Racism and race are Marxist concepts by Waistline2 27 May 2002 15:45 UTC Mel P:Sorry to push this discussion to pen. Problems with my system and posting to Marxline. System was down but I most certainly relied to all our comments. Here is one of 5 articles written i refutation of the race theory as applied to African Americans and the history of the national colonial question as understood by "my brand" of Marxism.
^^^^^^^^ CB: This list has not been a part of this discussion, so you might want to give more background. The main point of contention between us is that you maintain that there is no category of " race" compatible with Marxism or historical materialism, and I say that there is. For a thread, (long thread !) related to your topic here, check out the Pen-L discussion of the "Brenner thesis" , "Wood thesis "and the history of capitalism, slavery, the primiitive accumulation of capital, etc. I would argue that slavery was integral to the primitive accumulation of capitalism, and that throughout capitalism: Capitalism = wage-labor x oppressed labor Within the category "oppressed labor" racially oppressed labor is a major component throughout the history of capitalism including up through today. ^^^^^^^ >>CB:What type of thing does Marx mean when he refers to a "Negro" ? A national colonial group ? Or does he mean a group whose skin is "branded" or whose skin is a brand ? A group defined by its land, language, history ? Or a physical characteristic, a phenotype ? Is not Marx using the concept of race when he refers to Negroes ? ^^^^^^^ Further Marx says, "Where the capitalist outlook prevails, as on American plantations, this entire surplus value is regarded as profit . . ." Capital Volume 3 page 804. Marx has a way with words. Comrade Charles please try and follow the logic or rather dialectic of the economic development that produced on the one hand a historically evolved people, not a race - (stop pause and consider), ^^^^^^^^ CB: Here's what occurs to me when I consider: What type of group is Marx referring to when he refers to a "Negro" ? Obviously, he _is_ referring to a race, contra your comment here. Lets stop here. Lets dwell on this some. Please focus your discussion on this point for a while, then lets move on to your other discussion. Right now I am focusing on your answer to this question. Charles Brown Reply. I cannot believe you asked what you ask ^^^^^^^^ CB: Why can't you believe it ? I say this consistently,and many other people do. Do you mean you disagree with it ? ^^^^^^^ -clip- Marx is referring to a class of slaves whose origins are traceable to continental Africa when he says â€*Negro race.†Specifically, he is referring to the black slaves on the plantations of the American south. ^^^^^^^^ CB: Here you seem to admit that Marx is using the concept of race. ^^^^ A misunderstanding exists concerning what is meant by the words national-colonial question, which as such did not emerge as such until during and after the first Imperialist War. Marx could not have meant a â€*national-colonial group†because this configuration in history occurs after his death. ^^^^^^^ CB: The issue remains whether the concept of race and analysis using the concepts of race and racism are compatible with a Marxist analysis. This use of a race concept by Marx in using the term "Negro" is some evidence for my side of the argument and against your side of the argument on this question. The fact that , for the sake of argument, the national-colonial question arises or is modified after Marx's lifetime does not mean that the concept of race becomes incompatible with historical materialism or Leninism and the analysis of the national-colonial question ( See for example _The World and Africa_ by W.E.B. Dubois). ^^^^^^^^^ -clip- All of this means, Comrade Charles that you seek to ground down the debate into defining a non-existence social phenomenon called race or the theory of race or the theory of biological â€*phenotype†â€" your word, instead of grasping the class configuration that has characterized the development of a new people. ^^^^^^^ CB: You keep saying this or the equivalent, but I keep telling you that it is relating race and class, not grounding the debate or the analysis in race over class. Why do you keep acting like I don't say that ? As I have said to you several times, by this statement , you are arguing with a strawman. In other words, you just keep misrepresenting what I say on this, and then arguing with your false version of my argument. ^^^^^^^^ The type of group Marx is referring to in an economic category in which is contained a group of people. This is why Marx on Slavery as an economic category was quoted extensively. You state that Marx is referring to a so-called biological factor when everything I quoted from Marx is clearly a description of economic logic. Thus you adopt the standpoint of the petty bourgeois intellectual. ^^^^^^^ CB: Yes, race is an economic category, as I said to you five or six times before. It is an invalid or fruitless biological category, in the sense that there are no other biological traits associated with the skin color biological trait as asserted in racist biological doctrine. But it is a valid social-economic-political category, in that the capitalists and capitalism has divided the working class of the world into more or less oppressed racial groups based on physical characteristics, skin color in the first place. This division is a real social fact. Race gives a more complex understanding of the capitalist mode of production as it actually is in history. ^^^^^^^^ -clip- Well Comrade, what Marx is referring to almost 150 years ago is a class of slaves who skin is black and I will state this one-thousand times until it is understood. It is not really a question of what Marx is referring to but rather what are you referring to by stating there is a Marxist conception of race? ^^^^^^^^^ CB: " A class of slaves whose skin is black" would be a rough definition of a race in this case. As to what I am referring to, I am referring to what Marx says here. Repeating it a thousand times will not make you persuasive. It makes you sound like Chatty Cathy or a broken record/CD. Everytime you repeat it , it makes you less and less persuasive. ^^^^^^^ clip- What is scary is that you do not grasp why this is an extreme polarity in the working class movement. Consider this: in the old period we organized the black workers on the basis of their inequality as proletarians and the fight against police violence ad extra legal terror. That is why the revolutionary movement supported us despite our backwards ideology. Everyone understood we were not the petty bourgeois ideologist and made allowances for our growth â€" which we took advantage of. ^^^^^^^^^^ CB: You might want to reconsider your old approach with some updates. As to this debate with me, you are not responding to what I am saying. You write down your version of your straw opponent , and then attribute to me what I have not said. You are not refuting what I am saying, because you aren't responding to what I am saying. Either you are not reading what I am saying, or you are misrepresenting it. It makes for a warped discussion.
