~Marxismand TheNegrostruggle

Harold CruseGeorge Breitman

Clifton DeBerry

Merit Publishers873 Broadway

New York, N. Y. 10003

First printing March, 1965Second printing June, 1968

Printed in the United States of America

ns

Harold Cruse's two-part article, "Marxism and the Negro," appeared in theMay and June 1964 issues of the monthly magazine Liberator and is reprintedhere with its permission. A one-year subscription to Liberator costs $3 and maybe ordered from Liberator, 244 East 46th Street, New York, N. Y . 10017 .

George Breitman's five-part series, "Marxism and the Negro Struggle," appearedduring August and September 1964 in the weekly newspaper The Militant andis reprinted here with its permission . A one-year subscription to The Militantcosts $3 and may be ordered from The Militant, 873 Broadway, New York,N . Y . 10003 .

Clifton DeBerry's article, "A Reply to Harold Cruse," is reprinted from theOctober 1964 issue of Liberator.

ContentsMARXISM AND THE NEGRO

By Harold CrusePart I 5Part 11 11

MARXISM AND THE NEGRO STRUGGLEBy George Breitman

What Marxism Is and How It Develops 17The Colonial Revolution in Today's World 23The Role of the White Workers 29The Need and Result of Independence 34Relations Between White and Black Radicals 40

A REPLY TO HAROLD CRUSEBy Clifton DeBerry 45

Marxism and the Negro

When the Socialist WorkersParty (Trotskyist) announced in theNew York Times, January 14, thatit had nominated a Negro, CliftonDeBerry, to run for president it al-lows us the opportunity to discussin depth a question that has longbeen agitating many individuals,friends and foes, concerning the re-lationship of Marxism to the Negromovement in America today . Weemphasize "today" because someyears ago it was impossible to beobjective about this inasmuch asthe Marxist movement as representedby the Communist Party was so in-dissolubly linked with practicallyeverything Negroes attempted to dothat it was impossible not to find aCommunist or two under the bed ifone looked earnestly enough .Hence, some very relevant issuesabout Marxism were distorted andconfused by a barrage of heateddenials and accusations about the"Red Menace ."

Today, the relationship betweenthe Negro movement and the Marx-ist movement has gone through asuccession of qualitative changeson both sides . Today the Negromovement has developed to its

By HAROLD CRUSE

Part Ihighest level of organizationalscope and programmatic independ-ence in this century . In the mean-time, the dominant trend in Ameri-can Marxism, the Communist Party,has declined to the low status of aweak, ineffectual sect creating avacuum in "revolutionary" politicswhich the Trotskyistsare desperatelytrying to fill . But the eclipse ofCommunist Party Marxism wenthandin hand with the decline of laborunion radicalism in America . Whitelabor (as differentiated from blacklabor) went conservative, pro-capitalist and strongly anti-Negro .This created a serious and a prac-tically insoluble dilemma for theMarxist movement because thetheory and practice of revolutionaryMarxism in America is based on theassumption that white labor, bothorganizedand unorganized, must bea radical, anti-capitalist force inAmerica and must form on "alli-ance" with Negroes for the libera-tion of both labor and the Negrofrom capitalist exploitation . Nomatter what the facts of life revealto the contrary, no matter what theMarxists say or do

in

terms ofmomentary "tactics," this is what

s~ -

the Marxists believe, and must be-lieve or cease functioningas aMarxist tendency . For Karl Marx'sdictum on this question was that"Labor cannot emancipate itself inthe white skin where in the blackit is branded . " Today, the Trotsky-ists consider themselves to be themost "orthodox" of Marxists .

