41.

    Although the number of voters had risen to 4,312 by 1915, these still represented less than 5 Percent of the adult male population. "Racial" discrimination existed as well, as evidenced in the table below:
 

Name                                Percentage             Percentage              Percentage
                                         of adult male          of voters                  registered
                                         population                                             as voters

Indians                        51.9                   6.4                      0.6
Africans (Negroes)       42.4                 62.7                       6.8
Portuguese                    3.0                 11.4                     17.7
Other European             1.8                 17.1                     46.1
Chinese                         0.9                  2.4                     12.3

Total                         100.0               100.0                      4.6

An East Indian entered the colonial legislature only in 1916, and, despite constitutional changes in 1928, there was little significant political change until after the Second World War.

4.3. Social Changes from 1930 to 1966

    Between 1930 and 1950, more or less, Guianese social and class divisions on the one hand, and "racial" or "ethnic" structures on the other, still coincided. In the top echelon of the social pyramid we find the upper European merchant and ruling class, below them an European overseer class. Then came the Portuguese and Chinese business strata, followed by the "mixed" or "Coloured" groups. Directly below them was the new rising "Negro" and "Indian" middle class, and at the base we find the exploited and oppressed "Negro" urban working class, the Indian rural peasantry and agricultural labourers, and the Amerindians in the reserves. (72) In other words, the owners of the means of production and those who controlled political power were "white"; a strong middle class or petit-bourgeoisie, composed of nearly all "races", was struggling for political power, for national

independence; and the workers and peasants of Guiana were basically Indian or African - that is, "nonwhite". (73)

    In the process of decolonization in the 1950s and 1960s, the British government was confronted with the problem of identifying the social class to which political power could be handed over, and which could best maintain the neo-colonial status quo. Given the lessons of "divide and rule", it was necessary to destroy the unification attempted by the PPP of Jagan and Burnham in 1950, to split the "middle class" into two "racial" divisions, and to bring the most favourable group to power. The socio-economic structure of Guiana, and its superstructure, built on the basis of British colonialism, could easily generate "racism" as an ideology to sustain the new status quo.

    Thus when "self-administration" was reintroduced in 1957 and amplified in 1961, the top white social group was removed from its dominant political position, but left in control of firms such as Booker's and, of the means of production. The intention was that the Portuguese, Chinese and "Coloured" groups would move upward to the position vacated by the "whites", but, as we shall see later, first the Indian politicians, led by Jagan, and then, finally, the African ones, led by Burnham, came to occupy this position.
 

    We will not deal with the actual struggle for political power, of which much has been written, especially by the main actors of the drama, Dr. Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham, themselves. (74) What is clear is that on the basis of British and American political and military intervention, and especially through "race hatred", "racial prejudice" and "racism", the new Guyana became ruled by a new elite in the final analysis, after 1966, and especially after 1970. The African "People's National Congress" (PNC) increasingly controlled the means of production and political power after 1966. "Divide and Rule" was in fact more successful than expected; the socio-economic structure of Guiana generated not only neo-colonialism, as was intended, but "cooperative socialism" as well.

    Let us look at the decisive period, 1962 to 1964, to see how "racial tension" was built up, exploding into open "racism" and "race violence". Most authors who write about "race and politics" in Guiana stress the "fact" that there was basically no "racism" among the oppressed peoples in Guiana up to 1950, and that, especially today, the PNC is responsible for "racism" between the Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese. "Racism" as an ideology does not originate in the heads of political leaders; however; it is produced by a specific capitalist social structure. Jagan himself claims that the most effective weapon used was not racism, but "proportional representation".

