White Chauvinism or Marxism-Leninism?
DISCLAIMER: With the upcoming 30th National Convention of the Communist Party, USA, (CPUSA) there was a call for articles to be written on issues pertaining to the Party in regard to politics, policy and practice. Several members from local chapters of the Party and Young Communist League submitted articles. Dozens were published. However, an article written by one of our members, Juan Pablo Guevara of the Southern California Young Communist League, was not. The Discussions and Resolutions Committee of the CPUSA refused to publish the article, citing that it “strayed from the guidelines” and the mentioning of fellow comrades acting out in harmful and chauvinistic ways was “casting aspersions.” We replied in saying that in not publishing the article, the Committee is acting as apologists for that very behavior. People of color have a hard time organizing in spaces, including radical ones. When issues of chauvinism come to surface they ought to be dealt with, examined and discussed. If this very basic premise is not respected, it is very troubling and unsafe. We therefore have decided, after a careful and sober analysis, to publish the article in its entirety. We welcome feedback and comments. We, as a democratic organization, strive to operate and be guided by principles of openness and transparency, even if it shows how certain members have negatively behaved. We call each other out because we love the Party, the communist movement and especially those ideals which we fight for. We publish the follow with respect to these ideals and for any people of color in the Party and other radical spaces that have unfortunately dealt with unsafe organizing spaces.
White Chauvinism or Marxism-Leninism?
By Juan Pablo Guevara, Southern California Young Communist League
A spectre is haunting the CPUSA, a spectre of white chauvinism.
It may be hard to fathom that many of our dearest comrades are guilty of perpetuating oppressive attitudes, but it has happened. And we must address it.
With the recent national and local discussions on changing the Party’s name and dropping “Leninism” as part of the CPUSA’s guiding ideology, much has been said. However, the recurring motif for these arguments has been for making our Party more appealing to the American working class.
There are many reasons to why this is problematic and rampant with white chauvinism. Firstly, who is this American working class that proponents of name-change and dropping Leninism are seeking to reach out to? When I see the U.S. working class I see an ever growing population of immigrant/migrant Latinos, people of African descent, and others who come from so-called third world countries. Many of these workers bring with them their national identity and culture. Specifically in Central and South America, where revolutionary movements have played and continue to play a dominant role in contemporary life and in the recent past. Ask a Salvadoran or a Nicaraguan immigrant if he or she acknowledges any of their national heroes, and they would with much certainty say yes and proceed to give you a miniature history lesson.
Additionally, I, like many of us, am in agreement with CPUSA Executive Vice-Chair Jarvis Tyner in his recent article in defense of the Party name and its guiding ideology here.
When we talk about the American working class, let us remember that it is comprised of more than 23 million Latino immigrants. Revolutionary ideology isn’t something that will alienate them. On the contrary, a push toward “Americanizing” the Party may actually dissuade immigrants from joining out of fear of belonging to a predominantly white-led political organization.
Another point that comrades talk about when reaching out to the American working class is that an ideology and culture linked to the Soviet Union and the Cold War is outdated and unnecessary. I would refute that by saying that the premise that we have to distance ourselves from the socialist bloc and Cold War, now 23 years dead, is absurd.
Additionally, regardless of Party name-change or ideological shift, we’re always going to be considered communists. A simple Google search will reveal everything. There’s no room to hide in the 21st Century.
But on the issue of how to better resonate with the American working class, I would suggest we focus more on the political shoulder-to-shoulder struggle of workers and their rights, with an emphasis on immigrant workers, and not so much on the aesthetic of our Party.
It is also important to understand that everything under a capitalist society is a reflection of its values. In other words, the superstructure (e.g. courts, religious institutions, media, schools, etc.) is a direct proponent in the ideological makeup of the masses. It has a powerful influence over culture, particularly its values and beliefs. This dominant culture (ruling class worldview) is then used to justify the political, social, and economic status quo as natural and inescapable. Therefore, what the advocates of “Americanizing” the Party also fail to realize is that Marxism, along with its historical symbolism (e.g. hammer and sickle) and theoretical developments, in its very essence, is the antithesis necessary to defeat capitalism (the base) in order to create a synthesis of proletarian hegemony. This is not obstructive dogmatism, this is dialectics.
But, many comrades will correctly argue that nothing is static; neither is our culture, nor our superstructure or its values. What good, then, is it to focus on preserving the historical symbolism of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, such as the hotly debated hammer and sickle? Well, for one thing, our base has remained the same—capitalism. So if we are to efficiently combat the base, our economic system, we have to create our own counter-hegemony in order to fight capitalist cultural hegemony. We must create our own superstructure in order to proletarianize the ideological makeup of the masses and wither away any cultural remnants of a society that was built on indigenous genocide and the oppression of people of color.