The fact that white labor inAmerica today is clearly unsympa-thetic to the "emancipation" ofeither Negro workers, or the "petitebourgeois" Negroes, or the "intel-lectuals," as the Marxists are fondof citing, poses, as was said, aserious dilemma for the revolution-ary Marxists . On the other hand,the Negro movement's rise to theascendancy as a radical force inAmerica completeIyupsets Marxiantheory and forces the Marxists toadopt momentary tactics wh i ch theydo not essentially believe in . I_short they become opportunistic .Herewe referto thewhite Marxists,the black ones are another questionwhich is currently personified inthe case of DeBerry . However, therealities in America today forcetheMarxists todeal with the Negromovement as the de facto radicalforce but this doesnot lode thefact that the Marxist movement isin a serious crisis . Moreover, thegreater the Negro movement be-comes as an independent force, themore the Marxists must strive toally themselves with the Negromovement, but the deeper does thecrisis become for the Marxist move-ment itself . For the "alliance" itattempts to forge with the Negromust be one where the Marxistsdominate in order not to be ab-sorbed . This "alliance" is meant tobuild the Marxist party, not the

Negro movement, in orderto rescuethe Marxists from their own crisis .In the Fall, 1963 issue of the Inter-national Socialist Review , theTrotskyists, in discussing the Free-dom Now "movement," said :

The present tasks of the SWP inconnection with the Negrostruggle for liberation are:(4) To expand and strengthen theparty's cadre and forces in theNegro organizations and thecivil rights movements, by : (a)recruiting revolutionary Ne-groes and helping to train themfor leadership in the party andmass movements .

Elsewhere the Trotskyists said :In the same way the influenceof the colonial revolution . . .upon vanguard elements of theNegro movement has helpedprepare the emergence of a newradical left wing . In all thesecases, it is the task of revolu-tionary Marxists to seek to winthe best elements of this newlyemerging vanguard to Trotsky-ism .However, the real issue at stake

here is : Who is destined to be thedominant and decisive radical forcein America-Black Radicals orWhite Radicals . And this is a ques-tion that will and must be settledoutside the scope of any existing"theory," Marxian or otherwise, be-cause there is no "theory" thatcovers this development . SuchaAmerican theory (if it is everwritten down will ha~~from blacks . Hence, we have themost unprecedented situation yetseen in the western world-a Marx-ist movement with a time-honoredsocial theory which does not workout in life with a mass following,

and a viable Negro movement ofmasses in movement which is stymiedbecause it has no social theory orprogram to take it further. Worldhistorical trends have brought boththe old Marxist tradition and thenew Negro movement face to faceon either side of a profound impasse .The Trotskyists, being the mostastute of all Marxists, attempt tobridge the chasm by nominating aNegro for presidentl But this des-perate gesture cannot cure theMarxian crisis by enlisting the Ne-gro potential . Moreover, it is notthe right remedy for what reallyails the Negro movement at thisjuncture . It isthe same thing as of-fering an impoverished man with awife and ten kids a Palm Beach va-cation withsome political V .I .P .'sand all the trimmings just "to getaway from it all ." What'll happento the man's fami I y? These are someof the reasons why the SWP's presi-dential announcement caused somuch confusion, anger and suspicionwithin the ranks of the FreedomNow Party movement concerning"white radical influence ." ForDeBerryalso linkedhimselfwith theFreedom Now Party without theParty's permission to do so-a well-known Marxian type ofmaneuver inNegro affairs .

As the Negro movement stopsand gropes about for its methods ofentering itsnext stage this questionof Marxism's influence will keepbobbing up in different situations .Hence, it is necessary for blackradical "thinkers" (as opposed tothe "strugglers" or "street-men" assome proudly calIthemselves) to geta clearer understanding of why theMarxists act the way they do andwhy they are in a crisis . The Ne-

gro movement is also in a crisis de-spite its late achievements-o crisiswhich is linked to world develop-ments broader than our own prob-lems and with roots in events whichpre-date us .

