A Discussion of Electoral Politics pt3

Here is the last email exhanged between Gary and I:

Peace,

First, I also lease my labor and no-one could ever own it but me. Thank you for the crucial correction. In the shop, when people ask me, "where's your boss?" I've been known to respond "I don't have a boss on this planet, let alone in this building" - I think thats a correction in the spirit of yours.

I guess my thoughts on your response are this. I agree with your analysis that he creates a narrative of unity in a framework that does not challenge capitalism, and significanly downplays a solidarity based on an understanding of how racism creates different levels of oppression within the working class. I think this may be his genuine analysis though it also allows for him to attract capital investment. I think in part though the Democrats got much more investment in part because their policy allows for capital to grow, but also because Capital assumed they were going to be the winners of the election and wanted to build that relationship, because I think there are substanative ways where Republican policy is much more capital friendly and working people -fuck em a over.

When my Hotel brings in a nice smiling African American woman like Julie Coker, as a new General Manager, she is purely an attempt to co-op, as she answer to exactly the same capital aggression as her the predaccessor who was an ass-hole, I don't know that Obama fits completely into her place in the metaphor - which is the question of to what extent is he a reprsentative of the ruling class.

But I think the other thing is...in my hotel. The Front Desk petitioned to unionize unanimously. The Hyatt's response was to give them a $2/hr raise ( a huge fuckin' raise!). That was purposely designed to co-opt them, but I think it will be a matter of leadership whether or not that group of workers will go from just getting the raise to also getting health care, retirement funding, protection against disicipline, and the ability to negotiate over working conditions that comes with being a full fledged Union member. My point is, I think, I don't want to fall into the "I rather George Bush because he tells me he is fucking me over" mantra, I want to develop leadership within a social movement that can challenge people to know that they deserve more than the crumbs of the Democratic party, and all the while be using the electoral system to act much more sophisitatedly in our own interest.

paz

A Discussion of Electoral Politics pt2

Continuing the discussion begun in the last two posts, here is my response to Gary's email:

Salutations,

Yeah, I agree with you that his approach to talking about u.s. history was more than just a few comments. There were incredibly powerful truths that he was giving some voice to. But there is an incredibly subtle but meaningful way that he spoke about this which is co-optative. Talking about racism as a "legacy" of slavery and Jim Crow rather than an inherent way that capital organizes labor hierarchically, talking about corporate "greed" as a "culture" and emphasizing "inside deals" and scandals rather than talking about profit and capital as structurally opposed to worker's well-being, etc.

It is true that what he put forward was indeed different from what the mass media usually presents. I was particularly impressed by his discussion of resentments and consciousness in Black and white communities and the discussions that are going on beyond "polite company".

Yet, I feel it is necessary to see his activities as strategic responses of a particular sector of a class to political pressures. Obama has been forced to take up this discussion. We cannot lose sight of the fact that his narratives are directly related to the denunciation of militant Black nationalist narratives. While one may or may not agree with the rhetoric, the substance of Black nationalism is Black power. Coming together across "race" lines, if it is to be a unity of mutual respect, must mean that Black folks come with their own power. Obama's "unity" erases and even joins in being suspect in attempts to build Black autonomous power. He characterizes it as "left over" resentment. Further, he suggests that really we all have the same interests. That if we simply fight for better schools, jobs, etc, we will all move forward. But this fails to recognize that this does not solve the gap in power/resources between sectors of the working-class. Only power among the most oppressed can do that. But he cleverly undermines the basis for autonomous and militant Black organizing.

