Race, class and organisation
The view from the Workers Solidarity Federation
Originally published in Black Flag, 1998
INTRODUCTION BY BLACK FLAG:
We recently observed a very fruitful discussion on race and class
on the internet, particularly around "black" anarchism, special
oppressions and the desirability of separate organization.
One of the best and most comprehensive posts came from a member
of the Workers Solidarity Federation of South Africa, an
anarchist/syndicalist group which while in a personal capacity
reflects their politics and positions on these matters. Interest
in anarchism is growing throughout the world. There are active groups
in most parts of the world, with the exception of the Indian
subcontinent, Antarctica and as far as we know the Chinese
dictatorship. This process will no doubt accelerate and there is a
challenge for us to make our ideas accessible. But as our South
African comrades point out below, "it was the ability of anarchism to
provide alternatives and to pay special attention to the specific
needs of these different sections of the working class in order to
unite the whole class that made the success (of the Cuban anarchists
and IWW) possible," not "a revision of anarchism to accommodate
nationalism".
Race, class and organisation
The view from the Workers Solidarity Federation
It is claimed falsely claimed by some that Anarchism as currently
constituted is unable to attract Black people, and other specially
oppressed minorities. It is therefore argued that we should thus
endorse separate Black-only anarchist/ community organizations that
may in some (vague and unspecified) cases associate with "white"
groups - "white" groups should "work among" "their own" people etc.).
It is also asserted from this view point that Anarchism is
"Eurocentric" and lacking an analysis of racism and imperialism.
IN DEFENSE OF CLASSICAL ANARCHISM
These arguments are wrong or lacking in clarity. They reflect a
distortion of Anarchist history, and a misunderstanding of Anarchist
strategy.
Firstly, class struggle anarchism has historically proved quite
capable of attracting massive numbers of people of color. In fact,
one could claim that historically most anarchist movements have been
based in Third World countries. For example, anarchism dominated the
revolutionary movement in China in the 1910s and early 1920s. In the
First World, Anarchist movements historically attracted specially
oppressed national minorities, for example, the syndicalist IWW
attracted thousands of Black workers in the USA Deep South, and
other movements, Jews in eastern Europe.
Today, there are groups such as the WSF in South Africa and the
Awareness League of Nigeria.
The key to this success was a consistent class struggle program
that combated all manifestations of oppression. For example, the
Cuban Anarchists mobilized both Afro-Cubans,creoles and Spaniards in
massive integrated anarcho-syndicalist unions because they opposed
racist practices like apprenticeship laws, because they supported the
anti-colonial struggle against Spain and because they provided a
class struggle answer to the questions facing all sections of the
working class. It was not a "revision" of anarchism to accommodate
nationalist paradigms that made the breakthrough - it was the
ability of anarchism to provide alternatives and to pay special
attention to the specific needs of these different sections of the
working class in order to unite the whole class that made the success
possible. Anarchists did not capitulate to nationalist ideas- they
combated them- they did not organize separately, they organized as
Anarchists on a class struggle basis.
Similarly, they were key players in anti- imperialist struggles in
many countries, for example, Cuba (1890s) Macedonia (1880s),
Herzegovina (1900s), Nicaragua (1920s), Ukraine (1918-21) , Ireland
(1916) and Korea (1920-40s). Again, class politics was the basis of
this engagement.
Even today, the Anarchist groups emerging in Third World countries
like Nigeria and South Africa base themselves on a class program- we
have seen the end results of nationalism and we oppose it (although
obviously we defend peoples right to choose to believe in it, and
even if we recognize grassroots nationalists as progressive fighters
against racism etc.).
This does not mean that we downplay imperialism or racism- on the
contrary we pay specific attention to these key questions, but we
subject them to class analysis and advocate class struggle strategies
against them. This clearly shows that the claim that Anarchism is
"white" or "Eurocentric" is fundamentally wrong, as Anarchism - in
terms of its analysis, history and composition- has in all respects
been a truly global movement against oppression in all guises. All
modern Anarchists need to live up to this legacy.
Black nationalism and/or separatism is not the only thing that can
fight racism or attract Black people and workers to organizations.
Even in South Africa, the Communist Party was the main mass
organization throughout the 1930s and 1940s and dwarfed the
nationalist groups like the ANC; in the 1920s the main mass
organization (aside from the Communist Party) was the
quasi-syndicalist Industrial and Commercial Workers Union. In Harlem
in the USA in the 1930s, the CPUSA was able to win Black workers away
from Garveyism on the basis of a consistent defense of the unity of
White and Black workers.
