We reproduce here extracts from discussions that took place in the 1930s between Trotsky and various members of the American Trotskyist movement (at the time of the first discussion, still regarding itself as an opposition group within the CP, called the Communist League, later the SWP) about its policy. For obvious reasons of space we have had to edit these discussions, including only the first two out of the total of four, and these with deletions of contributions by some of the participants other than Trotsky. The full discussions are available in a collection published by Merit (obtainable from IS books at Rs 6d). Johnson, the other main participant in the second discussion besides Trotsky, was the party name of the well-known West Indian writer and revolutionary, C.L R. James.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Negro Question in America
Prinkipo, Turkey
February 28, 1933
Swabeck: We have in this question within the American League no noticeable differences of an important character, nor have we yet formulated a program. I present therefore only the views which we have developed in general.
How must we view the position of the American Negro: As a national minority or as a racial minority? This is of the greatest importance for our program.
The Stalinists maintain as their main slogan the one of ‘self-determination for the Negroes’ and demand in connection therewith a separate state and state rights for the Negroes in the black belt. The practical application of the latter demand has revealed much opportunism. On the other hand, I acknowledge that in the practical work amongst the Negroes, despite the numerous mistakes, the [Communist] party can also record some achievements. For example, in the Southern textile strikes, where to a large extent the color lines were broken down.
Weisbord,* I understand, is in agreement with the slogan of ‘self-determination’ and separate state rights. He maintains that is the application of the theory of the permanent revolution for America.
[* Albert Weisbord, then the leader of a small organization called the Communist League of Struggle.]
We proceed from the actual situation: There are approximately 13 million Negroes in America; the majority are in the Southern states (black belt). In the Northern states the Negroes are concentrated in the industrial communities as industrial workers, in the South they are mainly farmers and sharecroppers.
Trotsky: Do they rent from the state or from private owners?
Swabeck: From private owners, from white farmers and plantation owners; some Negroes own the land they till.
The Negro population of the North are kept on a lower level —economically, socially and culturally; in the South under oppressive Jim Crow conditions. They are barred from many important trade unions. During and since the war the migration from the South has increased; perhaps about four to five million Negroes now live in the North. The Northern Negro population is overwhelmingly proletarian, but also in the South the proletarianization is progressing.
Today none of the Southern states have a Negro majority. This lends emphasis to the heavy migration, to the North. We put the question thus: Are the Negroes, in a political sense, a national minority or a racial minority? The Negroes have become fully assimilated, Americanized, and their life in America has overbalanced the traditions of the past, modified and changed them. We cannot consider the Negroes a national minority in the sense of having their own separate language. They have no special national customs, or special national culture or religion; nor have they any special national minority interests. It is impossible to speak of them as a national minority in this sense. It is therefore our opinion that the American Negroes are a racial minority whose position and interests are subordinated to the class relations of the country and depending upon them.
To us the Negroes represent an important factor in the class struggle, almost a decisive factor. They are an important section of the proletariat. There is also a Negro petty bourgeoisie in America but not as powerful or as influential or playing the role of the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie among the nationally oppressed people (colonial).
The Stalinist slogan ‘self-determination’ is in the main based upon an estimate of the American Negroes as a national minority, to be won over as allies. To us the question occurs: Do we want to win the Negroes as allies on such a basis and who do we want to win, the Negro proletariat or the Negro petty bourgeoisie? To us it appears that we will with this slogan win mainly the petty bourgeoisie and we cannot have much interest in winning them as allies on such a basis? We recognize that the poor farmers and sharecroppers are the closest allies of the proletariat but it is our opinion that they can be won as such mainly on the basis of the class struggle. Compromise on this principled question would put the petty bourgeois allies ahead of the proletariat and the poor farmers as well. We recognize the existence of definite stages of development which require specific slogans. But the Stalinist slogan appears to us to lead directly to the ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’. The unity of the workers, black and white, we must prepare proceeding from a class basis, but in that it is necessary to also recognize the racial issues and in addition to the class slogans also advance the racial slogans. It is our opinion that in this respect the main slogan should be ‘social, political and economic equality for the Negroes’, as well as the slogans which flow therefrom. This slogan is naturally quite different from the Stalinist slogan of ‘self-determination’ for a national minority. The [Communist] party leaders maintain that the Negro workers and farmers can be won only oil the basis of this slogan. To begin with it was advanced for the Negroes throughout the country, but today only for the Southern states. It is our opinion that we can win the Negro workers only on a class basis advancing also the racial slogans for the necessary intermediary stages of development. In this manner we believe also the poor Negro farmers can best be won as direct allies.
In the main the problem of slogans in regard to the Negro question is the problem of a practical program.
Trotsky: The point of view of the American comrades appears to me not fully convincing. ‘Self-determination’ is a democratic demand. Our American comrades advance as against this democratic demand, the liberal demand. This liberal demand is, moreover, complicated. I understand what ‘political equality’ means. But what is the meaning of economical and social equality within capitalist society? Does that mean a demand to public opinion that all enjoy the equal protection of the laws? But that is political equality. The slogan ‘political, economic and social equality’ sounds equivocal and while it is not clear to me it nevertheless suggests itself easy of misinterpretation.
The Negroes are a race and not a nation:—Nations grow out of the racial material under definite conditions. The Negroes in Africa are not yet a nation but they are in the process of building a nation. The American Negroes are on a higher cultural level. But while they are there under the pressure of the Americans they become interested in the development of the Negroes in Africa. The American Negro will develop leaders for Africa, that one can say with certainty and that in turn will influence the development of political consciousness in America.
We do, of course, not obligate the Negroes to become a nation; if they are, then that is a question of their consciousness, that is, what they desire and what they strive for. We say: If the Negroes want that then we must fight against imperialism to the last drop of blood, so that they gain the right, wherever and how they please, to separate a piece of land for themselves. The fact that they are today not a majority in any state does not matter. It is not a question of the authority of the states but of the Negroes. That in the overwhelming Negro territory also whites have existed and will remain henceforth is not the question and we do not need today to break our heads over a possibility that sometime the whites will be suppressed by the Negroes. In any case the suppression of the Negroes pushes them toward a political and national unity.
That the slogan ‘self-determination’ will rather win the petty bourgeois instead of the workers—that argument holds good also for the slogan of equality. It is clear that the special Negro elements who appear more in the public eye (businessmen, intellectuals, lawyers, etc) are more active and react more actively against the inequality. It is possible to say that the liberal demand just as well as the democratic one in the first instance will attract the petty bourgeois and only later the workers.
If the situation was such that in America common actions existed between the white and the colored workers, that the class fraternization had already become a fact, then perhaps the arguments of our comrades would have a basis—I do not say that they would be correct—then perhaps we would separate the colored workers from the white if we commence with the slogan ‘self-determination’.
But today the white workers in relation to the Negroes are the oppressors, scoundrels, who persecute the black and the yellow, hold them in contempt and lynch them. When the Negro workers today unite with their own petty bourgeois that is because they are not yet sufficiently developed to defend their elementary rights. To the workers in the Southern states the liberal demand for ‘social, political and economic equality’ would undoubtedly mean progress, but the demand for ‘self-determination’ a greater progress. However, with the slogan ‘social, political and economic equality’ they can much easier be misled (‘according to the law you have this equality’).
When we are so far that the Negroes say we want autonomy; they then take a position hostile toward American imperialism. At that stage already the workers will be much more determined than the petty bourgeoisie. The workers will then see that the petty bourgeoisie is incapable of struggle and gets nowhere, but they will also recognize simultaneously that the white Communist workers fight for their demands and that will push them, the Negro proletarians, toward Communism.
Weisbord is correct in a certain sense that the ‘self-determination’ of the Negroes belongs to the question of the permanent revolution in America. The Negroes will through their awakening, through their demand for autonomy, and through the democratic mobilization of their forces, be pushed on toward the class basis. The petty bourgeoisie will take up the demand for ‘social, political, and economic equality’ and for ‘self-determination’ but prove absolutely incapable in the struggle; the Negro proletariat will march crier the petty bourgeoisie in the direction toward the proletarian revolution. That is perhaps for them the most important road. I can therefore see no reason why we should not advance the demand for ‘self-determination’.
I am not sure if the Negroes do not also in the Southern states speak their own Negro language. Now that they are being lynched just because of being Negroes they naturally fear to speak their Negro language; but when they are set free their Negro language will again become alive. I will advise the American comrades to study this question very seriously, including the language in the Southern states. Because of all these Masons I would in this question rather lean toward the standpoint of the [Communist] party; of course, with the observation: I have never studied this question and in my remarks I proceed from the general considerations. I base myself only upon the arguments brought forward by the American comrades. I find them insufficient and consider them a certain concession to the point of view of American chauvinism, which seems to me to be dangerous.