The crisis of Marxism in Europeand North America has its roots inthe confused events of the RussianRevolution of 1917 . In the case ofthe Socialist Workers Party, itwosLeon Trotsky, its guiding revolu-tionary thinker, who first said thata socialist revolution was evenpossible in Russia . This was in 1905when none of the Russian Marxistsagreed to that possibility (not evenLenin) . Trotsky was denounced as aridiculous visionary for saying thisbut later won other Russian Marx-ists over to his thinking . ThusTrotskywas actuallythe theoreticalfather of the Russian Revolution andLenin was the chief architect andleader .

Marxism, as Marx himself de-veloped it, did not foresee or pre-dict a "socialist revolution" in abackwards agrarian country such asRussia . According to Marx, the re-volution he predicted had to comeabout in a highly industriolizedna-tion which had necessarily createda large, industrial class of workers,well organized and well-trained inthe production skills of capitalistindustry . The capitalist class ofowners would get richer and morecompact due to monopoly growths,and the working class would getpoorer and poorer to the pointwhere they would revolt and over-turn the system and expropriate theowners . Recognizing full well thatthey were revising the originalview of Marx, both Trotsky andLenin then agreed that if a socialist

revolution was possible in Russia-a large agrarian country with onlya small degree of industrial de-velopment-then this revolutioncould not stand alone . It wouldhave to be supported by simul-taneous revolutions in the advancednations of western Europe .

But such did not happen . Therewas a revolution in Russia but it hadto stand alone because supportingrevolutions elsewhere did not suc-ceed . The result was that the mostimportant single event of the 20thcentury was transformed into itsgravest tragedy . Moreover, it putthe Marxist parties in westernEurope,the U .S .,etc ., in a seriousdilemma-adilemma which over theyears has deepened into a series ofcrises . This is because every socialrevolution that has taken placesince the Russian Revolution hasalso developed out of industriallybackward, agrarian, semi-colonialor colonial conditions while theworking classes of the advancedwhite nations became more andmore conservative, pro-capitalistand

2r-imperialist.Moreover, thevery act that the world revolution-ary initiativehad possedfrom whitenations of the capitalist world tonon-white nations of the colonialand semi-colonial world introducedanother factor in revolutionarypolitics, the racial factor, whichthe western Marxistsnever admittedshould be a factor of any import-ance at all . Workers, in theiropinion, regardless of race and 'na-tional differences, should all thinkalike on the question of capitalismand imperialism . The Trotskyistsstill function under this grand illu-sion . This is why Clifton DeBerry,in the Socialist Workers Party's on-

nouncement, had to project his sup-port of the Freedom Now Party onthe basis that it is "a step towardindependent political action oylabo r and Negroes ." By this hemeans white labor and Negroes(emphasis ours . But the leaders ofthe Freedom Now Party never madeanysuch pronouncement . The Free-dom Now Party is a step towardsindepgndentblack political action .Clearly, the Trotskyists do notreally want this . Because Marxismis in a crisis in America they mustattempt to project the idea of theFreedom Now Party in their ownMarxian image, with the old wom-out, discredited theme of Negro-Labor unity .

The Trotskyist theoreticiansrealize verywell that a truly inde-pendent blackpolitical partywhichfunctions irrespectiveof whatwhitelabor does or does not do willfurther deepen the already seriouscrisis of Marxist creed in the West .It could show that Marxian ideasabout capitalism in advanced coun-tries are not to be taken seriously .A whole raft of Marxian formula-tions would be further called intoquestion . In any event, none ofthis would be the fault of the Ne-gro . Rather, it would be the faultof the Marxists for being dishonestwith themselves and misleadinggeneration after generation of inno-cents about the true nature of theRussian Revolution . What was thisrevolution? How did it really oc-cur andwhy?What did it achieve?The Communists and the Trotskyists,twin branches of the same witheringtree trunk of western Marxism, havebeen attacking and accusing eachother over these questions for al-most forty years . Why?