Let me clarify my position on Obama as a strategic enemy. I see the electoral system as a battleground between interests like any other social sphere. On the federal level the grounds are incredibly skewed to ruling class interests, but even then these interests must respond to pressure from many different angles. I don't think the struggle for democracy and the vote was meaningless. It creates new pressures and opportunities, it remakes the organization of power on the battlefield. When I said that Obama was my strategic enemy I meant to communicate that while although he represents a good defensive choice among the representatives of ruling class interests, it is crucial to remember that he does indeed represent an attempt to salvage capitalism and make it more attractive to workers. Obama, like any other president, would oppose any attempt to overthrow the system. Not because he's Obama, but because he has been financed and supported by the very corporate elite who he rhetorically critiques, as you point out. [For the record, Global Hyatt/Microtel leases my labor. I own it. Small distinction that is crucial.] He would never go for an end to private ownership of major worksites. He would defend private property to the death...well, maybe some soldier's death, probably not his own.

I do think he is a better candidate than the republicans and perhaps better than Clinton (I don't really have a position on Clinton/Obama). But I think it is essential to remember that he represents an attempt to reassert the power of capital. He may give out important concessions, but he is fundamentally a representative of the ruling class(es). I think it is possible for the ruling class, or sections of it, to be rhetorically critical of certain aspects of the social system. This is even necessary at various times and is sometimes combined with more social spending by government and more leniency towards certain social demands. But they are still ruling class policies in that they give concessions with the ultimate goal of maintaining power and will fight like hell against radical movements.

I think he's worth voting for, however (if you've decided that federal elections are a place you're gonna fight). If you wanna vote for me you'll probably need to move to durham, nc. look for me or someone I really support in 5-10 years. By then I'm hoping there will be something worthy of the title "People's Republic of Durham".

paz

A Discussion of Electoral Politics

My friend Gary and I have been exchanging views around Obama and the meaning and opportunities of the current prez election campaign based on some of the things I said in the previous post. After we sent a few emails back and forth Gary suggested that we post the conversation so that others could participate and/or comment. I thought that would be a great idea so the next few posts will be made up of the discussion that we began. If you want to have your contribution posted then just email it to me. Otherwise just add your comments as usual.

We'll begin with Gary's first reply:

Peace Sendolo,

I also found myself moved by Obama's speech and am struggling with that.

I found your ideas helpful in processing my own.

To be honest I was moved not just by certain parts, but by the worldview he put forward, a view which included recognizing America's sin in slavery and it's legacy still existing today, a critique of the Reagan Coalition of hate, and a call to move forward by recognizing a stake in one another, and even described racial tensions as a distraction from the attacks from corporate culture.

I feel like much of this worldview is still very much in conflict with the popular media affirmed narrative of America, but that he not only put it forward but tried to organize his audience around the truth in this view by connecting it to narratives they could relate to. Of course it's true that one such narrative was American exceptionalism and nationalism.

I think our current political system, its electoral process and such are inextricably linked to ruling class power, but I don't know what extent it is true that Barack Obama's engagement of that process makes him so linked that he himself becomes a strategic enemy.

Hmm. Though its worth recognizing that his engagement of this process has demanded that he get a Chief Financial Officer by the name of Penny Pritzker who actually own both your labor and mine and is an executor of the corporate culture he critiqued.

Well I guess I'll vote for him unless I find out you're running.

La Otra America

So, I just finished watching Obama's speech on race and I need to be honest. I was moved. at various points i wanted him to say something terrible because I know that he is essentially a representative of the ruling class and I hated being moved by someone I know is my strategic enemy. And, at various points, he did say terrible things, like blaming "radical islam" for violence in the middle east and calling israel an ally. But by and large Obama said things that...spoke to me. Dammit, i never thought i would say that, but it's true. Does that mean I support him? No. But it does mean I have to write at least one more post on someone I have been trying to move out of the center of my writing. Well, here goes...

About a year ago I finished reading Lawrence Goodwyn's The Populist Moment, a book about one of the most amazing mass movements in u.s. history. And one of the things that really impressed me was when the historian who wrote the book characterized the populist movement as a struggle for the soul of the country; a struggle to determine whether everyday people would finally take hold of democracy or whether the wealthy would beat back the people and impose a still more oppressive system. I was reminded of something I had read in The Many-Headed Hydra, a quote by Thomas Rainborough (a radical of the English revolution): "Either poverty must use democracy to destroy the power of property, or property in fear of poverty will destroy democracy".