What can we lose in this question when we go ahead with our demands, and what have the Negroes today to lose? We do not compel them to separate from the States, but they have the full right to self-determination when they so desire and we will support and defend them with all the means at our disposal in the conquestion [conquest] of this right, the same as we defend all oppressed peoples.
Swabeck: I admit that you have advanced powerful arguments but I am not yet entirely convinced. The existence of a special Negro language in the Southern states is possible; but in general all American Negroes speak English. They are fully assimilated. Their religion is the American Baptist and the language in their churches is likewise English.
Economic equality we do not at all understand in the sense of the law. In the North (as of course also in the Southern states) the wages for Negroes are always lower than for white workers and mostly their hours are longer, that is so to say accepted as a natural basis. In addition, the Negroes are allotted the most disagreeable work. It is because of these conditions that we demand economic equality for the Negro workers.
We do not contest the right of the Negroes to self-determination. That is not the issue of our disagreement with the Stalinists. But we contest the correctness of the slogan of ‘self-determination’ as a means to win the Negro masses. The impulse of the Negro population is first of all in the direction toward equality in a social, political and economic sense. At present the party advances the slogan for ‘self-determination’ only for the Southern states. Of course, one can hardly expect that the Negroes from the Northern industries should want to return to the South and there are no indications of such a desire. On the contrary. Their unformulated demand is for ‘social, political and economic equality’ based upon the conditions under which they live. That is also the case in the South. It is because of this that we believe this to be the important racial slogan. We do not look upon the Negroes as being under national, oppression in the same sense as the oppressed colonial peoples. It is our opinion that the slogan of the Stalinists tends to lead the Negroes away from the class basis and more in the direction of the racial basis. That is the main reason for our being opposed to it. We are of the belief that the racial slogan in the sense as presented by us leads directly toward the class basis.
Frank: Are there special Negro movements in America?
Swabeck: Yes, several. First we had the Garvey movement based upon the aim of migration to Africa. It had a large following but busted up as a swindle. Now there is not much left of it. Its slogan was the creation of a Negro republic in Africa. Other Negro movements in the main rest upon a foundation of social and political equality demands as, for example, the League [National Association] for Advancement of Colored People. This is a large racial movement.
Trotsky: I believe that also the demand for ‘social, political and economic equality’ should remain and I do not speak against this demand. It is progressive to the extent that it is not realized. The explanation of Comrade Swabeck in regard to the question of economic equality is very important. But that alone does not yet decide the question of the Negro fate as such, the question of the ‘nation’, etc. According to the arguments of the American comrades one could say for example that also Belgium has no right as a ‘nation’. The Belgians are Catholics and a large section of them speak French. What if France would annex them with such an argument? Also the Swiss people, through their historical connection, feel themselves, despite different languages and religion, as one nation. An abstract criterion is not decisive in this question, but much more decisive is the historical consciousness, their feelings and their impulses. But that also is not determined accidentally but rather by the general conditions. The question of religion has absolutely nothing to do with this question of the nation. The Baptism of the Negro is something entirely different from the Baptism of Rockefeller: These are two different religions.
The political argument rejecting the demand for ‘self-determination’ is doctrinarism. That we heard always in Russia in regard to the question of ‘self-determination’. The Russian experiences have shown to us that the groups who live on a peasant basis retain peculiarities, their customs, their language, etc, and given the opportunity they develop again.
The Negroes are not yet awakened and they are not yet united with the white workers. 99.9 per cent of the American workers are chauvinists, in relation to the Negroes they are hangmen and they are so also toward the Chinese. It is necessary to teach the American beasts. It is necessary to make them understand that the American state is not their state and that they do not have to be the guardians of this state. Those American workers who say: ‘The Negroes should separate when they so desire and we will defend them against our American police’—those are revolutionists, I have confidence in them.
The argument that the slogan for ‘self-determination’ leads away from the class basis is an adaptation to the ideology of the white workers. The Negro can be developed to a class standpoint only when the white worker is educated. On the whole the question of the colonial people is in the first instance a question of the development of the metropolitan worker.
The American worker is indescribably reactionary. It is shown today that he is not even yet won for the idea of social insurance. Because of this the American Communists are obligated to advance reform demands.
When today the Negroes do not demand self-determination that is naturally for the same reason that the white workers do not yet advance the slogan of the proletarian dictatorship. The Negro has not yet got it into his poor black head that he dares to carve out for himself a piece of the great and mighty States. But the white worker must meet the Negroes half way and say to them: ‘When you want to separate you will have our support’. Also the Czech workers came only through the disillusion with their own state to Communism.
I believe that by the unheard-of political and theoretical backwardness and the unheard-of economic advance the awakening of the working class will proceed quite rapidly. The old ideological covering will burst, all questions will emerge at once, and since the country is so economically mature the adaptation of the political and theoretical to the economic level will be achieved very rapidly. It is then possible that the Negroes will become the most advanced section. We have already a similar example in Russia. The Russians were the European Negroes. It is very possible that the Negroes also through the self-determination will proceed to the proletarian dictatorship in a couple of gigantic strides, ahead of the great bloc of white workers. They will then furnish the vanguard. I am absolutely sure that they will in any case fight better than the white workers. That, however, can happen only provided the Communist party carries on an uncompromising merciless struggle not against the supposed national prepossessions of the Negroes but against the colossal prejudices of the white workers and gives it no concession whatever.
Swabeck: It is then your opinion that the slogan for ‘self-determination’ will be a means to set the Negroes into motion against American imperialism?
Trotsky: Naturally, thereby that the Negroes can carve out their own state out of mighty America and with the support of the white workers their self-consciousness develops enormously.
The reformists and the revisionists have written much on the subject that capitalism is carrying on the work of civilization in Africa and if the peoples of Africa are left to themselves they will be the more exploited by businessmen, etc, much more than now where they at least have a certain measure of lawful protection.
To a certain extent this argument can be correct. But in this case it is also first of all a question of the European workers: without their liberation the real colonial liberation is also not possible. When the white worker performs the role of the oppressor he cannot liberate himself, much less the colonial peoples. The self-determination of the colonial peoples can, in certain periods, lead to different results; in the final instance, however, it will lead to the struggle against imperialism and to the liberation of the colonial peoples.
The Austrian Social Democracy (particularly Renner) also put before the [first world] war the question of the national minorities abstractly. They argued likewise that the slogan for ‘self-determination’ would only lead the workers away from the class standpoint and that such minority states could not live independently. Was this way of putting the question correct or false? It was abstract. The Austrian Social Democrats said that the national minorities were not nations. What do we see today? The separate pieces [of the old Austro-Hungarian empire, beaded by the Hapsburgs] exist, rather bad, but they exist. The Bolsheviks fought in Russia always for the self-determination of the national minorities including the right of complete separation. And yet, by achieving self-determination these groups remained with the Soviet Union. If the Austrian Social Democracy had before accepted a correct policy in this question, they would have said to the national minority groups: ’You have the full right to self-determination, we have no interest whatever to keep you in the hands of the Hapsburg monarchy’—it would then have been possible after the revolution to create a great Danube federation. The dialectic of the. developments shows that where the tight centralism existed the state went to pieces and where the complete self-determination was proposed a real state emerged and remained united.
The Negro question is of enormous importance for America. The League must undertake a serious discussion of this question, perhaps in an internal bulletin.
Self-Determination for the American Negroes
Coyoacan, Mexico
April 4, 1939
Trotsky: Comrade Johnson proposes that we discuss the Negro question in three pans, the first to be devoted to the programmatic question of self-determination for the Negroes.
Johnson: (There was introduced some statistical material which was not included in the report.) The basic proposals for the Negro question have already been distributed and here it is only necessary to deal with the question of self-determination. No one denies the Negroes’ right to self-determination. It is a question of whether we should advocate it. In Africa and in the West Indies we advocate self-determination because a large majority of the people want it. In Africa the, great masses of the people look upon self-determination as a restoration of their independence. In the West Indies, where we have a population similar in origin to the Negroes in America, there, has been developing a national sentiment. The Negroes are a majority. Already we hear ideas, among the more advanced, of a West Indian nation, and it is highly probable that, even let us suppose that the Negroes were offered full and free rights as citizens of the British Empire, they would probably oppose it and wish to be absolutely free and independent ... It is progressive. It is a step in the right direction. We weaken the enemy. It puts the workers in a position to make great progress toward socialism.
In America the situation is different. The Negro desperately wants to be an American citizen. He says, ‘I have been here from the beginning; I did all the work here in the early days. Jews, Poles, Italians, Swedes and others come here and have all the privileges. You say that some of the Germans are spies. I will never spy. I have nobody for whom to spy. And yet you exclude me from the army and from the rights of citizenship.’
In Poland and Catalonia there is a tradition of language, literature and history to add to the economic and political oppression and to help weld the population in its progressive demand for self-determination. In America it is not so. Let us look at certain historic events in the development of the Negro America.