Let the Trotskyists tell it-it wasbecause Stalin and the bureaucracy"distorted" and "betrayed" the "socialist revolution ." ButtheTrotsky-ists have only inherited a problemin "socialist theory and practice"that Trotsky made for himself. Whowas it but Trotsky, himself, who firstclaimed that such a revolution waspossible? All the facts reveal thatTrotsky got the very kind of revolu-tion he actually made and deservedand then disowned it because itwasn't really "socialist ." He ac-cused the Stalin bureaucracy of"terrorism," of "smothering de-mocracy," of "suppressing the op-position" of taking away the po-litical power of the workers'soviets (councils) . But it wasTrotsky, himself, who set such pre-cedents by ordering the brutal sup-pression of the Kronstadt sailors'revolt of 1921 long before theStalin bureaucracy set in .

The Russian Revolution logicallyturned out just the way it had to,considering how and where it wasachieved and what the social ob-jectives were it set for itself .Trotsky helped formulate these ob-jectives . Nothing was betrayed-itwas the Russian Revolutionaries who"betrayed" themselves and the Rus-sian masses suffered . After Trotsky'srevolution it was imperative thatthe Communists industrialize abackward country in as short a timeas possible because there can be nosocialism until there is enough ofan industrial base to socialize (i .e .nationalize) . Hence, all the po-litical conflicts between Russianfactions centered around the great,pressing problem thrust on them bytheir own revolutionary seizure ofpower: How to plan and administer

nationalized property, most of whichhad to be built before it could beadministered . This was no ordinarytask and the nature of the revolu-tion, itself, brought to the fore justthe type of individuals needed toperform the operation-Stalin andhis Stalinists, single-minded, dicta-torial, brutal and practical . Notthe Trotsky type at all . Trotsky op-posed this natural trend of his ownrevolution and was expelled fromRussia .

According to a strict interpre-tation of Morxion formulations,Trotsky tampered very loosely withMarxion "laws" and reaped thewhirlwind . This premise of courseabsolves Marx of responsibility forthe tragic, anti-socialist aspects ofthe Russian Revolution . The intentis to argue that if Marx was rightabout the workings of "historicallaws" and Trotsky was a Marxistthen something was wrong aboutMarx's "historical law" formula-tions. Either this, or Trotsky was aMarxist who gravely misinterpretedthe functioning of Marxion laws .But it was Marx, himself, who in-sisted : "One thing is certain: I amnot aMarxist . "Meaning what? Arewe to take it to mean that becausehis prophecies about advancedcapitalist societies, the white na-tions, did not materialize that weare entitled to soy that Marx waswrong because he,himself,failed toproperly interpret the very laws heis credited with being the first todiscover? If this is the case thenwe have a strong premise for takingMarx at his own word . If he, him-self, admits he was not a "Marxist"thenwho was really a Marxist afterhe passed away?Whose claim to bea Marxist must anyone take

seriously?We pose these questions because

the Trotskyist nomination of DeBerryfor president grows out of the Marx-ists' bel ief that the "historical laws"have pre-ordained the Negro move-ment in America to be used as akind of transitional social phaseleading to the "Marxian revolu-tion . " In this instance we are tosuppose that the Trotskyists are ap-plying the "methods and principlesof historical materialism," i .e . the"laws" correctly "before the fact ."But even to grant the Marxists, forthe sake of argument, the validityof their own Marxian premises, wehave to say that their applicationof the "method" is no more "Marx-ion"than others that failedto bring,in their opinion, "Marxian" results .This might surprise or even shockthe Trotskyists, coming as it doesfrom non-Marxist radicals of theNegro movement . However, it isnot that we are prejudiced against"Marxism" per se . We study Marx-ism just like we study objectivelyall social science schools of thoughtwhich claim to be "scientific ."What we strenuously object to arethe "methods" that the Marxists use .