The populist movement was an attempt of the "plain people" (as they called themselves) to use democracy and organizing to destroy the corporate power that was killing them. Theirs was indeed a class struggle. But Goodwyn emphasized that it was a class struggle in a time when it was thought that the wealthy could be subdued. When "America" actually meant (for some/many people) the triumph of the working-classes over aristocracies. Today, however, the oppressed do not think of "America" as a beacon of hope. America is the symbol of the new aristocracy, of the power of property and wealth to destroy democracy. But the populists were not ready to concede "America," its land, wealth, labor, creativity, or people, to the ruling classes. Theirs was a fight to unite the plain people, the hands and hearts that were this country. For them America was working class. it was the corporate bourgeoisie which was "anti-american".

Being raised a Black nationalist, I was weened on discourses like those of Frederick Douglass' July 4th speech, in which he says that the day of independence for whites is a lie and a hypocrisy for enslaved Black people. I was raised to understand that "America" had gotten rich on the blood and sweat of Black folks, Brown folks, the genocide of the indigenous, labor of Asians, and the pillage of the world. Later on as I became more and more attracted to marxism, I began to understand that "America" had been built on the backs of "white" immigrants as well. America became the metaphysical entity that embodied the exploitation and destruction of the entire world.

But this past summer I was struck, once again, by another vision. It happened when I was reading James & Grace Lee Boggs. In The American Revolution and in Revolution & Evolution in the 20th Century, and also in Grace Lee's aurobiography, Living for Change, I found a different way of seeing America. James Boggs once said "I love this country not only because my ancestors' blood is in the soil but because of its potential, what I believe it can become." Clearly it was not the America of corporate executives and power with impunity which he loved. No. It is the America that is the living and the now passed people who struggled for a more just society. The Boggs' maintainted that in order to change something, you must love it. I was reminded of Paulo Freire who said: "If I do not love the world--if I do not love life--if I do not love people--I cannot enter into dialogue" (Pedagogy of the Oppressed).

Reading and meditating on these things I realized for the first time that the vast majority of people in this country have a real material and humanist interest in ending the system of social oppression that holds us all down. I realized that there does indeed exist a broad working-class interest and even consciousness. For the first time, reading these texts, I was consumed by a faith in the ability of our people to achieve an American Revolution. I have not really been a Black nationalist since (though I don't suggest that anyone test me on my fierce stance on the right of Black people for autonomy in struggle and in culture).

But my experience over the years is what has made these readings so meaningful. I have spent the last few years in a pitched struggle with the people I love the most around issues of race, gender, sexuality, and class. I know that these divisions are real and that they must be confronted. But I believe that it is extremism to declare that they are differences that cannot be united. That unity, as Amilcar Cabral said, must be one built through struggle. Queer people, women, people of color, and all sorts of other folks must have their own autonomous power to demand that unity does not mean limiting the issues to the lowest common denominator. Yet our struggle with one another is not a struggle against one another. It is a struggle for unity, a unity so that we may struggle to transform the world. Paulo, when he spoke of dialogue, was speaking of the love that must infuse the struggle among comrades in the effort to change our world.

I sit here today and know in my heart that the unity that I am struggling for is a unity, dynamic and characterized by the autonomy of its members, of the working-class. I do not mean simply those who work in factories. I mean those who are forced to labor for others in order to simply earn enough to live. Some live more or less decently, in this country and around the world, but we are all workers in the sense that our labor does not belong to us and instead contributes to the amassing of wealth, power, and tyranny amongst a very small minority of people.

Now, what does this have to do with Obama? You see, Obama speaks to the desire of people to come together and transform the world. He knows that we crave this and need it. His messages are crafted to cut through the cynicism and rally people together. The trouble, however, is around what he is rallying them. The ruling class, here in the u.s. and around the world, is in a panic. No one believes in the system anymore. So many people are jaded and dissatisfied. Obama represents the most visionary arm of the ruling class trying to mobilize the working-class of this country to achieve what nothing else can: a more powerful country.