Garvey raised the slogan ‘Back to Africa’, but the Negroes who followed him did not believe for the most part that they were really going back to Africa. We know that those in the West Indies who were following him had not the slightest intention of going back to Africa, but they were glad to follow a militant leadership. And there is the case of a black woman who was pushed by a white woman in a street car and said to her. ‘You wait until Marcus gets into power and all you people will be treated in the way you deserve’. Obviously she was not thinking of poor Africa.
There was, however, this concentration on the Negroes’ problems simply because the white workers in 1919 were not developed. There was no political organization of any power calling upon the blacks and the whites to unite. The Negroes were just back from the war—militant and having no offer of assistance; they naturally concentrated on their own particular affairs.
In addition, however, we should note that in Chicago, where a race riot took place, the riot was deliberately provoked by the employers. Some time before it actually broke out, the black and white meatpackers had struck and had paraded through the Negro quarter in Chicago with the black population cheering the Whites in the same way that they cheered the blacks. For the capitalists this was a very dangerous thing and they set themselves to creating race friction. At one stage, motor cars, with white people in them, sped through the Negro quarter shooting at all whom they saw. The capitalist press played up the differences and thus set the stage and initiated the riots that took place for dividing the population and driving the Negro back upon himself.
During the period of the crisis there was a rebirth of these nationalist movements. There was a movement toward the 49th state and the movement concentrated around Liberia was developing. These movements assumed fairly large proportions up to at least 1934.
Then in 1936 came the organization of the CIO. John L. Lewis appointed a special Negro department. The New Deal made gestures to the Negroes. Blacks and whites fought together in various struggles. These nationalist movements have tended to disappear as the Negro saw the opportunity to fight with the organised workers and to gain something.
The danger of our advocating and injecting a policy of self-determination is that it is the surest way to divide and confuse the worker’s in the South. The white workers have centuries of prejudice to overcome, but at the present time many of them are working with the Negroes in the Southern sharecroppers’ union and with the rise of the struggle there is every possibility that they will be able to overcome their age-long prejudices. But for us to propose that the Negro have this black state for himself is asking too much from the white workers, especially when the Negro himself is not making the same demand. The slogans of ‘abolition of debts’, ‘confiscation of large properties’, etc, are quite sufficient to lead them both to fight together and on the basis of economic struggle to make a united fight for the abolition of social discrimination.
I therefore propose concretely: (1) That we are for the right of self-determination. (2) If some demand should arise among the Negroes for the right of self-determination we should support it. (3) We do not go out of our way to raise this slogan and place an unnecessary barrier between ourselves and socialism. (4) An investigation should be made into these movements; the one led by Garvey, the movement for the 49th state, the movement centering around Liberia. Find out what groups of the population supported them and on this basis come to some opinion as to how far there is any demand among the Negroes for self-determination.
Trotsky: I do not quite understand whether Comrade Johnson proposes to eliminate the slogan of self-determination for the Negroes from our program,* or is it that we do not say that we are ready to do everything possible for the self-determination of the Negroes if they want it themselves. It is a question for the party as a whole, if we eliminate it or not. We are ready to help them if they want it. As a party we can remain absolutely neutral on this. We cannot say it will be reactionary. It is not reactionary. We cannot tell them to set up a state because that will weaken imperialism and so will be good for us, the white workers. That would be against internationalism itself. We cannot say to them, ‘Stay here, even at the price of economic progress’. We can say, ‘It is for you to decide. If you wish to take a part of the country, it is all right, but we do not wish to make the decision for you.
[* In the internal bulletin of the SWP, Johnson had written: The Negro must be won for socialism. There is no other way out for him in America or elsewhere. But he must be won on the basis of his own experiences and his own activity. There is no other way for him to learn, nor for that matter, for any other group of toilers! If he wanted self-determination, then however reactionary it might be in every other respect, it would be the business of the revolutionary party to raise that slogan. If after the revolution he insisted on carrying out that slogan and forming his own Negro state, the revolutionary party would have to stand by its promises and patiently trust to economic development and education to achieve an integration. But the Negro, fortunately for socialism, does not want self-determination.]
I believe that the differences between the West Indies, Catalonia, Poland and the situation of the Negroes in the States are not so decisive. Rosa Luxemburg was against self-determination for Poland. She felt that it was reactionary and fantastic, as fantastic as demanding the right to fly. It shows that she did not possess the necessary historic imagination in this case. The landlords and representatives of the Polish ruling class were also opposed to self-determination for their own reasons.
Comrade Johnson used three verbs: ‘support’, ‘advocate’ and ‘inject’ the idea of self-determination. I do not propose for the party to advocate, I do not propose to inject, but only to proclaim our obligation to support the struggle for self-determination if the Negroes themselves want it. It is not a question of our Negro comrades. It is a question of 13 or 14 million Negroes. The majority of them ate very backward. They are not very clear as to what they wish now and we must give them a credit for the future. They will decide then.
What you said about the Garvey movement is interesting—but it proves that we must be cautious and broad and not base ourselves upon the status quo. The black woman who said to the white woman, ‘Wait until Marcus is in power. We will know how to treat you then’, was simply expressing her desire for her own state. The American Negroes gathered under the banner of the ‘Back to Africa’ movement because it seemed a possible fulfillment of their wish for their own home. They did not want actually to go to Africa. It was the expression of a mystic desire for a home in which they would be free of the domination of the whites, in which they themselves could control their own fate. That also was a wish for self-determination. It was once expressed by some in a religious form and now it takes the form of a dream of an independent state. Here in the United States the whites are so powerful, so cruel and rich that the poor Negro sharecropper does not dare to say, even to himself, that he will take a part of his country for himself. Garvey spoke in glowing terms, that it was beautiful and that here all would be wonderful. Any psychoanalyst will say that the real content of this dream was to have their own home. It is not an argument in favor of injecting the idea. It is only an argument by which we can foresee the possibility of their giving their dream a more realistic form.
Under the condition that Japan invades the United States and the Negroes are called upon to fight—they may come to feel themselves threatened first from one side and then from the other, and finally awakened, may say, ‘We have nothing to do with either of you. We will have our own state.’
But the black state could enter into a federation. If the American Negroes succeeded in creating their own state, I am sure that after a few years of the satisfaction and pride of independence, they would feel the need of entering into a federation. Even if Catalonia which is very industrialized and highly developed province, had realized its independence, it would have been just a step to federation.
The Jews in Germany and Austria wanted nothing more than to be the best German chauvinists. The most miserable of all was the Social Democrat, Austerlitz, the editor of the Arbeiterzeitung. But now, with the turn of events, Hitler does not permit them to be German chauvinists. Now many of them have become Zionists and are Palestinian nationalists and anti-German. I saw a disgusting picture recently of a Jewish actor, arriving in America, bending down to kiss the soil of the United States. Then they will get a few blows from the fascist fists in the United States and they will go to kiss the soil of Palestine.
There is another alternative to the successful revolutionary one. It is possible that fascism will come to power with its racial delirium and oppression and the reaction of the Negro will be toward racial independence. Fascism in the United States will be directed against the Jews and the Negroes, but against the Negroes particularly, and in a most terrible manner. A privileged’ condition will be created for the American white workers on the backs of the Negroes. The Negroes have done everything possible to become an integral part of the United States, in a psychological as well as a political sense. We must foresee that their reaction will show its power during the revolution. They will enter with a great distrust of the whites. We must remain neutral in the matter and hold the door open for both possibilities and promise our full support if they wish to create their own independent state.
So far as I am informed, it seems to me that the CP’s attitude of making an imperative slogan of it was false. It was a case of the whites saying to the Negroes, ‘You must create a ghetto for yourselves’. It is tactless and false and can only serve to repulse the Negroes. Their only interpretation can be that the whites want to be separated from them. Our Negro comrades of course have the right to participate more intimately in such developments. Our Negro comrades can say, ‘The Fourth International says that if it is our wish to be independent, it will help us in every way possible, but that the choice is ours. However, I, as a Negro member of the Fourth, hold a view that we must remain in the same state as the whites,’ and so on. He can participate in the formation of the political and racial ideology of the Negroes.
Johnson: I am very glad that we have had this discussion, because I agree with you entirely. It seems to be the idea in America that we should advocate it as the CP has done. You seem to think that there is a greater possibility of the Negroes wanting self-determination than I think is probable. But we have a hundred per cent agreement on the idea of which you have put forward that we should be neutral in the development.
Trotsky: It is the word ‘reactionary’ that bothered me.
Johnson: Let me quote from the document : ‘If he wanted self-determination, then however reactionary it might be in every other respect, it would be the business of the revolutionary party to raise that slogan’. I consider the idea of separating as a step backward so far as a socialist society is concerned. If the white workers extend a hand to the Negro, he will not want self-determination.