    In the 1961 elections, Jagan won the majority of votes. It was feared that his largely Indian party, the PPP, would introduce "communism" of the Moscow variety in independent Guyana; riots broke out, in

       "...by and large the voting was on the basis of race,
        more so in the case of the People's Progressive
        Party, as most of us can recognize how few Indian
        votes the People's National Congress did succeed
        in getting. The United Force ... got the bulk of
        the Portuguese and the PNC the bulk of the
        African vote." (75)

    On "Black Friday", April 5, 1963, Georgetown experienced its greatest outburst of "racist" hooliganism. The Chronicle newspaper had been publishing derogatory photographs and caricatures with open racial implications, and the streets and sea-walls were painted all over with "racist" slogans. Organized groups of African "thugs" were attacking "any Indian who dared to walk the streets of Georgetown", beating them "often in full view of the police", and sometimes to the point of death. (76) Yet it is the same Jagan who wrote:

       "Race has never been a serious problem. Indians and Africans
        for many years have played, worked and lived together amicably.
        Whatever differences existed were mainly economical and
        vocational." (77)

And let us allow him to sum up the results:

    "The toll for the 1964 disturbances was heavy. About 2,668 families
    involving approximately 15,000 persons were forced to move their
    house and settle in communities of their own ethnic group. The large
    majority were Indians. Over 1,400 homes were destroyed by fire.
    A total of 176 people were killed and 920 injured. Damage to property
    was estimated at about $ 4.3 million and the number of displaced
    persons who became unemployed reached 1,542." (78)
 

    Jagan was reluctantly unwillingly forced to accept the relationship between "racism", as ideology, and politics, the machinery of power, as expressed in this specific period of Guyanese history:

    "The bulk, though not all, of our urban supporters,
     chiefly African working class and middle class, followed
     mainly for racial reasons." (80)

Already, at the time of the split of the original PPP in April, 1955, Burnham was very clear about the "Guianese race" which he wanted to create, fully aware of the fact that the old British imperialist policy of "divide and rule" is the essence of "racism":

    "There are some of my race group (African) who express such
    sentiments as 'Black man must be on top' and a similar tendency
    on the part of comrade Lachmansingh's (first chairman of the PNC)
    race group (Indian) to say 'Coolie man must be on top'. Such
    sentiments are inspired by enemies of our party and movements,
    and the British government will give anything for them to gain wide
    currency .... One of the greatest achievements of our party is
    that we are able to bring together two major race groups . ... If we
    are to continue in unity we must banish racialism. Each racial group
    is entitled to feel pride in its cultural traditions and heritage but we
    must not have racial differences reflected in the politics of our country.
 
     ... Ours is not a fight for one race or another, it is a fight for Guiana.
     We know only one race, that is the Guianese race. Let us beware of
     the 'Divide and Rule' policy." (81)

    The present "Executive President" of Guyana, then, had already accepted the colonial-capitalist conception of "race" or else he would never have spoken about "my race group", "two major race groups", or even worse "the Guianese race". For the same reasons that we "forgive" Marx and Engels for having been products of their epoch, we could understand this error but a self-proclaimed "socialist" and "Marxist" of the second half of the 20th century should never divorce "cultural and traditional heritage", that is, the superstructure, from economics, that is the base of Guyanese colonial society, even when "Black man is on top"!

    If we study the PPP and the Working People's Alliance (WPA) documents, we will discover that they, also, have never challenged the "race" theories of the very colonialism and imperialism which they attack. In other words, they have not scientifically refuted the "fact" that there are no "races" in Guyana. Hence, to accuse any political group of "racism", especially while pointing out the "races" concerned, indicates the level of political consciousness reached, and how far one still has to go to develop a "revolutionary theory" of the "class struggle" in Guyana.

4.4. From the First Republic (1970) to the Second Republic of Guyana (1978).

    On May 26, 1966, Guyana became an independent country. Initially, working together with D'Aguiar's United Force, an avowed capitalist party, Burnham could do very little to revolutionize Guyana's colonial capitalist economy. In 1968, however, Burnham's PNC won an absolute majority, and in 1970, Guyana became a "Cooperative Republic". As Burnham stated, "the co-operative movement should become the main sector of the nation's economic life", in order "to give the small man in Guyana an opportunity to own, control and use for his own and the country's benefit and development all those forms of enterprise from which the Republic of Guyana can grow and prosper." (82)

    There have since been serious attempts to change the colonial economic and social structures in Guyana, even with the assistance of opposition parties like the PPP and WPA. Nevertheless, it proved impossible to save Guyana from the grip of neocolonialism. This was due to multiple factors, above all the internal and external policies of the ruling party, the PNC. Kwayana, leader of the WPA, has summed up developments since 1970, showing that Burnham had created a state that "laughs at democracy", and had "moved from race defence to class defence that is defence of their own class". (83) What must concern us here, is whether the main opposition party, the WPA, sees its historic task not as a "race struggle" but as a "class struggle", against the ruling class, which represents and defends neocolonialism in Guyana.