They want a more powerful United States. That is, amore powerful military, a more "competitive" economy, a more powerful corporate-state system with which to meet the new challenges in a world no longer beholden to u.s. power. They are doing their best to rally people around the unity of the nation-state. The idea of a unity between people, the political-economic system, and the rulers. That's what a nation-state is. The conservatives are doing it one way, by declaring that some people are "un-american". The democrats do this in another way, by telling us that we are all americans.

The truth is that the vast majority of us are Americans. I mean this in the most expansive sense. We are the people whose lives are tied to the history of the Americas (plural). We are the people whose future is irreducibly interwoven with the life of the land of these two continents. We are the inheritors of a vast, tragic, triumphant history. We are indeed American, from the southern tip of Chile to the northern reaches of Canada. But we are not the united states. We are not the ruling class. The unity of the American peoples is not a government, but a comradery, a solidarity of many peoples; the circulation of struggles and culture and hope.

When the indigenous peoples of Chiapas speak my African heart knows the language. When my friend Jacob speaks of his struggles, I know them. I have learned that I have a place in my sould for Poland because I know Justyna. I have felt an obligation to understand or at least listen to the efforts of straight men to love and be loved. When women speak about patriarchy I am moved because I am implicated and I am asked to join in something common. This is La Otra America, the Other America which continues to be robbed and humiliated.

Today I know that if we are to struggle together and love together we need to bring forward our vision of La Otra America. Unity is not unity of a country or a continent. It is the unity of many different peoples struggling against the various and vicious ways that capitalism manifests: slavery, peonage, unemployment, alienation, work, schooling, prisons, starvation, AIDS run rampant...

Our unity must come from our unique heritage(s). All of the America(n)s have been subjected to the domination of the United States (which contrary to rhetoric includes the comprador states that claim to represent the peoples of latin America).

Obama teaches us something: unity is powerful. But we must struggle against the false unity with the ruling class. What unity is this that deprives so many of simple needs so that some may live in grotesque luxury? What unity can there be between those who buy and sell jobs, retirement, whole countries, food, the land and water itself only for profit and allow the vast majorities to suffer? No, this is not the unity we want.

The unity of the working-classes, against capital, against exploitation, against the degredation of women, queer people, the environment. Against the marginalization and humiliation of people of color. Against the attempt to erase the radical history, culture and dignity of our french-, english-, irish-, jewish- American comrades. The struggle for the soul of a continent is ours and in it we join the struggle of a planet, of many histories.

Obama's appeal is really an appeal to what is, at its heart, the awakening of many people to the understanding of the need for unity in order to bring about change. I am profoundly convinced, however, that this "change" must mean an end to the capitalist system which is racist, hetero-patriarchal, imperialist, and alienating. The task before us is to show that La Otra America, the American peoples, rather than the united states, have an interest in the overthrow of the global system of capital. The task is to grasp the fact that in some ways Obama is speaking to working-class consciousness and that it is a representation of the current moment's uncertainty that the ruling class must reach out in such a way.

The contradiction is that once it is grasped that the broad, collective interest is the overthrow of corporate capitalism, then the ruling class will carry out a full-scale attack on this unity. They want to include themselves in our unity and elevate their interests as the common interests. We must show that, while our interests are many, it is only the wealthy elite who have a continued interest in the maintenance and deepening of capitalism. Our struggle for unity must be clear on this point or "unity" will simply become the fascist unity that erupted in the wake of the economic crises of the world war period.