Trotsky: It is too abstract, because the realization of this slogan can be reached only as the 13 or 14 million Negroes feel that the domination by the whites is terminated. To fight for the possibility of realizing an independent state is a sight of great moral and political awakening. It would be a tremendous revolutionary step. This ascendancy would immediately have the best economic consequences.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
A Black Revolutionary Nationalist Response to President Obama's Speech to Muslims
A Black Revolutionary Nationalist Response to President Obama's Speech to the Middle East
Talk is cheap. Politicians glorify in the world of make believe, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. After oppressing the people in North Africa and the Middle East for decades, we now learn the imperialists will come with new tricknology to appease and assuage the wounds suffered by the neo-colonized people.
Don't believe the hype. Dad taught me that charity begins at home and spreads abroad. If America is sincere about aiding the people of North Africa and the Middle East, let her set the example at home by liberating the 40 million North American Africans.
Firstly, recognize our human and Divine right to self-determination, which may include a nation of our own on territory of the United States of America but separated from the USA in recognition of those persons too traumatized to live within the boundaries of the United States.
We must have the human and divine right to separate from the United States of America into a nation of our own. We have given four hundred years of free and nearly free labor to the USA to make her the most powerful nation on earth.
In our condition of wretchedness, economic, educational, spiritual, political, and moral, we cannot sit on the sidelines of history while our President pontificates on how America will address the woes of the others but ignore the condition of 40 million North American Africans.
We heard our President say he will aid the youth of North Africa and the Middle East by giving them assistance in loans, grants, jobs, housing, etc., yet we have not heard him say he will do the same for the home front, for the youth of America who are without education, jobs and housing.
As he promised for the Middle East and North Africa, we want him to forgive the debts of North American Africans, forgive the outstanding mortgages.
We want the USA to establish land trusts in the cites to implement an immediate halt to gentrification. This must occur coast to coast, including the Dirty South and anywhere gentrification is occurring.
As an immediate solution to the housing crisis, we want North American Africans to acquire life estates in apartments and houses in communities where we reside in large numbers.
If America can do the same for North Africa and the Middle East, we shall not sit quietly by without receiving the same for us. We are in harmony with the people of North Africa and the Middle East: liberty or death! We have no fear of your guns, tanks, bombs, jails, prisons and torture chambers. What time is dinner?
We want a general amnesty for all prisoners held unjustly in the numerous jails and prisons of America. Release them immediately to the North American African Council of Elders.
How can you promise economic security to the youth of North Africa and the Middle East, yet not provide the same for North American African youth who languish in the putrid cities suffering drugs and violence because you refuse to provide them jobs with a living wage?
North American Africans are human beings and we demand respect due human beings. You cannot support self-determination for human beings abroad but not at home. Don't be a hypocrite. We shall challenge you every step of the way!
Do not claim you oppose violence while Israel plummets Palestinians to death with guns, tanks, bombs and planes paid for with the money of US taxpayers. Stop supplying the hood with guns and drugs provided by your armies, police, politicians and big time drug dealers in cahoots with such.
You want self-determination for individuals, well, this must be true at home and abroad. There are forty million individuals who have the right to vote in a plebiscite on whether we shall remain under your oppressive regime or seek independence. You supported independence for the Sudan, well, we have the human right to the same. There are those of us who have no desire to live under your wicked regime of socalled democracy and freedom.
We have the divine and human right to establish a nation of our own on some of this land in which we have labored under the sun for over four centuries.
--Marvin X
5/19/11
Happy birthday, Malcolm X
Chauncey Bailey trial nears end, Police Drama Begins
Chauncey Bailey Murder Trial Nears End,
Oakland Police Drama Begins
As the Chauncey Bailey Murder trial wraps up, the long suspected Oakland police role in the murder investigation is being uncovered. Oakland Post Newspaper Publisher Paul Cobb and the Black Chauncey Bailey Project organizer Marvin X have long called for an investigation of the OPD's role in the assassination of Oakland Post Editor Chauncey Bailey.
The "white" Chauncey Bailey Project has resisted investigating the alleged police role in the assassination of Chauncey Bailey, focusing singularly on the indictment of the Black Muslim Bakery Brothers as the sole culprits, even though at the outset of the editor's assassination in broad daylight, Post Publisher Paul Cobb told the OPD that Chauncey was not only investigating the activities of YBMB, but more importantly, the alleged activities of corruption by African American members of the OPD.
He informed the DA Tom Orloff of his feelings. Not only did Orloff reject Cobb's assertion, but he resigned shortly after the killing. Police Chief Tucker resigned or retired as well.
Before he resigned, Chief Tucker suggested if Cobb wanted the OPD to pursue police involvement in the assassination of Chauncey, Cobb should get himself a bullet proof vest.
When Paul Cobb suggested the "White" Chauncey Bailey Project should also pursue police involvement, embedded OPD crime writer Harry Harris suggested Cobb was out of his mind. Cobb suggests Harris has been hanging around in the OPD locker room too long.
It is clear that Harry Harris has been embedded with the OPD far beyond any objective usefulness. The same may be true for Oakland Tribune Editor Martin Reynalds who related to Black Chauncey Bailey Project organizer Marvin X that the OPD had fine officers, especially Lt. Longmire, chief investigator of the Bailey killing as well as mentor of the murder suspects who was temporarily relieved of his duties due to conflict of interest. He was in charge of the crime scene and led the raid of the bakery, securing the murder weapon and a confession in less than 24 hours after the murder of Chauncey.
When Marvin X published the conversation he had with Oakland Tribune Editor Reynolds during a lunch meeting, Reynolds threatened to throw a Molotov Cocktail at Marvin X, one of the most prolific writers in America and the world. Marvin wrote eight books last year and is considered the USA's Rumi (Bob Holman), Plato teaching on the streets of Oakland (Ishmael Reed), the father of Muslim American literature (Dr. Mohja Kahf), one of the founders and innovators of the revolutionary school of African writing (Amiri Baraka).
As the murder trial concludes, it appears the OPD drama is just beginning. KTVU television reported last night that a long suspected cover up in the Bailey murder investigation has been uncovered.
Because of his association with those indicted for the murder of Chauncey, there are persons who think Marvin X's assertions are tainted. Marvin X rejects this. After all, Chauncey was his friend as well. One of his last stories was a review of Marvin's book How to Recover from the Addiction to White Supremacy.
--Marvin X
the Black Chauncey Bailey Project
http://www.theblackchaunceybaileyproject.blogspot.com
5/19/11
OPD Cover-Up Emerges
In Bailey Murder Investigation
Posted: 9:10 pm PDT May 18, 2011
Updated: 9:43 am PDT May 19, 2011
OAKLAND, Calif. -- As the eight-week trial of the alleged mastermind of the Chauncey Bailey murder heads to the jury this week, KTVU Channel 2 News has obtained hundreds of pages of legal documents never seen publicly that explain for the first time the inside story of the controversial homicide investigation.
It's a story that KTVU has largely been prevented from telling because of a gag order imposed by the command staff of the Oakland Police Department.
The documents paint a troubling picture of former top commanders at Oakland police misleading the public about several key aspects of the Bailey case.
On December 15, 2008, then-Oakland Police Chief Wayne Tucker called a highly unusual press conference to respond to a story revealing what may have been the single biggest turn in the assassination of Bay Area journalist Chauncey Bailey.
That was the discovery that Tucker had delayed for two days a massive police raid scheduled for August 1st, 2007 on the violent "Your Black Muslim Bakery" so a member of the chief's command staff could extend a camping trip.
But the next day, August 2nd, a self-described "soldier" from the bakery gunned down Bailey in cold blood on a downtown Oakland street. The delayed raid then took place on August 3rd, the day after the murder.
The documents contain charges that Tucker and his command staff held a private meeting just before the press conference, where they agreed to cover-up that decision when they met the news media.
In the sworn statement KTVU has obtained, an Oakland police captain testified he was in that meeting and spoke to the chief about what he regarded as a lie:
Captain Ersie Joyner: "Chief Tucker was adamant that we had only one date set and there was never two dates."
Attorney: "And to your knowledge, did Chief Tucker know that there were two dates, August 1st and then August 3rd?"
Joyner: "Yes."
Attorney: "Was there anyone else in that meeting with Chief Tucker and Chief Jordan and others who believed that the department had knowledge of the two dates, August 1st and August 3rd?"
Joyner: "Yes."
Attorney: "After that press conference, did you talk to Chief Tucker about what you perceived to be a dishonest statement?"
Joyner. "Yes."
San Francisco attorney John Scott, who is bringing a lawsuit against the city of Oakland on behalf of the lead investigator of the Bailey murder, says Tucker’s action goes to the heart of a story never heard before -- until now.
