>>>Not to distract you from your sparring, but I don't see  Gorvachev having 
much of a conceptual apparatus at all.  What you have  are general 
humanitarian notions--not a terrible thing to have--left in the  wake of the 
collapse of Marxism-Leninism, but no substantive linkage to a  systematic 
conception of social organization.  This was true also of  the rhetoric of 
glasnost and perestroika.  "Universal human values"  instead of 
"Marxism-Leninism" and class struggle, but what this is a  non-specific 
cry for help.<<
 
 
Comment
 
Charles and I spar as a way of life. What was called Marxism-Leninism has  
more than less been regulated to the dustbin of history. Charles romantic  
notions of the working class will be his undoing. Charles expresses an  
ideological 
current of great men and women, who, not withstanding their  greatness, could 
be no more than militant and selfless fighters embodying the  logic of the 
Negro bourgeoisie in its life and death fight against legal  segregation. 
 
Occasionally, I ask him publicly about his last "great fight" within the  
CPUSA for a black leader. Charles continues a line of reasoning associated with 
 
Dr. James Jackson - the noted Negro bourgeois leader within the CPUSA. 
 
We come up in the very same city during a very similar period of time but  
with very different politics and class orientation. Charles undying loyalty to  
whatever ideological clique was in leadership of the former Soviet Union is  
based in some material reality. Soviet Power helped opened many doors for the  
African American masses that would have remained shut for perhaps decades. 
This  Cold War dynamic of the post WW II period bred a certain loyalty amongst 
members  of the Negro bourgeoisie and intellegencia. 
 
Peace at all cost and universal human values was the ideological form of  the 
struggle to consolidate the Khrushchev group. Charles failed to understand  
the meaning of Lumumba. 
 
Charles is ashamed of his own history and I am not. I clearly outline my  
roots and legacy in the old League of Revolutionary Black Workers. We  
represented the historic split between the Negro bourgeoisie and the Negro  
workers or 
as it is called today the Black Workers and the Black bourgeoisie.  When we 
split and the workers and students components of the League of  Revolutionary 
Workers merged with a group of Communist in Los Angels - Watts, it  was a 
grouping formed in the wake of the Chicano Moratorium. 
 
Today our history has come full circle and we did not evolve as a polarity  
of and within the old CPUSA. 
 
Here is the history and crux of all our difference, although Charles  becomes 
upset when I label his many writings that of the black petty bourgeoisie  
following in the wake of the Negro bourgeoisie. 
 
Charles is of course my brother but we express profound class differences  
and different class orientation. These differences are not enough to stop us  
from working together on various issues . . . at least they did not in the 
past. 
 
Charles is correct to label my writings "wrongline" - a clever designation  I 
will gladly use, because my line is wrong according to the Negro bourgeoisie  
and black petty bourgeois intellectual sympathetic to Marxism in its struggle 
 against the bonds of legal segregation.  
 
 
Melvin P. 


_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Reply via email to