Now, more than ever, when even politicians in the republican party have to at least appear opposed to corporate greed in order to win over even the small sector of the American people who vote, we need to be part of building a new vision and a new unity. An anti-capitalist unity, a working-class unity in which the people(s) are many but the struggle, for dignity and liberation, is shared. This does not mean we reduce everything to 'economic' issues (wages, benefits, etc). It means that we, each of us committed to real change, come to understand that the endless imposition of work by capital and the endless accumulation of wealth by capitalist is the single biggest barrier to having time with those we love, living in harmony with our ecosystems, having enough to eat, learning and growing, loving how we want to, travelling, becoming artists, coming to understand one another, and knowing that life is really worth living.

Obama knows that unity is the only way forward to change. But he wants unity without struggle against capitalism. He wants to unite us under the banner of the nation-state. We want a unity of the coming together of many nations--queer nations, black, brown, indigenous, youth, etc nations--against the united states. Obama quoted in his speech the motto of the united states: e pluribis unum--out of many, one. Let us reject this attempt to regroup us once again under the banner of states and corporations. Out of many, many I say. Many chiapas, many selmas, many caracas, many porto alegres, many zapatistas, cimarrones, xigonas, sodomistas!

Long live the many-headed hydra!
Long live La Otra America!

Obama's CNN Interview

Here's the link to the interview I was commenting on in the previous post.

Things Fall Apart

Tonight I watched Obama stutter and contradict himself in an interview on CNN about the "incendiary" remarks made by Rev. Wright of Trinity Church in Chicago. Here, finally, was the moment when Obama was forced by "liberal" white America to denounce anti-racist militance. The moment was orchestrated by Fox News pundits who poured over hours of Rev. Wright's sermons on DVD looking for something to crucify him by. And they found two juicy tidbits.

In the first Wright says that Black folks shouldn't sing "God bless America" but rather "God DAMN America" for all the injustice it has done in the world. In the second Wright says that Hillary Clinton doesn't know what it's like to be discriminated against (he uses the classic Black middle-class example of not having a cab stop rather than a more working-class issue of job discrimination or police profiling). She's never been called a nigger, Wright argues. But Barack knows, according to Wright, what it means to grow up in a "country and culture controlled by rich white people."

These "incendiary" statements were broadcast by Fox and then picked up by CNN. I am reminded of the 1959 on the Nation of Islam entitled "The Hate that Hate Produced," which first put Malcolm X into national (read: white) consciousness. For the record Obama is no Malcolm X, but what IS similar is the white reaction to "black racism". I highly recommend watching the 1959 documentary and then watching some of the Hannity & Colmes clips on YouTube (part 1 and part 2 as well as this shameful clip. Please prepare yourself to see some class "A" house niggas!).

Trinity Unity church in Chicago is one of the major cores of cultural Black nationalism in the US. My mother used to drive us 2hrs to Chicago for the New Year's "watch service" so that we could be part of a religious experience with some cultural consciousness. It's a mega church with quite a few wealthy Black folks, a larger proportion of middle-class folks and a good deal of work-a-day people. For me the church doesn't go far enough, especially in regards to class questions, but as a sample of Wright's style will show, he's got the Black liberation theology thing going in some good directions in an era of extreme conservatism.

Now, as far as things go I'm not a fan of mega churches and the merely cultural consciousness of the Black middle classes, but the issue here is that the mere assertion of a commitment to the Black community is considered a threat to the u.s. According to my way of thinking this is quite true, if by u.s. we mean the state and the ruling class and by the Black community we mean our people's working-class and poor majorities. We might first be tempted to say that the conservatives are trying to throw mud onto Obama's campaign because he is winning. I think that's only a (small) part of the story.

What's really happening is that the entire white power structure is disciplining its Black middle class. Obama and all other would-be politicians with semi-conscious constituents, are being shown that any trace of anti-racist rhetoric or connections will NOT be tolerated, not simply among politicians, but amongst their constituents. They are basically playing the old trick of having so-called Black leaders discipline the more militant elements as a condition for sitting at the table. This comes in the form of hostility from the conservatives, but also from the "pragmatism" of the liberals (of whom Obama is a member) who try their best to eliminate race from the campaign. Both groups require that the issue of racial oppression be totally omitted from politics and that Black politicians police their consituencies. This is about the fear of a militant Black community entering the political arena and both parties are showing that they will NOT have it.