Fundamental to all Marxistformulations is the dialecticalmethod of theory and Rractice .Marx made it amply clear that hismethod was dialectical ; hence, anyapproach tosocial life which is notdialectical cannot be Marxian . Wewould tend to agree with many,such as the late C . Wright Mills,who said of Marx, ';H'

m th

isi nal and I istin contri u ithe best soci Ineni

wny~of rP-

flectior-and;nauir)(nvnilnklP_ "(Emphasis ours .) We make a distinc-tion here between Marx's original

method and the applications of hislatter-day disciples . We rejectthese findings precisely becausethey are not, in our opinion, ar-rived at by the dialectical methodof reflection and inquiry .

Howdid Marx arrive at his con-clusions about the role of the work-ing class in capitalist society?Through the application of one ofhis prime laws of dialectics :_Thelaw of the unity and conflict ofopposites . In dialectical processessocial phenomena, e .g ., classes,ideas, institutions, etc ., are notstatic, but go through constant de-velopment and changes . Capitol-istic production creates capitalistsand workers (opposites) who comeinto conflict because their classinterestsarenot identical . Capital-ists exploit workers by not payingthem their full labor value .Capitalists seek highest rate ofprofit through intensified exploita-tion of the working class . The con-flict of interests generates "classstruggle," e .g ., strikes . Marx ob-served that the basis of classstruggle lies in a "contradiction"between the methods of productionand the "social relations" of pro-duction (private property) . These"contradictions" can be resolvedonly by a social revolution where-in the working class overthrows orotherwise expropriates the capital-ists . This description of dialectics,while simplified, explains whyMarxists have considered it to bethe historic role of the workingclass in capitalist societies to usherin the socialist era.

However, Marx came to theseconclusions about the working classin Europe over a hundred years ago

and these predictions still have notbeen borne out in the advancedcapitalist societies of westernEurope and North America. Yet, itmust be stated that according to hisown dialectical premise of analysisMarx had every right to make suchpredictions . All the evidenceabounding in the social and politi-cal life of Europe in Marx's timepointed to revolution .. Moreover,the failure of thto materialize in thecapitalrst countries doesinvame

aasbocome ^~^I~a

is t e subsequent "

" "the dialectical method by t~h -_{otlowers of Marx in the

Mk epnhir;

We say this because if one acceptsthe premise of dialectics then weaccept the view that everything insocial life is constantly changing,coming into existence, and passingaway . But, if this dialectical pre-

Classical Marxism

rejects allforms of mechanistic materialismbecause it "denies any genuineevolution in the sense ofthe emerg-ence of new formsand newqual itiesof new things ." Hence, the verypremise of dialectical thinking de-mands, in this instance, an admis-sion that "new forms of social con-sciousness" can develop withincapitalist societies which ore ofmore political relevance than eventhe "social consciousness" of theconservatized labor movement . Anyother conclusion than this is mani-festly anti-dialectical . Hence,fundamental to the crisis in all theschools of western Marxism of theadvanced capitalist countries (the

Part II

mise is "truth" then why is it as-sumed that everything in society issubject to the processes of changeexce t the historical role of theworking class in advance c ita -ist nations? Why is this w ite Euro-peanNorth American labor move-ment itself exempt from dialecticalchange in terms of class position,ideology, consciousness, etc ., andin terms of what other groups, orclasses, this labor movement fights,supports or compromises with in the"class struggle"? Has it not becomeabundantly

clear that

the whitelabor movement in the advancedcapitalist countries has, indeed,abandoned the Marxian "historicalrole" assigned to it? Do we nothave the right to claim, then, thatEuropean and American Marxistswho still hew to this "white work-ing class" line are practicingmechanistic materialism rather thandialectical materialism?

white nations) is the crisis that haslong gripped the philosophical sys-tem ofthought, the "kernel "aroundwhich the entire political, eco-nomic, cultural, theoretical andprogrammatic structure of Marxismmust hinge . It is a crisis of dialec-tical materialism which was con-ceived by Marx as a method whichhad to comprehend the reality ofof the world, but is no longer ableto do so . The reality of world revo-lutionary events are running farahead of Marxian theory .