"The department, I believe, had its own sense of guilt or believed it had its own sense of guilt or responsibility for the murder because the department was supposed to execute a warrant on the Black Muslim Bakery on August 1st, the day before the murder." Scott said. "Now, no one is suggesting or implying the department intended to kill Chauncey Bailey."
Scott is representing Oakland police Sgt. Derwin Longmire, who has been under a gag order by the chief's office since the fall of 2007.
Longmire has never spoken to the news media about the Chauncey Bailey case. He also declined to speak to KTVU for this story.
But KTVU Channel 2 News has obtained sworn statements by Longmire and other Oakland police officials, some testifying that Sgt. Longmire has been unjustly painted as the scapegoat for the Bailey homicide investigation.
Tucker's assistant chief, Howard Jordan, launched internal investigations against Longmire because he believed the homicide investigator had become far too close to the Black Muslim Bakery and didn't tell his boss or colleagues what he was doing.
Recorded phone conversations between Longmire and Yusef Bey IV shortly after Bailey's murder indicate they had a close relationship:
"Nobody has the right to say we can't be friends because you know what I mean," Bey can be heard saying in one recorded call.
To which Longmire replied: "You know what, I totally agree. I totally agree. I feel that way wholeheartedly."
The documents KTVU obtained, however, have sworn testimony from Longmire's immediate supervisor saying he had ordered Longmire to take those actions and that the district attorney also knew -- and approved -- of them.
Longmire's lawsuit charges the Oakland police brass with discriminating against him and it uses sworn statements such as this one by Assistant Chief Howard Jordan to attempt to prove he made biased assumptions:
Attorney: "Did you believe that Sgt. Longmire had compromised the investigation because of that relationship with either the Black Muslims or the bakery?"
Jordan: "Yes."
Attorney: "At the time of the Chauncey Bailey murder, did you believe that Sergeant Longmire was associated with the Black Muslim Bakery?"
Jordan: "Yes."
However, the documents also include evidence that Longmire was not protecting the Black Muslims, showing that as early as five years before Bailey was shot Sgt. Longmire warned the police command staff that the bakery was a criminal enterprise and needed to be cleaned up.
No serious, sustained action was taken on those repeated warnings until it was too late.
The department moved to fire Longmire in May 2009.
After a series of internal investigations, Longmire was ultimately exonerated.
But even then, the Oakland command staff offered Longmire his job back only if he promised not to sue. He refused, and filed his lawsuit in April 2010.
Although Longmire is still prohibited from discussing the Bailey case, he did talk to KTVU when he filed his lawsuit against the department.
"There was so much media attention that when questions came up they couldn't answer about mistakes early on, for them there was no other way but to let it fall on someone and that someone was me," said Longmire.
Assistant Chief Howard Jordan declined to comment on this story through a letter from an attorney representing the city of Oakland.
A phone call to former chief Wayne Tucker, now a civilian, asking for his perspective on the allegations in these new documents brought this brief response:
"I have nothing to say to your s***** station,” Tucker declared. “Why don't you publish that? You should publish that."
The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in February 2012.
Posted: 9:10 pm PDT May 18, 2011
Updated: 9:43 am PDT May 19, 2011
OAKLAND, Calif. -- As the eight-week trial of the alleged mastermind of the Chauncey Bailey murder heads to the jury this week, KTVU Channel 2 News has obtained hundreds of pages of legal documents never seen publicly that explain for the first time the inside story of the controversial homicide investigation.
It's a story that KTVU has largely been prevented from telling because of a gag order imposed by the command staff of the Oakland Police Department.
The documents paint a troubling picture of former top commanders at Oakland police misleading the public about several key aspects of the Bailey case.
On December 15, 2008, then-Oakland Police Chief Wayne Tucker called a highly unusual press conference to respond to a story revealing what may have been the single biggest turn in the assassination of Bay Area journalist Chauncey Bailey.
That was the discovery that Tucker had delayed for two days a massive police raid scheduled for August 1st, 2007 on the violent "Your Black Muslim Bakery" so a member of the chief's command staff could extend a camping trip.
But the next day, August 2nd, a self-described "soldier" from the bakery gunned down Bailey in cold blood on a downtown Oakland street. The delayed raid then took place on August 3rd, the day after the murder.
The documents contain charges that Tucker and his command staff held a private meeting just before the press conference, where they agreed to cover-up that decision when they met the news media.
In the sworn statement KTVU has obtained, an Oakland police captain testified he was in that meeting and spoke to the chief about what he regarded as a lie:
Captain Ersie Joyner: "Chief Tucker was adamant that we had only one date set and there was never two dates."
Attorney: "And to your knowledge, did Chief Tucker know that there were two dates, August 1st and then August 3rd?"
Joyner: "Yes."
Attorney: "Was there anyone else in that meeting with Chief Tucker and Chief Jordan and others who believed that the department had knowledge of the two dates, August 1st and August 3rd?"
Joyner: "Yes."
Attorney: "After that press conference, did you talk to Chief Tucker about what you perceived to be a dishonest statement?"
Joyner. "Yes."
San Francisco attorney John Scott, who is bringing a lawsuit against the city of Oakland on behalf of the lead investigator of the Bailey murder, says Tucker’s action goes to the heart of a story never heard before -- until now.
"The department, I believe, had its own sense of guilt or believed it had its own sense of guilt or responsibility for the murder because the department was supposed to execute a warrant on the Black Muslim Bakery on August 1st, the day before the murder." Scott said. "Now, no one is suggesting or implying the department intended to kill Chauncey Bailey."
Scott is representing Oakland police Sgt. Derwin Longmire, who has been under a gag order by the chief's office since the fall of 2007.
Longmire has never spoken to the news media about the Chauncey Bailey case. He also declined to speak to KTVU for this story.
But KTVU Channel 2 News has obtained sworn statements by Longmire and other Oakland police officials, some testifying that Sgt. Longmire has been unjustly painted as the scapegoat for the Bailey homicide investigation.
Tucker's assistant chief, Howard Jordan, launched internal investigations against Longmire because he believed the homicide investigator had become far too close to the Black Muslim Bakery and didn't tell his boss or colleagues what he was doing.
Recorded phone conversations between Longmire and Yusef Bey IV shortly after Bailey's murder indicate they had a close relationship:
"Nobody has the right to say we can't be friends because you know what I mean," Bey can be heard saying in one recorded call.
To which Longmire replied: "You know what, I totally agree. I totally agree. I feel that way wholeheartedly."
The documents KTVU obtained, however, have sworn testimony from Longmire's immediate supervisor saying he had ordered Longmire to take those actions and that the district attorney also knew -- and approved -- of them.
Longmire's lawsuit charges the Oakland police brass with discriminating against him and it uses sworn statements such as this one by Assistant Chief Howard Jordan to attempt to prove he made biased assumptions:
Attorney: "Did you believe that Sgt. Longmire had compromised the investigation because of that relationship with either the Black Muslims or the bakery?"
Jordan: "Yes."
Attorney: "At the time of the Chauncey Bailey murder, did you believe that Sergeant Longmire was associated with the Black Muslim Bakery?"
Jordan: "Yes."
However, the documents also include evidence that Longmire was not protecting the Black Muslims, showing that as early as five years before Bailey was shot Sgt. Longmire warned the police command staff that the bakery was a criminal enterprise and needed to be cleaned up.
No serious, sustained action was taken on those repeated warnings until it was too late.
The department moved to fire Longmire in May 2009.
After a series of internal investigations, Longmire was ultimately exonerated.
But even then, the Oakland command staff offered Longmire his job back only if he promised not to sue. He refused, and filed his lawsuit in April 2010.
Although Longmire is still prohibited from discussing the Bailey case, he did talk to KTVU when he filed his lawsuit against the department.
"There was so much media attention that when questions came up they couldn't answer about mistakes early on, for them there was no other way but to let it fall on someone and that someone was me," said Longmire.
Assistant Chief Howard Jordan declined to comment on this story through a letter from an attorney representing the city of Oakland.
A phone call to former chief Wayne Tucker, now a civilian, asking for his perspective on the allegations in these new documents brought this brief response:
"I have nothing to say to your s***** station,” Tucker declared. “Why don't you publish that? You should publish that."
The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in February 2012.
Copyright 2011 by KTVU.com. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Malcolm X and the Music
Malcolm X and The Music
Norman (Otis) Richmond aka Jalali
Published May 18, 2011
Editor's Note: The below article by Norman Richmond (aka Jalali) is good work for us, the Black Liberation Movement. Unfortunately, the Manning Marable book (appropriately titled: "Reinvention" of Malcolm X) is good work for them, the white ruling class. Marable's book is supposedly a critique of Malcolm's life and work. Too bad that Manning isn't here to defend himself. The millions of Africans, however, are here to defend Malcolm's legacy and his Black Revolution.
El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X) was assassinated 46 years ago on February 21, 1965, because of his attempt to internationalize the struggle of African people inside the United States.