AGAINST SEPARATE ORGANIZATION
**As Anarchists we call for separate organization in
one sense: we call on the working and poor people to organize
separately from their class enemy, the bosses and rulers**.
What then of non-class based forms of separate organization such
as women-only organization (as advocated by radical feminism) or
Black-only organization (as advocated by Black nationalists)?
Before dealing with this issue, we need to understand the links
between racism, class and class struggle.
STATE, CAPITALISM AND RACISM: ONE ENEMY, ONE FIGHT
We would argue that racism is the product of capitalism and the
State, created to justify slavery and colonialism in the Third
World, and to divide workers, and super-exploit national minorities
in the First World. Capitalism and the State are inherently racist:
they always generate new forms of racism (e.g. against immigrants).
The social inequalities created by racism can only be dealt with by
the removal of capitalism and the State to allow for projects of
redress, reconstruction etc.
*Therefore the fight against racism is a fight against
capitalism and the State*
CLASS UNITY, CLASS STRUGGLE, CLASS POWER
Only the working class, poor and peasants can make the anti-state,
anti-capitalist revolution because only these classes are productive
(and can therefore create a non-exploitative society), and have no
vested interest in the current system. In addition, as the vast
majority of the world's population they have the numbers to win, as
well as the necessary social power (by virtue of their role in the
workplace as producers of wealth they can hit the bosses and rulers
where it really hurts- in the pocket) and organizational ability
(their concentration in factories etc. facilitates mass action).
The Black middle class, capitalists etc. will defend capitalism
and the State against the workers despite the fact that this means
they are defending the system that creates racism. It is in their
class interest to do so. In any case, they are shielded from the
worst effects of racism by their nice houses, good schools etc.
*Therefore the fight against racism requires a class
struggle and a workers revolution*.
The struggle against capitalism can only succeed if it is
anti-racist. We can only mobilize the whole working class if we fight
on all fronts, against all oppressions that affect us. We can only
unite the working and poor people for a revolutionary victory through
a consistent opposition to the divisions within the working class and
poor i.e. race, nation etc.
Insofar as workers can only be mobilized and united on the basis
of programs that oppose all oppression, insofar as working class
Blacks are the most affected by racism and insofar as the majority of
people affected by racism are working class, it follows that
anti-racism etc. is a working class concern and issue.
*Therefore the fight against capitalism and the state
requires a fight against racism*.
Given that the working class is multi-national and multi-racial,
it follows that its struggle must be fought on internationalist,
united, integrated lines. As argued above, this unity is only
possible on a principled basis of opposition to all oppression.
ARE WHITE WORKERS A 'LABOR ARISTOCRACY'?
No sections of the working class gain in real terms from the
special oppression of Backs, colonial people etc. In the First World,
White workers may have slightly less unemployment etc., but they are
still the majority of the workers and the poor i.e. of the exploited
classes victimized by capitalism and the State . Racism worsens
conditions for all workers because it divides workers struggles and
resistance and ability to destroy the system. That is why the ruling
class promotes it: it would never promote something that benefited
the majority of workers. Therefore it is in these workers' direct
interest to fight racism and unite with Black workers.
Even if these workers accept racism, they are still not its
primary cause: racist-capitalism is. Nor are they its beneficiaries.
At the same time, doubly oppressed groups like Blacks etc. require
allies amongst the White working class. Without them, they lack the
numbers, strategic position, or social power to defeat the racist
system and its causes for once and for all. Unity is also in their
interests.
Similarly, the argument that the Western working class benefits
materially from imperialism, is false. There is not a shred of proof,
nor a sustainable economic theory to show this. Nor can any
correlation be shown between the level of imperialist activity and
the living standards of First World workers.
On the contrary, imperialism is against the interests of these
workers, because it strengthens the power of their own states (e.g.
colonial armies are used against workers "at home" -remember Spain
1936?), wastes resources and lives that could be spent on people on
the military, promotes reactionary ideas like racism and imperialist
patriotism that divide workers and strengthen the ruling class, and
allows multi-national companies to cut jobs and wages by shifting to
repressive Third World colonial and semi- colonial regimes.
SEPARATE ORGANIZATION?
As Anarchists should unconditionally defend the rights of
specially oppressed sections of the working class to organize
separately because we defend the principle of free association. BUT
we should separate question of the right to organize
separately from the issues of the usefulness of this mode of
organization.