Whenever anyone calls for the “Americanization” of an organization that claims to fight alongside the oppressed peoples in their nation and abroad, we should consider the following about him or her: 1) Motives 2) Justifications 3) Childhood 4) Family background 5) Ethnicity. We can pretend that these factors are extraneous and perhaps even unimportant, but on the contrary, these are the personal and background factors that influence our views about politics and the government; this is part of our political socialization. For example, it is easier for a person of European descent to advocate for and embrace American culture, values, traditions, and history. In fact, this is part of having “white privilege(s)” such as being born into a multi-generational naturalized American family, seeing people of your ethnicity widely represented in society, and learning about a national heritage or a “civilization” that was built by people of your color. So it is no coincidence that those who are the most vocal about Americanizing our Party are generally of European descent, and in various cases, it has come off as either white chauvinism, culturally insensitive, or racist.
In 2013, we (Southern California Young Communist League) had someone from the Party National visit our YCL commune located in Skid Row, Los Angeles. As revolutionary young people of color we naturally set the decor of our commune to appeal to our revolutionary ideologies and cultural backgrounds (family origins) which included posters, murals, and photographs of national liberation movements from El Salvador, Mexico, and other Latin American countries. Upon arrival, our visitor from National proceeded to tell us that he felt as if though we were stuck in a different era. Although we declined to refute his comment at the time out of indiscriminate feelings of respect for an elder who is supposed to have more experience and knowledge than us, we later concluded that his comments were unnecessary, disrespectful, and culturally insensitive.
Enough time has passed now that I can express how uncomfortable this comment made us feel. For those who think that the images of national liberation heroes of Latin America, such as Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Farabundo Marti, Emiliano Zapata, Augusto Sandino and others are outdated, you have to understand how incredibly offensive and chauvinistic that sounds. We do not display these images on our clothing, inside our homes, or on our murals out of romantic nostalgia for war, but rather as reverence for our fallen heroes who fought against colonialism for the right to self-determination.
In 2014, the Southern California Young Communist League has recently undergone aggressive attacks by a member of the Southern California Communist Party. These attacks were made by a white comrade who felt that the Southern California YCL use of images of Latin American national liberation fighters were “highly repulsive,” “not representing the day-to-day politics of the CPUSA,” “not corresponding to the present-day consciousness of American workers and probably no other organized sector of the working class anywhere in the world,” and “a cult of romantic revolutionary violence.”
Need we remind comrades that the history of Latin America is a history of violence. With is long history of capitalist abuses and military dictatorships, our people cannot deny the working class men and women militants that died in the direct struggle for national liberation and working class emancipation from imperialism. To deny us our history and dismiss it as irrelevant to the present-day consciousness of American workers is not only racist, but smacks of American Exceptionalism. Especially when the fastest growing members of the working class are of Latin American descent (in Los Angeles Latin Americans are the majority).
I therefore propose that comrades, including our white comrades, stop referring to Marxist-Leninists that uphold the self-determination of oppressed nations as being “radical nationalists” and instead take a mature and sober analysis of the role that Marxism-Leninism has played in national liberation movements of the so-called third world.
Additionally, I propose that we maintain the name Communist Party, USA, keep our international symbol of the hammer and sickle, and uphold Marxism-Leninism because as Salvadoran communist revolutionary Roque Dalton has said, “Marxism-Leninism is, besides being the theory of the proletarian revolution and other things like that, the science of the history of the proletariat.”
Lastly, I urge all of our white comrades to more critically examine their privileges and chauvinism in organizing with your fellow comrades of color.
 |
| Book on African Caribbean Communist Claudia Jones. |
White Chauvinism or Marxism-Leninism?
By Juan Pablo Guevara, Southern California Young Communist League
A spectre is haunting the CPUSA, a spectre of white chauvinism.
It may be hard to fathom that many of our dearest comrades are guilty of perpetuating oppressive attitudes, but it has happened. And we must address it.
With the recent national and local discussions on changing the Party’s name and dropping “Leninism” as part of the CPUSA’s guiding ideology, much has been said. However, the recurring motif for these arguments has been for making our Party more appealing to the American working class.
There are many reasons to why this is problematic and rampant with white chauvinism. Firstly, who is this American working class that proponents of name-change and dropping Leninism are seeking to reach out to? When I see the U.S. working class I see an ever growing population of immigrant/migrant Latinos, people of African descent, and others who come from so-called third world countries. Many of these workers bring with them their national identity and culture. Specifically in Central and South America, where revolutionary movements have played and continue to play a dominant role in contemporary life and in the recent past. Ask a Salvadoran or a Nicaraguan immigrant if he or she acknowledges any of their national heroes, and they would with much certainty say yes and proceed to give you a miniature history lesson.
Additionally, I, like many of us, am in agreement with CPUSA Executive Vice-Chair Jarvis Tyner in his recent article in defense of the Party name and its guiding ideology here.
When we talk about the American working class, let us remember that it is comprised of more than 23 million Latino immigrants. Revolutionary ideology isn’t something that will alienate them. On the contrary, a push toward “Americanizing” the Party may actually dissuade immigrants from joining out of fear of belonging to a predominantly white-led political organization.
Another point that comrades talk about when reaching out to the American working class is that an ideology and culture linked to the Soviet Union and the Cold War is outdated and unnecessary. I would refute that by saying that the premise that we have to distance ourselves from the socialist bloc and Cold War, now 23 years dead, is absurd.