Malcolm was born 86 years ago on May 19, 1925. While U.S. president Barack Hussein Obama has acknowledged Kwanzaa, I doubt very serious if he will show Malcolm the same love.
Manning Marabe's new volume, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention has sparked a renewed interest and debate about Malcolm. Previous works like Karl Evanzz's, The Judas Factor: The Plot to Kill Malcolm X, Zak Kondo’s, Conspiracy’s: Unraveling the Assassination of Malcolm X, and Bill Sales,’ From Civil Rights To Black Liberation: Malcolm X and the Organization of Afro-American Unity are all being reopened.
Contrary to popular belief, it was Malcolm, not Martin Luther King, who first opposed the war in Vietnam. Malcolm was the first American-born African leader of national prominence in the 1960s to condemn the war.
He was later joined by organizations like the Revolutionary Action Movement, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, the Black Panther Party and the League of Revolutionary Black Workers.
This was in the tradition of David Walker, Henry Highland Garnet, Martin R. Delaney, Bishop Henry McNeil Turner, W.E.B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, Ella Baker and Paul Robeson. Malcolm continued to link the struggles of African people worldwide.
King came out against the Vietnam War after his famous April 4, 1967 speech at Riverside Church in New York City. Malcolm spoke against this war from the get-go.
Musicians did their part to keep Malcolm's name alive. Long before Spike Lee's 1992 bio-pic, “X,” hip-hop, house, reggae and R'n'B artists created music for Malcolm, high-life and great Black music (so-called jazz) artists first wrote and sang about Malcolm.
The dance of Malcolm's time was the "lindy-hop" and he was a master of it. The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which Malcolm wrote with the assistance of Alex Haley, gives a vivid description of his love of dancing.
Years later, on a visit to the West African nation of Ghana, Malcolm spoke of seeing Ghanaians dancing the high-life.
He wrote: "The Ghanaians performed the high-life as if possessed. One pretty African girl sang ‘Blue Moon’ like Sarah Vaughan. Sometimes the band sounded like Charlie Parker."
Malcolm's impact on Ghana was so great that one folk singer created a song in his honor called "Malcolm Man."
Malcolm Man, Malcolm Man
You speak your tale of woe
The red in your face like our
Blood on the land
You speak your tale of woe
Malcolm Man, Malcolm Man
The anger that you feel
Will one day unite our people
And make us all so real
Malcolm Man, Malcolm Man.
After Malcolm's death, many jazz artists recorded music in his memory.
Among them, Leon Thomas recorded the song, "Malcolm's Gone" on his Spirits Known and Unknown album; saxophonist-poet-playwright Archie Shepp recorded the poem, "Malcolm, Malcolm Semper Malcolm" on his Fire Music album. Shepp drew parallels between Malcolm's spoken words and John Coltrane's music.
Said Shepp: "I equate Coltrane's music very strongly with Malcolm's language, because they were just about contemporaries, to tell you the truth. And I believe essentially what Malcolm said is what John played. If Trane had been a speaker, he might have spoken somewhat like Malcolm. If Malcolm had been a saxophone player, he might have played somewhat like Trane."
Shortly before Malcolm's death, he visited Toronto and appeared on CBC television with Pierre Berton. During the visit, Malcolm spent time with award-winning author Austin Clarke talking about politics and music.
Time was too short to organize a community meeting, but a few lucky people gathered at Clarke's home on Asquith Street. Clarke had interviewed Malcolm previously, in 1963 in Harlem, when he was working for the CBC.
Clarke recalled they "talked shop," but also discussed the lighter things in life, like the fact that both their wives were named Betty.
It is not surprising that Malcolm made his way to Canada. His mother and father, Earl Little, met and married in Montréal at a Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) convention.
Both were followers of Marcus Garvey. His mother, Louise Langdon Norton, was born in Grenada but immigrated first to Halifax, Nova Scotia and later to Montreal in 1917.
Jan Carew's book, Ghosts in Our Blood: With Malcolm X in Africa, England, and the Caribbean, documents this aspect of the life of the Pan-Africanist.
While on a visit to Nigeria Malcolm was given the name Omowale, which means in the Yoruba language, “the son who has come home.”
It was this period of his life that he visited Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, Senegal, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Guinea and Tanzania.
It was during that period that he met with Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, Julius K Nyerere, Nnamoi Azikiwe, Sekou Toure, Jomo Kenyatta, Dr. Milton Obote, Abdul Rahman Muhammad Babu and others. During this visit he also met Ras Makonnen, a legendary Pan-Africanist from Guyana, Richard Wright’s daughter Julie Wright, Maya Angelou, Shirley Graham Du Bois, the wife of W.E.B. Du Bois, and the Chinese Ambassador Huang Ha.
It must be mentioned that Paul Robeson, W.E.B Du Bois, his wife Shirley Graham Du Bois and Robert F. Williams all supported the 1949 Chinese revolution.
Malcolm also was a huge supporter of the People's Republic of China. He was delighted when China tested its first nuclear weapon in 1964.
Babu talked about the significance of this event at the Malcolm X: Radical Tradition and a Legacy of Struggle Conference in New York City in 1990.
Says Babu, "When Malcolm X came to Tanzania, I took him to meet President (Julius) Nyerere, on another historic date.
Because that very day, China exploded her first nuclear bomb. And as we went to see Nyerere, Nyerere said, "Malcolm , for the first time today in recorded history, a former country has been able to develop weapons at par with any colonial power. This is the end of colonialism through and through."
Malcolm was the chief organizer of the Nation of Islam and the founder of the group’s newspaper Muhammad Speaks. He split with the Nation and its leader Elijah Muhammad in 1963.
At the time of his death he headed two organizations. The secular group the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) was his political arm.
He also organized the religious group, Muslim Mosque Inc (MMI), which practiced Sunni Islam. Today, Islam is the second largest religion in the United States and Canada.
Many credit Malcolm with helping spread Sunni Islam as well as revolutionary Black Nationalism and Pan-Africanism among African people in the Western Hemisphere.
Like Augusto Cesar Sandino of Nicaragua or Sun Yat-sen of China, Malcolm was embraced by all sectors of the Black Nationalist and Pan-Africanist movements. All Nationalists and Pan-Africanists claimed to follow his example.
Revolutionary Nationalist groups like the Black Panther Party, and the League of Revolutionary Black Workers emerged in the late 1960s, after Malcolm’s death.
Even after the BPP and the League embraced Marxism, Malcolm was still their man.The cultural Nationalists who maintained that the Cultural Revolution must precede the political one also embraced Malcolm.
He was a controversial figure. Actor Ossie Davis eulogized him as our “Black Shining Prince,” while the director of the U.S. information agency Carl T. Rowan referred to him as “an ex-convict, ex-dope peddler who became a racial fanatic.”
He was loved by the oppressed and hated by the oppressors. Malcolm spoke about the MMI and the OAAU in these terms: “Its aim is to create an atmosphere and facilities in which people who are interested in Islam can get a better understanding of Islam. The aim of the OAAU is to use whatever means necessary to bring about a society in which the twenty-two million Afro-Americans are recognized and respected as human beings.”
The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Alex Haley and other books by and about Malcolm continue to sell worldwide. Some of his books have recently been published in Cuba.
Malcolm was one of the few Black Nationalist leaders that welcomed Cuban leader Fidel Castro to Harlem in 1960. Many Nationalists didn’t want to be identified with communism.
Carlos Cooks, the leader of the African Nationalist Pioneer Movement absolutely refused to have anything to do with Castro.
But African people in the West could easily identify with the slogan, “When Africa called Cuba Answered.” Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) was fond of reminding us that the only place in the United States that Fidel felt safe was in Harlem.
Toronto-based journalist and radio producer Norman (Otis) Richmond can be heard on Diasporic Music, Thursdays, last week of every month 8-10pm, Uhuru Radio every other Sunday from 2pm to 4pm, Saturday Morning Live, Saturdays, 10 a.m.-1 p.m.
He can be reached by e-mail at norman.o.richmond@gmail.com
Marvin X Comment: My revolutionary comrade Norman O. Richmond was a fellow traveler in exile during the 1967 in Toronto, Canada. We arrived there after refusing to fight in Vietnam. Our associates in Toronto included Austin C. Clarke, Jan Carew and Salome Bey. I returned underground to America after six months, Norman has remained til this day. We send him revolutionary greetings. Happy birthday, Malcolm!
Marvin X's Fictional Interview With President Obama
Marvin X Interviews President Obama
Marvin X, Thank you Mr. President for agreeing to meet with me.
Prez, The pleasure is all mine. I've been reading your blogs and find them quite interesting.
MX, I hope you don't say what Minister Farrakhan said about my comments on him.
Prez, What did he say?
MX, He said I raked him over the coals.
Prez, I agree with Minister Farrakhan. You can be quite hard hitting.
MX, They call me the sledgehammer.
