Racism and race are Marxist concepts
Racism and race are Marxist concepts by Waistline2 29 May 2002 02:19 UTC Melvin P. There is no such thing as "racially oppressed labor," as a material category. CB: There exists and has existed specially oppressed labor based on racial categories for centuries. The category "specially ,racially oppressed labor" reflects this stone cold material and historically materialist fact. Slaves existed. Last hired , first fired, exists; ergo specially oppressed labor based on race exists. ^ What you express is a bourgeois ideological category and rationale to explain colonial entrapment and the consequent brutal political oppression of non-sovereign peoples and their exploitation through imperial capitalist relations. CB: The bourgeois ideological category reflects an actually existing category of the division of labor. ^ -clip- I do recognized that you and I represent a historic pole within the specific framework of the communist/Marxist movement, while many revolutionaries lack any conception of the complexity of the national-question in respects to our people. You state that you "would argue that slavery was integral to the primitive accumulation of capitalism," and this is the historic position of the right-wing of the CPUSA. The material quoted by Marx makes clear the character of slavery in the South. "That is the secret." CB: No. I get the idea that slavery was integral to the primitive accumulation of capitalism from Marx ( Steal this idea !). It is not my idea or the CPUSA's rightwing's. It is Marx's idea. Quote: "The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre. It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions in England's Anti-Jacobin War, and is still going on in the opium wars against China, &c. The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power. et al. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm ^ The primitive accumulation of capital has nothing to do with the character of slavery in the South. The historic position of the CPUSA - and I am by no means a "hater" or baiter of the Party whose glories struggles I embrace as a part of my own, is that feudal economic relations existed in the South. Consequently, slavery was a form of primitive accumulation of capital. This makes no sense to anyone that examines what Marx means by the primitive accumulation of capital. ^ CB: "The South" starts in what, 1619 ? Go to the above link for Marx's discussion of slavery in the primitive accumulation of capital, Africa as a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, i.e. race. Aptheker does not categorize slavery as a form of feudalism. Please give reference to CPUSA analysis of feudalism existing in the South. In general, the Party follows Marx on these issues, and Marx has slavery as part of capitalism. Sharecropping might have been closer to feudalism, but nobody thinks there was actual feudalism in the South. ^^^ An aspect of the historic contention that split the party on the "Negro Question" is the position later adopted by the party that the movement in the South is a continuation of the bourgeois democratic revolution and democracy as an abstraction and their program called for the complete elimination of the remnants of feudal economic relations. Not feudal-like social relations, but feudal economic relations. This is the theoretical underpinning of James Allen's 1936 book "Reconstruction." (I hope I am not challenged on this because I have not seen the book in twenty-five years but know I have it in the basement of my second wife h
Re: Racism and race are Marxist concepts
>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 There is no such thing as "racially oppressed labor," as a material category. What you express is a bourgeois ideological category and rationale to explain colonial entrapment and the consequent brutal political oppression of non-sovereign peoples and their exploitation through imperial capitalist relations. The point of contention is the Marxist presentation of the National Colonial Question as it applies to the African American people. One can always reduce discourse to "he say - she say" but I have presented rather lengthy and detail explaining to at least describe the basis of my assertion while you present Eric Foner and nothing whatsoever to justify or explain the so-called Marxist conception of race. The reason for this is that you were born into a mess of crap, that actually took shape before both of us were born. Talk about the sins of the father and reparations. Every generation must pay reparations from the past. I do recognized that you and I represent a historic pole within the specific framework of the communist/Marxist movement, while many revolutionaries lack any conception of the complexity of the national-question in respects to our people. You state that you "would argue that slavery was integral to the primitive accumulation of capitalism," and this is the historic position of the right-wing of the CPUSA. The material quoted by Marx makes clear the character of slavery in the South. "That is the secret." The primitive accumulation of capital has nothing to do with the character of slavery in the South. The historic position of the CPUSA - and I am by no means a "hater" or baiter of the Party whose glories struggles I embrace as a part of my own, is that feudal economic relations existed in the South. Consequently, slavery was a form of primitive accumulation of capital. This makes no sense to anyone that examines what Marx means by the primitive accumulation of capital. An aspect of the historic contention that split the party on the "Negro Question" is the position later adopted by the party that the movement in the South is a continuation of the bourgeois democratic revolution and democracy as an abstraction and their program called for the complete elimination of the remnants of feudal economic relations. Not feudal-like social relations, but feudal economic relations. This is the theoretical underpinning of James Allen's 1936 book "Reconstruction." (I hope I am not challenged on this because I have not seen the book in twenty-five years but know I have it in the basement of my second wife home. Communist will given away any and everything except their good books and ink pens. ) Once the position is taken that feudal economic relations existed in the South the only way to explain slavery is as a form of primitive accumulation of capital. This of course is incorrect. Slavery as an economic institution was a form of capitalist production relations. There was no feudalism in the American south. "I would argue that slavery was integral to the primitive accumulation of capitalism," is the historic position of the CPUSA and has no meaning without being specific. Marx describes the primitive accumulation of capital in precise terms. I would argue that the primary form of primitive accumulation of capital on this land mass was the wholesale murder of the Native peoples and the taking of there land. I would argue this as a primary thesis because slavery itself underwent transitions and Marx speaks of American slavery after it enters the vortex of capitalist relations. "The so-called primitive accumulation of capital," according to Marx "therefore, is nothing else then the historical process of divorcing the producer fro the means of production. It appears as primitive, because it forms the pre-historic stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it." "the pre-historic stage of capital" is what compels me to place primary emphasis on the expropriation of the Native peoples. Further, there were no concrete feudal economic relations in America. I concede that the slave trade played a role in the primitive accumulation of capital but slave
Racism and race are Marxist concepts
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.â 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 groupâ 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*phenotypeâ 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 tha