Additionally, regardless of Party name-change or ideological shift, we’re always going to be considered communists. A simple Google search will reveal everything. There’s no room to hide in the 21st Century.
But on the issue of how to better resonate with the American working class, I would suggest we focus more on the political shoulder-to-shoulder struggle of workers and their rights, with an emphasis on immigrant workers, and not so much on the aesthetic of our Party.
It is also important to understand that everything under a capitalist society is a reflection of its values. In other words, the superstructure (e.g. courts, religious institutions, media, schools, etc.) is a direct proponent in the ideological makeup of the masses. It has a powerful influence over culture, particularly its values and beliefs. This dominant culture (ruling class worldview) is then used to justify the political, social, and economic status quo as natural and inescapable. Therefore, what the advocates of “Americanizing” the Party also fail to realize is that Marxism, along with its historical symbolism (e.g. hammer and sickle) and theoretical developments, in its very essence, is the antithesis necessary to defeat capitalism (the base) in order to create a synthesis of proletarian hegemony. This is not obstructive dogmatism, this is dialectics.
But, many comrades will correctly argue that nothing is static; neither is our culture, nor our superstructure or its values. What good, then, is it to focus on preserving the historical symbolism of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, such as the hotly debated hammer and sickle? Well, for one thing, our base has remained the same—capitalism. So if we are to efficiently combat the base, our economic system, we have to create our own counter-hegemony in order to fight capitalist cultural hegemony. We must create our own superstructure in order to proletarianize the ideological makeup of the masses and wither away any cultural remnants of a society that was built on indigenous genocide and the oppression of people of color.
Whenever anyone calls for the “Americanization” of an organization that claims to fight alongside the oppressed peoples in their nation and abroad, we should consider the following about him or her: 1) Motives 2) Justifications 3) Childhood 4) Family background 5) Ethnicity. We can pretend that these factors are extraneous and perhaps even unimportant, but on the contrary, these are the personal and background factors that influence our views about politics and the government; this is part of our political socialization. For example, it is easier for a person of European descent to advocate for and embrace American culture, values, traditions, and history. In fact, this is part of having “white privilege(s)” such as being born into a multi-generational naturalized American family, seeing people of your ethnicity widely represented in society, and learning about a national heritage or a “civilization” that was built by people of your color. So it is no coincidence that those who are the most vocal about Americanizing our Party are generally of European descent, and in various cases, it has come off as either white chauvinism, culturally insensitive, or racist.
In 2013, we (Southern California Young Communist League) had someone from the Party National visit our YCL commune located in Skid Row, Los Angeles. As revolutionary young people of color we naturally set the decor of our commune to appeal to our revolutionary ideologies and cultural backgrounds (family origins) which included posters, murals, and photographs of national liberation movements from El Salvador, Mexico, and other Latin American countries. Upon arrival, our visitor from National proceeded to tell us that he felt as if though we were stuck in a different era. Although we declined to refute his comment at the time out of indiscriminate feelings of respect for an elder who is supposed to have more experience and knowledge than us, we later concluded that his comments were unnecessary, disrespectful, and culturally insensitive.
Enough time has passed now that I can express how uncomfortable this comment made us feel. For those who think that the images of national liberation heroes of Latin America, such as Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Farabundo Marti, Emiliano Zapata, Augusto Sandino and others are outdated, you have to understand how incredibly offensive and chauvinistic that sounds. We do not display these images on our clothing, inside our homes, or on our murals out of romantic nostalgia for war, but rather as reverence for our fallen heroes who fought against colonialism for the right to self-determination.
In 2014, the Southern California Young Communist League has recently undergone aggressive attacks by a member of the Southern California Communist Party. These attacks were made by a white comrade who felt that the Southern California YCL use of images of Latin American national liberation fighters were “highly repulsive,” “not representing the day-to-day politics of the CPUSA,” “not corresponding to the present-day consciousness of American workers and probably no other organized sector of the working class anywhere in the world,” and “a cult of romantic revolutionary violence.”
Need we remind comrades that the history of Latin America is a history of violence. With is long history of capitalist abuses and military dictatorships, our people cannot deny the working class men and women militants that died in the direct struggle for national liberation and working class emancipation from imperialism. To deny us our history and dismiss it as irrelevant to the present-day consciousness of American workers is not only racist, but smacks of American Exceptionalism. Especially when the fastest growing members of the working class are of Latin American descent (in Los Angeles Latin Americans are the majority).
I therefore propose that comrades, including our white comrades, stop referring to Marxist-Leninists that uphold the self-determination of oppressed nations as being “radical nationalists” and instead take a mature and sober analysis of the role that Marxism-Leninism has played in national liberation movements of the so-called third world.
Additionally, I propose that we maintain the name Communist Party, USA, keep our international symbol of the hammer and sickle, and uphold Marxism-Leninism because as Salvadoran communist revolutionary Roque Dalton has said, “Marxism-Leninism is, besides being the theory of the proletarian revolution and other things like that, the science of the history of the proletariat.”
Lastly, I urge all of our white comrades to more critically examine their privileges and chauvinism in organizing with your fellow comrades of color.
No comments:
Post a Comment