Prez, Indeed you are.
Prez, Indeed you are.
MX, Call it tough love.
Prez, OK.
MX, Furthermore, I supported you wholeheartedly from the beginning. You obviously haven't seen my book Pull Yo Pants Up fada Black Prez and Yoself.
Prez, No I haven't.
MX, But I must agree with our mutual friend Dr. Cornell West. I'm sure you are aware that he said we must protect you, respect you, but check you.
Prez, Yes, I heard his remarks. And you know what I said, "You brothers need to cut me some slack."
MX, Prez, you don't need slack. You need us riding your back like Roy Rogers on Trigger.
Prez, Don't you think I have enough pressure on me?
MX, Well, I once forced the resignation of the president of Fresno State University. Well, actually he said he was pressured from above (Gov. Ronald Reagan) and below (student protests after the college refused to hire me). So we see you are the type of guy who must be pressured from above and below, from the right and the left.
Prez, How much pressure you think a person in my position can take?
MX, You got Mechelle to chill you out!
Prez, You're right about that.
Prez, You're right about that.
MX, But I wrote about her putting a foot in your ass when you get weak.
Prez, I don't think that's necessary
MX, Well, you seem to capitulate at every turn. You call it the nature of politics, of course.
Prez, Well, I certainly don't call it capitulation. That's a bit harsh. I try to negotiate and compromise with my opposition.
MX, Prez, It seems to me you give in too quickly, sometimes when it ain't even necessary.
MX, Prez, It seems to me you give in too quickly, sometimes when it ain't even necessary.
Prez, Marvin, it's the nature of the beast I'm dealing with.
MX, Ever heard of playing hardball? I mean I was happy you got the health insurance plan through but at what price, selling out to the insurance lobby?
Prez, I don't call it selling out, it was compromise, the best we could do under the circumstances.
MX, Prez, why have you not created a jobs program? You bailed out the banks and corporations but not the people, why?
Prez, Marv, you know I have a most difficult job and we tried a stimulus package, and it worked to some extent.
MX, But, Prez, there are still millions of unemployed. Yet at the same time you are promising terrorist jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan if they lay down their arms. Should the American unemployed take up arms to get your attention?
Prez, Marv, please, what are you suggesting, revolution?
MX, If that's what it takes to get you to consider the consent of the governed. Is not the first priority of this nation the people, not corporations and banks?
Prez, Well, corporations are people now.
MX, Prez, you know what I mean.
Prez, Of course.
MX, How can you provide funds for educating, housing and employing terrorists abroad but not at home? It just doesn't make sense, Mr. Prez.
Prez, You're right, Marv.
MX, Now you're getting ready to raise one billion dollars to keep your job, but you can't find a few billion for the millions of unemployed
Prez, You're right, Marv. I can do better. Let me regroup with my advisers and think about it.
MX, Yeah, Prez, I want to support you reelection but I find it most difficult. And the brothers on the street as well. They were happy when you won, they said it was great to know they could look up to someone besides a rapper. But lately they are saying fuck you, Mr. Prez.
Prez, I'm sorry to hear that.
MX, You should know this is what they're saying, Fuck you!
Prez, I often wonder about the mood in the hood.
MX, You should wonder before something terrible happens to your country because of your neglect and misplaced priorities. Can I ask you something personal?
Prez, Go for it!
MX, Do you feel like a white man or black man?
MX, Do you feel like a white man or black man?
Prez, Well, when I'm with Mechelle, I feel black. When I'm with my Secretary of State, Hilliary, I feel white.
MX, I thought Hillary was black, along with her husband, Dirty Bill.
Prez, Marv, let's not name call, please.
MX, OK. On a more serious matter, how long did you know Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan?
Prez, We had him under surveillance for some time.
MX, Years, months?
Prez, a long time.
MX, Should I congratulate you for slaying the dragon?
Prez, That's up to you.
MX, Well, you probably deserve a feather in your cap. A couple of Brownie points.
Prez, Marv, thanks.
MX, But, Prez, where's the body?
Prez, We threw it in the ocean.
MX, C'mon, Prez, do I look like Willie Foofoo?
MX, C'mon, Prez, do I look like Willie Foofoo?
Prez, Marv, we did, trust me.
MX, Prez, I'm an ex-dope fiend. I know how people lie.
Prez, Marv, are you calling me a liar?
MX, I didn't say that, Prez, but my elder, Dr. Nathan Hare, taught the fictive theory. Everything the white man (and black man or white/black man) says is fiction until proven to be a fact. Where are the facts, Prez?
Prez, Marv, trust me. We thought it best to dispose of the body in the ocean.
MX, But who's going for this, Prez, it sounds shaky.
Prez, We concluded that was the best way to end the matter of a man who murdered three thousand Americans.
MX, Prez, how many Muslims have you murdered since you became President?
Prez, I can't answer that.
MX, Between Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, how many, especially with the collateral damage?
MX, Between Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, how many, especially with the collateral damage?
Prez, Can't answer that. It was all in defense of America.
MX, Is a few ignorant men living in mountain caves really a threat to America?
Prez, They can be.
MX, C'mon, Prez. Let's change the channel. What happened with the closing of Gitmo?
Prez, We tried but couldn't pull it off.
MX, What about the secret prisons in America?
Prez, I'm not aware of them.
Prez, I'm not aware of them.
MX, Maybe you should check with homeland security?
Prez, Our priority is the safety of Americans.
MX, Does this include murdering American citizens rather than bringing them to trial?
Prez, Not necessarily.
MX, What about the man in Yemen you are trying to kill who is an American citizen?
Prez, He's a special case.
MX, But he's an American.
Prez, Marv, don't press the issue.
MX, That's exactly what I'm doing.
Prez, Don't press it, Marv.
MX, Let's discuss the Middle East for a moment. I've written about your speech in Cairo and Indonesia. I've imagined what you will say about Muslims tomorrow, May 19. You know as long as you occupy one inch of Muslim land there shall be Muslims who view you as a Crusader and they will vow to fight you to the death.
Prez, Marv, I'm aware how Muslims feel about us occupying their lands. And we plan to vacate all Muslim lands at the earliest possible date.
MX, Does this include having your friends in Israel do the same?
MX, Does this include having your friends in Israel do the same?
Prez, Well, that's a matter for the Israelis, not us.
MX, But you are their very best friend. You support them right or wrong, true?
Prez, I wouldn't say that. But we have an enduring relationship.
MX, Don't you see the day is rapidly arriving when they cannot claim to be the only democracy in the area, that they will bow down to the God of Justice, not peace but justice?
Prez, Events are rapidly changing in North Africa and the Middle East. Therefore we must all make a paradigm shift in our thinking and behavior, including Israel.
MX, What about your friends in Saudi Arabia?
Prez, They will need to make substantial changes as well.
MX, And Bahrain?
Prez, It's a special case. We have strategic interests there.
MX, And Bahrain?
Prez, It's a special case. We have strategic interests there.
MX, You seem to be saying America practices selective suffering. You now support the Egyptian revolution, the Tunisian, Yemen, but not in Saudi Arabia or Israel, Jordan, Bahrain.
Prez, Marv, we have our interests that must be secured first.
MX, What if and when these nations explode in your face, overnight, as is happening as we speak. Seems like you'll be running after the football or playing catchup?
Prez, We'll do what we must when we must.
MX, Thank you, Mr. Prez.
--Marvin X
--Marvin X
5/18/11
Black Bird Press News and Review
Marvin X Writes Obama's Speech to Muslims
As-Salaam-Alaikum
I, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, come before you tonight in the name of Almighty God Allah. We, the America people, are pleased to see the people of North Africa and the Middle East rising up against our long time friends in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere.
Of course we instituted a no fly zone over Libya but it is most difficult to do the same in Gaza. The recent unity of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is nice but simply not in the interests of our dear friends in Israel, nor is it in the long term strategic interests of America and her friends throughout the region, especially our brothers in the House of Saud.
While we endorse the cries for freedom in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen, we cannot support the people in Bahrain. We suspect they are simply agents for Iran and therefore we cannot support their cries for freedom. We have no plans of moving our Fifth Fleet from Bahrain, especially since it is a counterweight to Iranian provocations. We therefore endorse the sending of Saudi troops to crush the Shia uprisings in Bahrain.
As per Saudi Arabia, we love democracy but it is simply not in our interests to have the Saudi regime destabilized because of a few unhappy citizens, again, many of them are agents of Iran, especially those Saudi women who want to drive cars.
As per Iran, we call for democracy in that nation, even though we accept full responsibility for overthrowing the democratically elected leader, Mossedeq, and installing the Shah who oppressed his people for many years.
We know you share our joy with the elimination of the hated terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Even though we created him and supported him, the time came for his removal, even though we were aware he was living in a mansion with his three wives in Pakistan. He served us well, but the time came for his disposal. You know how we handle those who outlive our usefulness, e.g., Saddam Hussein.