In 1939, when the Europeanwhite working class was armed tothe teeth along the borderlines oftheir nations ready to spread warand mayhem against themselves all

over Europe, and half the world,Trotsky, writing about "Marxism inthe United States," could say Nviththe most lofty detachment :

"By the example and with theaid of the ddvanced nations thebackward nations will also becarried away into the main-stream of socialism ."Here is expressed in the most

graphic manner the supreme illu-sions of the western (or in Trotsky'scase) the "westernized" whiteMarxist . They cannot let go of theideefixe of the white workingclass,"saving" world's humanity . Rootedin their preconceived notions,theirundialectical ideas, is the deeplyingrained "white nation ideal ."Hence, "socialism" becomes like"capitalism" a white-nation con-ception, the great "white working-class" prerogative . Thus, the"white man's burden" shifts fromthe capitalist's missionaries to thesocialist's revolutionaries whoseduty to history is to lift the "back-ward" peoples from their igno-minious state to socialist civiliza-tion even if the whites have to post-pone this elevation abroad untiltheyhave managed to achieve it athome . But in so doing, the whiteMarxist's dialectical conceptionsofworld developments become a dis-torted image of the reality that istaking place before their very eyes .

Hence, the dialectical analysesthat Marxists project concerningworld developments are, in truth,mechanistically gross distortions ofthe original dialectical methods ofMarx who was essentially true tohis method for his own time andcircumstances . It was not the faultof Marx that the world changes forthis wasalready explicit in dialec-

10

tics . But the distortions of today'swesternMarxism lie in the fact thatMarxists treat dialectical material-ism onlyfrom the standpoint of howthe impersonal productive forcesdevelop, how the material forcesevolve in society and bring aboutclass relationships, or cause humansociety to go through stages fromfeudalism to capitalism . Or further,how capitalism penetrates theunderdeveloped world and bringsthe latter into the capitalistic net-work, etc . But Marx pointed outthat "In the social production whichmen carry on they enter intodefinite relations that are indis-pensable and independent of theirwill ." (emphasis ours)

Which means that men are sub-ject to the blind forces of the lawsof social production unless they be-come "socially conscious" of whatis happening to them . But how menbecome socially conscious is aproblem ofthe Theory of Knowledgeand Reflection which is an in-separable category in the dialec-tical method of social inquiry . Ifmen did not comprehend the natureof material forces they could not beable to intervene into the processof these forces in order to shapeevents, i .e . to control blind forces .Thus, men, or classes, or groups, oreven nations could not assume thetask of "revolutionizing" societiesunless they are positioned to do soand also have the necessary con-sciousness to shape events . In thisregard, social developments canposition certain classes to shapeevents, give them the potential,yet such classes remain without theconsciousness or the will to makehistory .

But there are always other

classes and it is the implied func-tion of dialectics to correctly per-ceive what classes are being broughtto the forefront of social conscious-ness by "blind" material forces .This class will become the socialforce chosen by "historical laws"for historical roles rather than pre-conceived classes that history hasleft behind . Lenin dealt mostthoroughly with how men or classesreceive their sense perceptions ofthe real world, but Marxists todaybypass this aspect of dialectics be-cause they believe the social roleof the "proletariat" alone settlesthis question for all time .

White Marxists have tried tomake world reality fit their dialec-tical preconceptions, but world de-velopments require that dialecticalconceptions embrace world reality.But such conceptions cannot comefrom the minds of western Marxistswhose philosophical viewshave be-come provincially rooted in thecrisis-reality of the western worldand cannot transcend the con-ceptual limitations of that world .They talk "revolution" but revolu-tion is being made by others .Hence, world social developmentsrun ahead of the world socialtheory . Warde says that the prin-ciples of historical materialism areapplicable everywhere "providedthey are applied with full con-sideration of the facts in eachcase . "But the question Warde doesnot discuss is : "Who is to determinethis? Those who are making theworld revolution or those in theWest whose 'dialectical' views areanchored down to the lethargy ofthe white working class?"

