black members of the organization should be given responsibility only in areas they are “competent to deal with,” namely assignments in the “Bureau of Negro Affairs.” In a discussion within the IPA fraction EC last summer a question was raised about Comrade Y. taking up responsibility for our work in the BUF. When it was brought out that this would be impossible unless we were willing to remove her at the TUO of her cell a white member of the fraction proposed that this was the appropriate thing to do, since it would help develop Y’s leadership. Here is an example of the tendency toward “communist segregation,” which views the leadership of our Black cadre solely in terms of the mass movement rather than as all-sided leadership in a communist organization. Black people can lead Black people, but certainly not the class as a whole, and least of all white members of the PWOC; so goes the argument for ghettoizing the assignment profile of our b1ack renters.
We have seen here a few startling examples of the way in which overt racism plays itself out within the PWOC, so you could imagine how it is likely to look in the mass movement. There are two types of advanced Black workers to be found in the trade unions, those that are militantly anti-racist and may support a nationalist perspective and those who, on the basis of cynicism tend to liquidate the struggle against white chauvinism. While there is no way to be absolutely certain, it is logical to assume, that many Black workers of the first persuasion get written off by our cadre as advanced forces in the rank and file movement. There is a worker at RL, for example, who is a long standing community activist in North Philadelphia. If asked he would probably describe himself as a revolutionary nationalist. At work he can frequently be found reading Malcolm X, as well as other Black nationalist leaders. What has our cadres’ attitude toward this worker been? Objectively speaking he’s been treated as some type of eccentric. While there has been some struggle with him and a few attempts made to win him to a Marxist point of view, he has more or less been written off.
Yet the history of the communist movement in the U.S. has shown that it is precisely these workers, many of whom may have a great deal of distrust for whites, who are the most revolutionary minded and in fact the most open to a communist perspective. In the early 1920’s the CPUSA was able to win many leading Black cadre from an organization called the African Blood Brotherhood, a group initially linked to the Garvey movement and committed to a nationalist perspective. But due to white chauvinism PWOC cadre are blinded to the revolutionary potential of such workers and thereby liquidate their responsibility to win these workers to the communist movement.
And in our relations with other Black workers members of the organization allow their racism to generate a double standard for the recruitment process into the PWOC. Basically it works in a similar fashion as does racism in sports. If you’re Black, you can make the team, but you have to be a superstar to do it, otherwise we would prefer to utilize a white player. When white cadre are asked about the readiness of Black workers to join the PWOC the answer is usually that they are not yet “ready” to join. They don’t understand party-building some might say, while others may reason that they have too many “attitudinal” problems. On the other hand, when it comes to evaluating a white intellectual, even extremely serious political weaknesses (particularly around racism) are often overlooked, and they are swiftly recruited into the organization.
Finally there is an example of the transition...no not the transition to socialism, but the transition from paternalism to overt racism. Among some cadre this has been occurring in reaction to SK’s resignation from the organization, including some of the initial members of the DC, those very same cadre who so blinded themselves to SK’s weaknesses and bent head over heel to avoid criticizing or struggling with him, now wonder whether it was correct or not to have coopted him into the DC in the first place. What have been some the arguments to defend this quite imaginative conclusion?
Putting Sh. in the leadership of the organization placed him under too much pressure. Sh. was not that developed a Marxist-Leninist, actually. Sh’s weaknesses were too deeply rooted for him to be a DC member. How easy it is! Paternalism one day, overt racism the next. Both rest on the same assumptions, both rest on the doctrine of white supremacy. So it is not at all surprising to see one who is extremely paternalistic one day, be overtly racist the next. One day Sh. is our best friend, a charismatic leader, the next day he isn’t worth a damn. You see, Sh. is invisible.