We simply cannot take it for granted that separate organizations
are necessarily progressive or travelling the same road as we are.
Separate organizations are not necessarily progressive - in some
cases they are clearly reactionary and a backward step, in others
they are poor strategy.
Non-class based separate organizations typically fails to
correctly identify the source of the special oppression faced by the
group in question. For example, separatist Black nationalism calls
for people of African descent to organize separately on the basis
that all Whites are the source of Black oppression. Therefore
they are the enemy. What such an approach fails to recognize is the
primary role of capitalism and the State in causing Black oppression,
and the common interests of both working class Blacks and
Whites in fighting racism on a class-struggle basis (see above). Or
it may be argued that capitalism is a form of racism - this again
fails to recognize the common interest of both working class Whites
and Blacks in fighting capitalism.
Separate organization that is not on a class struggle basis almost
always lays the basis for cross-class alliances as is based on
non-class identities and supposed common interests between all who
share that identity. As we argue, only class struggle can end special
oppressions such as racism and sexism.
They thus became hitched to the class projects of capitalists,
bosses and power-hungry would-be rulers. A case in point is the
Nation of Islam in the US.
Separate organizations can divide the working class into competing
and fragmented sections. Why stop at separate organization for women,
Blacks etc? The whole notion of separate organization lays the basis
for a continual fragmentation of identities and issues: gay versus
black versus women versus lesbians versus bisexuals versus gay blacks
versus white blacks versus bisexual males etc.
Instead of an emphasis on difference, what is needed is a search
for points of agreement and common interest: divided we are weak-it
is class that provides a basis for uniting the vast majority
of the world's population against the primary causes of poverty and
oppression: capitalism/ the State/ the ruling class.
Some call for separate organization on the basis that only
separate organization can prevent the marginalization of the concerns
of a particular group. For example, Black nationalists in the US
often call for Blacks to organize separately so that they are not,
for example, marginalized or ignored in mainly White organizations.
While this is an important issue, it does not follow that separate
organization is the best solution. Not at all!
Separate organization often reinforces the marginalization of a
group's concerns, for example, it can be used to as a way of
ghettoizing issues. Rather than challenging racism, such
organizations allow racism to be ignored by others. White workers can
ignore the issue: "leave it to the Blacks, its their concern, not
ours". But should, say, illegal immigrants have to fight against
racist immigration laws on their own, or should they have allies from
other sections of the working class? "Self- determining" isolation
can readily lay the basis for weak struggles that are easily defeated
by the ruling class (see above). Finally, the claim that Blacks can
never function in integrated organizations expresses a disturbing
lack of confidence in Black people's abilities.
Instead, we should win all sections of the working class
over to a program of opposing, not ignoring all oppression.
This is a more effective way of winning demands. Even if some do not
have direct experience of a given oppression, it does not follow
that they are unable to be won to a position of opposing it. As
argued earlier, no workers really benefit from special
oppressions like racism. It is in their interest to be anti-
racist.
Separate organization is not even progressive in some cases.
Separate organization in the workplace is NOT acceptable in any
case where industrial unions of all workers exist. The logic of
trade-union organization is to unify different categories of
workers, who can only find strength in their unity. To set up a
separate Black trade union in a situation where Blacks are a
minority weakens the existing unions, but puts these workers
themselves in a weak and unsustainable position due to their limited
numbers, as well as in direct conflict with the existing union, thus
creating a dynamic that can lead to the destruction of union
organization in the plant as a whole.
Maximum unity on a principled basis is always desirable, supported
and fought for. Black-only unions are a recipe for failure where
Black people form a minority in the working class (obviously the
situation is different in South Africa where the Black working class
is the majority- but more on this later). How can one even launch
mild forms of industrial action without the support of most workers?
Furthermore, separate organization is only admissible in cases
where workers face a special oppression. We do not support Zulu-only
unions like UWUSA (in South Africa) because Zulus do not face a
special oppression as Zulus.
Separate organization is not innately progressive. It can be used
as a tactic to roll-back worker struggles and undermine the left. For
example, the nationalist-minded liberal middle-class Black leaders of
the mass Industrial and Commercial Workers Union in SA in the 1920s
used arguments that the Communist Party was a "White" institution to
expel socialists from their ranks and had the union over to (White!!)
liberals like Ballinger who opposed anything other than simple bread
and butter, non-political orthodox trade unionism, as opposed to the
ICU's previously semi-syndicalist positions.
SPECIAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEES
Having said this, it is clear that Anarchist political
organizations should be integrated. Having said this, we do recognize
that it may be necessary to set up commissions/ task grippes within
these organizations to focus on specific issues e.g. groups to work
on immigrant support. These are not separate organizations, but
working groups integrated into the overall organization, and to which
any member may belong.
RELATIONS WITH EXISTING SEPARATE GROUPS
People respond to capitalism and the State in a variety of ways,
and through a variety of ideologies. How should we relate to these
groups?
In general, the WSF apply the following "rule of thumb". A basic
distinction can be drawn between "political groups" (those which
unite people on the basis of accepting a certain ideology- such as
political parties), and "economic groups" (those which unite people
on the basis of their common, immediate social and economic
interests- such as unions, rent-strike committees).
We would work alongside in "political groups", for example,
around campaigns.
And we would work within "economic groups". Economic groups
tend to have working class bases and deal with issues relevant to
working and poor people. They therefore have a class
dimension. Our aim here would be to promote
(1) class consciousness and workers power: these
grippes should be run by the working class and reject class
collaboration.
(2) work in principled alliance with other working class
formations out of recognition of the common interests of the working
and poor people and the necessity of class struggle
(3) do not undermine the unions, but on the contrary work with
them, defend them and promote them
(4) take up arguments about the need for anti-racism etc. with
other sections of the working class
(5) win them to a revolutionary Anarchist program
Our aim here would be to unite and merge these "economic
organizations": those in the workplace should be united into "One Big
(Trade) union"; those in (working class) residential areas into "One
Big (Community) Union". They would have a common struggle: against
capitalism, the State and all oppression. In this way, they could
provide the nucleus for the self-governing worker and community
councils of the Anarchist future. Thus, we call for this unity to
(1) unite the working and poor masses around their
common interests and needs
(2) provide a united basis for self-management after the
revolution.
SOUTH AFRICA - A SPECIAL CASE
In South Africa, this situation is somewhat different. Clearly,
the defeat of racism in South Africa does also require a class
struggle and a workers revolution (as elsewhere). But here the Black
working class is the majority of the population, the most radical,
combative and organized force in society. Thus the question of Black
workers presents itself in a different fashion here as it is obvious
that the Black working class will be the force that makes the SA
revolution. Since there is no left-wing or working class movement
that can possibly marginalize the Black working class, the need for
special committees, sections etc. to deal with racism is redundant
in the South Africa case.
What then of then of White/Black worker unity? This unity was
remote in the extreme in the apartheid years- it was extremely
unusual for White workers to join the struggle of the Black working
class under apartheid, precisely because of their extreme level of
privilege (although some did, mainly from the Communist Party). So,
in contrast to the situation in the West, White workers here
actually did benefit from racism. Nonetheless, interracial workers
unity (on an anti-racist platform) would have been advantageous even
under apartheid because it would have weakened the armed power of
the State (most Whites were at some or other point soldiers and were
and are workers). With the demise of formal apartheid and the move to
a formally non-racial bourgeois parliament, the prospects for such
unity are far better. The economic crisis, the removal of job
reservation and other legal privileges, the breakdown of the
alliance between Whites of different classes that underpinned the
racist regime all make a workers alliance and unity more feasible.
Thus we have a situation where literally tens of thousands of
White workers and historically White unions have actually joined the
non- racial integrated COSATU unions; the main historically white
union federation, FEDSAL, has also begun co-operating with COSATU in
negotiations and even demos (although White worker attendance is
quite poor). We should support this unity, so long as it is on an
anti-racist basis, and so long as the general layers of activists
remain broadly representative of the mainly Black unions. In other
words, workers unity is good, if only in terms of our proletarian
internationalism and non-racialism, but the basis of that unity must
still be the struggle against racism as well as capitalism. In any
case, it is clear that the Black working class will still be the
battering ram that destroys the system (the possible participation of
White workers as reliable allies notwithstanding). Therefore, class
unity on a principled anti-racist basis (with the provisions for
special organizations outlined above) is the key to freedom.
This is why we say
"BLACK LIBERATION THROUGH CLASS WAR"
"STATE, CAPITALISM, RACISM: ONE ENEMY, ONE FIGHT"
This page hosted by
Get your own
Free Home Page
Go to the
CapitolHill GeoPage