We promised a total troop removal from Iraq, but circumstances may prevent this unless it is expedient for my upcoming election. We hope the people of Iraq understand, especially that guy Sadr and his army of the poor in Sadr City who fought with us to no avail.
Our regional partners, namely the Sunni neighbors of Iraq, have warned us not to leave Iraq under a Shia regime, again this will only benefit Iran, the enemy of world peace. Not Israel and certainly not America who is the champion of world peace as you all know throughout the Muslim world, not matter that we are now occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and making inroads into Libya. You may be surprised to learn that it is not the oil we want in Libya but the water. Yes, water will be a precious commodity in the coming days. We pray to Allah you can understand why we do what we do.
As per Afghanistan, we have promised the Taliban if they lay down their arms, we will give them schooling, housing and employment. We wish we could offer the same to our boys and girls in the hoods of America who are terrorizing their communities with drugs and guns, but our budget crisis will not allow education, housing and jobs for the boys and girls in the hood, although we can do this for the Taliban. As you know we did this in Iraq and this was the real cause of the decrease in violence, not the socalled surge of Baghdad under General Betrayus.
As you know, General Betrayus will be taking over the Central Intelligence Agency. We appreciate his role in prolonging the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We feel he has been successful in routing the 100 to 500 Al Quida in Afghanistan, especially after we sent him thirty thousand additional troops.
Finally, our friends in Pakistan may have some misgivings about the unilateral move we made to eliminate Osama bin Laden, but we want them to get over it and not make any silly moves like seeking revenge with their nuclear option.
I close in the name of peace, As-Salaam-Alaikum.
President Barack Hussein Obama
Nina Simone - *Mississippi Goddam*
Mississippi Goddamn!
Woe to America, the Great Beast, the Whore, the Serpent that deceived the world. Woe to America for every hurtful thing she has done to her slaves and their descendants, to the Native Americans, the Latinos, Asians and poor whites referred to as trailer house trash. Woe to America, the blood sucker of the poor, the raper of minds and bodies of the innocent, who keeps the poor and ignut trapped in the world of make believe perpetuated by the Monkey Mind Media. Woe to America, for every piece of Strange Fruit she hanged on trees, threw in rivers, swamps and creeks. Woe to America, for every hateful, unclean bird that has gathered to devour the soul of the righteous.
Woe to America, who even at this hour has no desire, no will, no intention to deliver justice to the three million slaves held in her dungeons, jails and hell holes throughout this wicked land.
Woe to America, who will bomb the poor, the righteous and the innocent before she will share the wealth, redistribute the wealth stolen from this land and around the world in the name of free market slavery. It is beyond her mental capacity to conjure the words "Fair Market, Just Market."
Woe to America, may her rivers wash away the guilty, the hate mongers, the hard hearted and niggardly. Too bad the innocent must be consumed because they find themselves living among the guilty, but when the wrath of God comes there are no innocent except those who flee to higher ground, who find solace in the Upper Room of our Father's House.
--Marvin X
5/18/11
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Marvin X Writes Obama's Speech to Muslims
Marvin X Writes Obama's Speech to Muslim World
As-Salaam-Alaikum
I, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, come before you tonight in the name of Almighty God Allah. We, the America people, are pleased to see the people of North Africa and the Middle East rising up against our long time friends in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere.
Of course we instituted a no fly zone over Libya but it is most difficult to do the same in Gaza. The recent unity of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is nice but simply not in the interests of our dear friends in Israel, nor is it in the long term strategic interests of America and her friends throughout the region, especially our brothers in the House of Saud.
While we endorse the cries for freedom in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen, we cannot support the people in Bahrain. We suspect they are simply agents for Iran and therefore we cannot support their cries for freedom. We have no plans of moving our Fifth Fleet from Bahrain, especially since it is a counterweight to Iranian provocations. We therefore endorse the sending of Saudi troops to crush the Shia uprisings in Bahrain.
As per Saudi Arabia, we love democracy but it is simply not in our interests to have the Saudi regime destabilized because of a few unhappy citizens, again, many of them are agents of Iran, especially those Saudi women who want to drive cars.
As per Iran, we call for democracy in that nation, even though we accept full responsibility for overthrowing the democratically elected leader, Mossedeq, and installing the Shah who oppressed his people for many years.
We know you share our joy with the elimination of the hated terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Even though we created him and supported him, the time came for his removal, even though we were aware he was living in a mansion with his three wives in Pakistan. He served us well, but the time came for his disposal. You know how we handle those who outlive our usefulness, e.g., Saddam Hussein,
We promised a total troop removal from Iraq, but circumstances may prevent this unless it is expedient for my upcoming election. We hope the people of Iraq understand, especially that guy Sadr and his army of the poor in Sadr City who fought with us to no avail.
Our regional partners, namely the Sunni neighbors of Iraq, have warned us not to leave Iraq under a Shia regime, again this will only benefit Iran, the enemy of world peace. Not Israel and certainly not America who is the champion of world peace as you all know throughout the Muslim world, not matter that we are now occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and making inroads into Libya. You may be surprised to learn that it is not the oil we want in Libya but the water. Yes, water will be a precious commodity in the coming days. We pray to Allah you can understand why we do what we do.
As per Afghanistan, we have promised the Taliban if they lay down their arms, we will give them schooling, housing and employment. We wish we could offer the same to our boys and girls in the hoods of America who are terrorizing their communities with drugs and guns, but our budget crisis will not allow education, housing and jobs for the boys and girls in the hood, although we can do this for the Taliban. As you know we did this in Iraq and this was the real cause of the decrease in violence, not the socalled surge of Baghdad under General Betrayus.
As you know, General Betrayus will be taking over the Central Intelligence Agency. We appreciate his role in prolonging the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We feel he has been successful in routing the 100 to 500 Al Quida in Afghanistan, especially after we sent him thirty thousand additional troops.
Finally, our friends in Pakistan may have some misgivings about the unilateral move we made to eliminate Osama bin Laden, but we want them to get over it and not make any silly moves like seeking revenge with their nuclear option.
I close in the name of peace, As-Salaam-Alaikum.
President Barack Hussein Obama
Palestine
Palestine
PALESTINE
by Marvin X
(El Muhajir)
I am not an Arab, I am not a Jew
Abraham is not my father,
Palestine is not my home
But I would fight any man
Who kicked me out of my house
To dwell in a tent
I would fight
To the ends of the earth
Someone who said to me
I want your house
Because my father lived here
Two thousand years ago
I want your land
Because my father lived here
Two thousand years ago.
Jets would not stop me
From returning to my home
Uncle toms would not stop me
Cluster bombs would not stop me
Bullets I would defy.
No man can take the house of another
And expect to live in peace
There is no peace for thieves
There is no peace for those who murder
For myths and ancient rituals
Wail at the wall
Settle in "Judea" and "Samaria"
But fate awaits you
You will never sleep with peace
You will never walk without listening.
I shall cross the River Jordan
With Justice in my hand
I shall return to Jerusalem
And establish my house of peace,
Thus said the Lord.
This poem first appeared in Black Scholar Magazine, circa 1975.
© 1975 by Marvin X (El Muhajir)
The author, Marvin X, is an Oakland (CA) based African-American poet/playwright/activist, one of the founders of the Black Arts Movemen and the father of Muslim American literature, according to scholar Dr. Mohja Kahf. Bob Holman calls him the USA’s Rumi. Marvin X works as a lecturer, teacher and producer. He has taught at San Francisco State University, University of California -Berkeley and San Diego, Fresno State University, University of Nevada, Reno; Laney, Merritt and Mills College in Oakland. He has received writing fellowships from Columbia University and the National Endowment forthe Arts and planning grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities.
The 1% Club or the Blood Suckers of the Poor
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.
By Joseph E. Stiglitz•
Illustration by Stephen Doyle
May 2011
Va
nity Fair
THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles, says the author, but “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably.
Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.
Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.
Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.
First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.
None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.
Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: laborsaving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.
But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.
When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.
America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.
Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.
Marvin, the problem I have with the rhetoric of Tavis, Cornell, and their sidekick Michael Dyson is that they would not be public intellectuals without the plutocrats and oligarchs they criticize and condemn. I suppose this is what irritates Obama. They are all rather Janus figures. As far as wealth (of which they are not transparent) they too may be part of that 1 % Stiglitz criticizes.
--Rudolph Lewis, Editor, Chickenbones.com
Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.
By Joseph E. Stiglitz•
Illustration by Stephen Doyle
May 2011
Va
nity Fair
THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles, says the author, but “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably.
Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.
Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.
Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.
First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.
None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.
Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: laborsaving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.
But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.
When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.
America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.
Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
His Black Consciousness Program Rocked the Bay Area like no other black panthers black arts black studies kwanza Khalid Ab...