    First, we have to characterize the economic base of present Guyanese society. In spite of the nationalization attempts (declaring the main means of production "state property", which ended up as PNC private property), Guyana remains a typical neo-colonial country, exploited by foreign capital and a local "racial elite". In fact, through the "New Economic Code", the flight into the arms of the IMF in
1978 , and now, even attempts to denationalize the bauxite industry, Guyana is straight on the path, originally intended by the USA and Great Britain in 1964. The result is neocolonialism - political independence, in the hands of a ruling elite favourable to international imperialism, and economic dependence, closely tied to the world capitalist system.

    This type of social system, both on a world scale, and in a "multiracial" country like Guyana or South Africa, generates "racism", thrives on it, and only dies with "racism" as its death veil. Thus, before it accuses Guyana's policy of being "racist" any capitalist country, whether of the "First" or the "Third World", must first check whether the pot is not calling the kettle "black." A criticism of "racism" is worthless, unless it is at the same time a true criticism of capitalism. A careful study of the latest WPA documents, especially the writings of its chief theoretician, the assassinated Walter Rodney, reveals, that at least since 1980, the WPA is beginning to understand the true nature of "racism" as an ideology, and to see that the struggle is basically a "class struggle" on a national and international scale.

Kwayana has noted the Burnham regime's inheritance from British Colonialism:

    "They accepted more or less the colonial plan for racial
    competition. Along with that they also had  to accept the
    colonial picture of the race group -  the idea of a fixed type
    or character for each race. In the age of pre-consciousness,
    the race elites had no option. They fell into the stream as it
    flowed .... The race elites are connected with economic interests,
    commercial, professional and administrative ....they have in
    the past looked for the support of outside forces - the CIA, the
    British Government, or even a successful revolution in
    another country."  (84)

However, as Kwayana also points out, neither in the constitution of 1970, nor in that of 1978, any ideas expressing "racism" are to be found. In contradiction to South Africa, "cooperative socialism" does not need to state the "racism" of neocolonialism in its laws or constitution. This is exactly the point of the battle by the West and the United Nations vis á vis South Africa, to remove "racism" from its apartheid laws and constitution. It functions better outside this legal sphere. At the same time, "Modern racism" increasingly becomes ruling class ideology on the international level.

5. Conclusion: How should ruling class ideology be understood?

In the famous words of the "young" Marx:

    "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas:
    i.e. , the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the
    same time its ruling intellectual force .... The ruling ideas are nothing
    more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relations
    grasped as ideas ...." (85)

This definition of "ideology" applies precisely to South Africa and Guyana. In both instances, the ruling classes, the ruling parties, control the mass media of communication, the educational systems, etc. , and their ideas are official dogma and doctrine. The opposite of "ideology" is "revolutionary theory", which stands in direct dialectical relation with revolutionary praxis. It is the historic duty of ruling class ideology, which is based on the material base of class exploitation, to generate pseudo-theories, false conceptions, rationalizations, cover-ups, in short, a "false consciousness" of reality, in order to perpetuate social systems like apartheid or "cooperative socialism". This is the source of "modern racism", whether it is institutionalized as part of the constitution or the legal structure (South Africa), or whether it is contained, due to the colonial heritage, in other sectors of "social consciousness", for example, in religion, philosophy, morality or politics (Guyana).

    Let us look at another quotation of Marx:

    " In the social production which men carry on, they enter into
    definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their
    will .... The sum total of these relations of production constitutes
    the economic structure of society - the real foundation, on which
    rise legal and political superstructures and to which correspond
    definite forms of social consciousness .... It is not the consciousness
    of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their
    social existence determines their consciousness." (86)

    South Africa, and Guyana are historic products of British colonialism and imperialism, of the mode of production of capitalism.