Re: Race Theory 3

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

>>Clearly, those of us providing material excavated from the historical
record about what actually happened are at a disadvantage in this
discussion.  The fact is that Foner's dead right in noting that the
record includes multiracial organizations.  

When Cde. Melvin says this is "insane," it is clear that one approach or
another could well be.

Having posed once more the uncomfortable realities of the historical
record, I'm quite confident that Cde. Melvin...drawing upon the Marxist
technique of John Edwards...will channel an understanding of Mississippi
in 1875 by turning to p. 715, Vol. 29 of the Collected Works of Lenin.

>>Religious people do have interesting minds.

Best,
Mark L.


Reply 

Comrade what I stated that to present period of Reconstruction as a period of interracial unity is insane. Reconstruction was the continuation of the war to overthrow the slave oligarchy. At every turn in this discuss I have riveted the color factor to class phenomenon. The historical record is the class struggle of the freedmen and small farmers â black and white and you speck of multiracial organizations in contradistinction to the class factor. 

You pretend that I have implied that no organization of black and white farmers and freedmen existed during Reconstruction when I have written nothing to justify your implication. 

You speck of  âmultiracial organizationsâ and I ask again for any one to give the definitive presentation on exactly that of which a race of people consist. The fact of the matter is that black people and white people have commingled in various organizations throughout the history of America â to one degree or another, but this is not the meaning of your assertion. 

The question is not the existence of âmultiracial organizationsâ but rather of class organizations during the Reconstruction period, that of necessity embraced the toilers of every hue. Rather that suggest I study Lenin to understand Mississippi, state your point. 

I did however check out volume 29 of Leninâs Collected works at your suggestion. Unfortunately, my edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1974, Second Printing only goes to page 599. I did search page 517 and then 175 in case you reversed the page numbers. I did take the opportunity to reread Leninâs âThe Third International and Itâs Place in History,â âA Great Beginning,â and âThe Tasks of the Third International.â In the latter article Lenin writes, âThe dictatorship of the proletariat would be impossible if the majority of the population did not consist of proletarians and semi-proletarians,â which is basically the conditions that existed during Reconstruction. The semi-proletarians speak to those small farmers who work. 

The content of my writings are never devoid of Marxist frameworks and class content. What is the class content of the concept âmulti-racial organizations?â 
Here is the rub. The discussion is over the concept of race and an alleged Marxist conception of race that defines the African American people as a race. I have no desire to intermingle with the Anglo-American bourgeoisie. 

On the other hand, you draw upon nothing from Marx as exhibited in what you have written. Why do you argue against an understanding that places the motion of the African American people within the framework of the productive forces and relations of production? Eric Fonerâs Executive summary â presented by Comrade Charles, is devoid of this framework. Where am I wrong or deviate from the generally recognized Marxist standpoint? Fonerâs Executive Summary is an affront to Marxist because its substitutes a bourgeois conception of race for the color factor in our history and the very real and intense class struggle Reconstruction was and the subsequent counterrevolution. 

The fact of the matter is that even during Reconstruction segregation remained a way of life in the South and the rest of America. The changes in the social position of the African American in respects to segregation and isolation is not a question of multiracial organizations but the real changes in the productive forces, specifically the mechanization of agriculture which fueled the mass migration fro the South and allowed millions of black to enter the lowest section of the industrial infrastructure of the North. This very real quantitative expansion of the industrial infrastructure demanded the ending of the form of segregation the emerged from slavery and the defeat of Reconstruction. 

The mechanization of agriculture provided the economic revolution to implement the political result of the Civil War. The logic of petty bourgeois production â the life âessenceâ of the semi-proletarians, is transformed o the basis of the productive forces. 

Once the bourgeois concept of race is defeated in the ideological realm in respect to the Marxist movement, the class content of our history will usher forth clearly for everyone to see and understand.  Out task is to disclose ideological forms and reveal the principle movement of class forces in society. 

I do not understand your meaning and hostility to the materialist conception of history. You do subscribe to the materialist conception of history as stated by Marx? 
Again, I do not deny that there were instances where black toiler and white toilers commingled in common organizations, but this discussion is about a so-called Marxist conception of race, which Charles claim. Do you claim a Marxist conception of race also as the reason for your classless assertions? Do you claim that Karl Marx âanywhere in his writings, provide a framework for a theory of race? 
Melvin P