The Marxion Theory of Know-ledge (dialectics) implies that if the

"backward peoples" of the worldare carrying themselves into the"mainstream of socialism" insteadof being led there by the "aid ofthe advanced nations" as Trotskysaw it, then the "backward peoples"must replace the white workingclass as the "chosen people" of thedialectical functionings of worldsociety. Hence, if "historical sci-ence" or "dialectics" is to be con-sidered really scientific it must bedeveloped and verified in life bythe inclusion of the social experi-ences, the history, the ideas andpolitical pkilosophies,thepoints ofview of the backward peoples . Inshort, it is the social reflections ofbackward peoples that count todaythe world over . For it is their so-cial consciousness that is determin-ing which way history is moving .Hence, dialectical materialism isno longer the "philosophy of theproletariat" (i .e . the Europeanproletariat) as the western Marxistswould have it .

It' is the fate of the Marxists tobe imprisoned within their illusionsandthat isthe sourceof their crisis .They cannot deal with the race~uestion in America in terms oftheir dialectical method exceptsuperficially which they must at-tempt to conceal by all too obviouspractices of political expediency,such as the DeBerry nomination .This must, of necessity, bring themintoserious conflictwith the Negromovement itself . For the Negromovementhas its spiritual affinitiesnot with the white working class ofAmerica whose status vis-a-visAmerican capitalism isqualitativelydifferent from Negroes' . Whitelabor's heyday is behind them inthe history of the 1930's . The

American lA 9roes' movement iscurrentl

a

s

-

re vowhich is more inspired by eventsnip u s+ America than wrt m -t . Wecan much better explain the Negromovement's relationship to worlddevelopments today by quotingLeopoldSedar Senghor,president ofthe African republic of Senegal,from his pamphlet on African So-cialism :

"We are not communists . . ."Theparadoxof socialistic con-

struction in communist countriesin the Soviet Union is that it in-creasingly resembles capitalisticconstruction in the United Statesof America . . . And it has less artand freedom of thought ."Buts third revolution is taking

place, as a reaction againstcapitalistic and communisticmaterialism,andwhich will inte-grate moral, if not religiousvalues, with the political andeconomic contributions of the twogreat revolutions . In this revo-lution the colored peoples in-cluding Negro Africans, mustplay their part, they must bringtheir contribution to the con-struction of the new planetarycivilization ."Of the Negro American in this

"third revolution" Senghor quotesPaul Morond as saying :

"The Negroes have rendered anenormousservice to America . Butfor them one might hove thoughtthat men could not live withouta bank account and a bathtub ."The living facts of the world

revolution today are more per-suasive than any revolutionarytheory that ever came out of West-ern Europe since the death of Marx .We do not hold Marx accountable

12

forany deviationsor distortionsthateither history or men have imposedto detract from his doctrine . Hewas a towering product of his timesand his conclusions about the so-ciety of men tore away the veilthat hid the profound forces thatmovedsocieties . However,his fore-costshave beennegated bythe verydialectical process he, himself, re-vealed . Yet,to say,noy insist, thathistory should act just the way Marxthought it would is to do an injus-tice to a great thinker and imply,thereby, that dialectics is a philo-sophical fraud as many have triedto do (even some who called therr.-selves "Marxists") . But neither his-tory nor dialectics which ishistory'sinner clockworks stand still .Neither is history prone to bestowspecial historical prerogatives onany special class of people forever .It is the peculiar juxtaposition oftime, place, and social circum-stances which decide who is goingto play the role of prime movers ofhistory . Hence, we can well under-stand Marx's own assertion "I amnot a Marxist ." It would have beenan historical tribute to Marx's self-effacement if Leon Trotsky had ad-mitted : "Though 1 played fast andloose with Marx's laws, I am nodialectician ."