Is it a coincidence that after Obama "spoke" with the good reverend, Wright stopped giving interviews?

Yes, Obama is taking his whipping with head bowed. And it was in this same manner that last night Obama went on CNN and condemned the statements made by his former pastor, apologizing for knowing Black folks who are at least willing to stand up and talk about racism and power in the u.s. Obama stuttered his way through an interview with Anderson Cooper, who bent Obama over his knee like a three-year old and spanked him for going to a church where the pastor talks about Black life in a racist country.

And, like a child confessing for breaking the house rules, Obama apologized and renounced his pastor of 20 years and, by association, the constituency that had brought him onto the political stage in teh first place. Obviously giving the greatest attention to placating white fears but clearly shaken by the idea of losing Black support, Obama found himself making nonsense statements like this in the interview:

I have never been naive enough to think that we get beyond these issues of race or gender or our history or our past. What I have said is that we have the capacity to move beyond them and improve our relationship with each other in a way that actually reflects the best of American values and American ideals.

What is clear is that the equilibrium Obama maintained between his Black constituency and his "cross-over" white constituents has been ruptured by being forced to choose sides on the issue of racism. And Obama chose to side with the white backlash reactionaries (conservative and liberal) who say that racism is a thing of the past. Indeed, Obama carefully phrases racism as an issue of the "old days":

Reverend Wright as somebody who grew up in the '60s, had very different life experiences than I had, has continued to harbor a lot of anger and frustration about discrimination that he may have experienced.
And, so, his [Wright's] life experiences have been very different than mine. And part of what is going on within the African-American community is a transition, in which some of the rhetoric and statements and -- and frustrations of the past have given way to opportunities that I have experienced, and -- which is part of the reason why I speak in very different terms. And that's part of what our campaign has been about, is to surface some of these issues and to be able to move forward and get beyond them.

Notice his use of tense: "continued," "experienced." Even more troubling, notice how he says that the rev harbors anger and frustration about discrimination he may have experienced!! Oh yes, the center can no longer hold.

Now that Obama has been forced to talk about racism and choose sides, now that he has chosen explicitly to side with white reaction, there will be a shadow over the rest of his campaign. I am not saying that he has changed his position. I was always convinced that he was all for "America," meaning the ruling class, but now Black folks who have been supporting him because of what he represented for their hopes and sense of dignity have been slapped in the face and slapped hard.

To be sure many of these folks will continue to support the campaign of Obama. They will tell themselves that Obama is still a trailblazer, that he still represents the best choice we have, etc, etc. But the hope and sense of pride cannot but be mortally wounded. It might be politically expedient for Obama to cut off the man who baptized his children and married he and his wife, but it does not bode well for any sense of dignity amongst Black folks when they think of Obama.

(I HIGHLY recommend reading the transcript of the CNN interview here. And I'll keep an eye out for a YouTube clip so you can see Obama losing his shit when drilled by white folks about Black militance.)

The Anti-Racist Struggle Today (revised)

yesterday morning, as i was waiting for the bus at Wake-Med hospital, a Latin@ couple walked by the group of older Black men who were waiting with me for the bus. the couple was young and the man was carrying a baby. as the couple passed all the men began to sneer as if they had suddenly caught whiff of the smell of shit. after the couple had moved far enough away one man broke the silence.

"look at them," he said, his voice oozing contempt, "...and they don't even pay any taxes."

"go to any construction site," said someone else, "if you look at the crews all you see are mexicans where it used to be blacks. they came in and took all the jobs."

"let me tell you something," said still another Black man. "you know why the goddamn mexicans got all the jobs? because we're too busy fussin' and fightin'. talkin bout how we want more money but then won't get up in the morning and go to work. i get up every morning and i do my work. so unless you gonna do that, unless you gonna talk to the bosses like i do, then i don't wanna hear a damn thing about the mother fuckin mexicans."

everyone else got quiet. he continued, "huh! i'm just waiting for another race to come in and do to the mexicans what they're doing to us!"

i have never seen such racism amongst Black folks in my life. but it is useless to denounce their attitudes in abstraction. today the struggle against entrenched nativism and racism must be a struggle against the structures. nothing less will do. no substantial proportion of poor white or Black people will reverse their attitudes until there is some substantial struggle against the SYSTEM which stratifies labor hierarchically.

it is obvious that the root of the contempt that these Black men expressed is not "racial". it has nothing to do with where the new bottom rung of labor comes from or looks like or what language they speak or even how many children they have. "race", or rather ethnicity, is the correlation between a position in the division of labor and some cultural marker characteristic of the region(s) where those workers have come. hating Mexicans is a substitute for hating a system of labor allocation that is marginalizing the Black working-class. similarly, hating the fact that the (younger) Black working-class resists humiliation and marginalization by refusing to subordinate themselves to shit jobs is another way of blaming the powerless instead of struggling against the system.

if we want to struggle against racism the first task on our list is to develop a political program that will eliminate the structures of capitalism which necessitate the ethnicization and hierarchicalization of the labor force. racial capitalism, as Cedric Robinson calls it, has been a reality from the beginning. capitalism IS racist. we need to stop thinking about racism in terms of attitudes and "class" in terms of income. race and class are ways of talking about a single division of labor. we're not gonna end racism simply by appealing to people's "tolerance". we've got to realize that racism means the structuring of the living conditions of a people by determining their place in the capitalist hierarchy of labor and that this is not separate from a class analysis. the struggle against attitudes can only proceed when we have a strategy for the struggle against the structure.

as long as work remains in the hands of capital, as long as the State can differentiate rights to people based on "race" (which has always used the euphamisms of "citizenship" and "nationality"), as long as work is organized in such a way that some jobs are menial and degrading, poorly paid, and relegated to certain groups---as long as these structural elements persist, racism will thrive. instead of looking at whether some people have escaped this racial division of labor (Obama, Rice, Powell) we need to look at the composition of those divisions themselves.

i don't give a rat's ass if someone "escaped" the ghetto. i don't give a damn if some bourgeois negro can't live with bourgeois white folks. i care that the jobs that Black folks have and the income they get from them relegate them to the ghetto. such jobs should even exist. the ghetto should not exist. i care that the jobs that Latin American folks are forced into jobs that pay such shit wages and are so circumscribed by the violence of the State and the nativist vigilantes that they are forced to work incredible hours far from the people whom they love. i care that poor white folks aren't in much better of a position. how we gonna end racism? dammit, we're gonna end it when radical people of color take the leadership in developing anti-capitalist political agendas that include mechanisms for the abolition of the racial division of labor alongside the gender division of labor and the international division of labor, all of which are expressions of the capitalist/imperialist division of labor.

as long as someone else has stacked the deck so that "races" must displace one another we're doomed. the only "race", my friends, is the race to the bottom. and we can't bring workers or cultural groups together under those conditions. nor can we bring them together under some piece-meal reformist plan that wants to accept the current structure and just win a few concessions. the marginalization of poor Black and white workers and the extreme exploitation of poor Mexican workers demands a RADICAL answer and program. only a RADICAL approach can bring these folks together in a struggle for POWER. as long as we're looking to be GIVEN jobs and income we can't win. "race" will continue to win out. we need plans for seizing power at our worksites so that we can end this nonsense of racism.

of course there are more elements to racism than what happens at work. but i contend that it is the position of a people in relation to production which is the foundation of their broader social position. the most oppressed groups must lead the struggle to transform the meaning, structure, and role/meaning of labor in society. through this struggle we will build the resources, experience, solidarity, and power to push forward our rights for cultural autonomy and respect throughout this and other societies.

this has been a Black Radical rant...