Hence, in America today theSocialist Workers Party must striveto conceal the theoretical bank-ruptcy of Western Marxism by thehighly questionable politicalstrategy of entering into politicalcompetition with a Negro politicalparty (which is not even estab-lished) by using a Negro candidatefor high office . Some capitaliststrying to crash in and exploit theNegro economic market could not

have been more crass and oppor-tunistic . But what is revealed herethat is more striking than merecrassness is the unreality that hoversaround much of what AmericanMarxists do . Basic to all is theMarxist illusions about the "workingclass-socialist myth" as concernsthe Russian experience . For theTrotskyists to be forced to let go ofthis dead issue would be to forcethe admission that the TrotskyistFourth International is and alwayshas been rather utopian . For afterthe seizure of power in Russia bythe Bolsehviks and the creation ofsoviets the problem became moreKantian than Marxian . The Marxistrevolutionary idealists assumed thatMarxist elites once in power wouldact in accordance with the Kantian"categorical imperative" and per-form theirfunctions accordingto anethical code of "right conduct ."This has been and always will be aproblem of revolutions .

However, the hard Americanrealities, and the Negro movementforce the Trotskyists to push allthese issues that once agitated theinternational revolutionaries yearsago into the background, departfrom the book, and play it prog-maticolly by jumping on the band-wagon of the black political partyidea . But this cannot work . TheFreedom Now Party will not beused to save the Marxist traditionin America from its own illusionsabout the nature of a social realitytoday. The problem of Clifton De-Berry's role as a Negro Marxist ofthe western mold is a contradictorything that cannot be solved withinthe context of the political, socialand cultural philosophy which theFreedom Now Party will attempt to

13

mold . In view of what LeopoldSenghor says on the matter of com-munism, on American Negro Marx-ist becomes a rather misplacedfigure in the real scheme of things .And his position is made all themore ridiculous if he is involvedpolitically in beating the "deadhorse" issue of Stalinism vs .Trotskyism . What can this reallymatter to the "third world" in viewof the fact that Russia's place andimpact on the 20th century revolu-tion isestablishedandwell-known?Trotskyists in the west have beenreduced to the role of ferreting outStalinist vestiges in world revolu-tionary currents, analyzing the"distortions" of revolutions alreadymade, projecting an ideal of the"socialist revolution" that has neverbeen seen . or experienced, whilerehashing Trotsky's theory of "per-manent remolution"-an undialec-tical concept because everything,including revolutions,are a processof change and developments .Trotskyists are the "purists" of theMarxist camp-astute, analyticaland possessed with the insight torefine,

from

their own

point ofview,

every

aspect of historicalmaterialism . But they connotes-cape the theoretical net of thecrisis of Marxism in the west .Hence, Clifton DeBerry becomes amere pawn whom the Trotskyists canattempt to foist on the black po-litical party wearingaking's crownthat is much oversized .

The Negro movement possessesinner qualities of different degreesof nationalism and integrationismwhose economic, political, cultur-al, and psychological implicationsare too much for Marxian theorytoday . To attempt to confuse these

unknown qualities with the whitelabor mystique of the Marxian leftwould be to disrupt the natural de-velopment of the Freedom NowParty, confuse the real native issuesof the Negro with the unreal andirrelevant view of the Marxistsconcerning American realities .Such intrusions will be fought witheveryweapon at the FNP's disposal .

The

Freedom

Now

Party 'ispredicatedon the idea of achievingindependent black political powerin the U .S . through economic, cul-tural and administrative approaches .In this fashion, the Negro movementin America becomes aligned withthe real nature of the world de-velopments involving non-whitepeoples . In this realignment of

world social forces the reality isthat white capitalist nations, in-cluding all the different classeswithin these nations, from upperbourgeoisie to lower proletariathave become, in fact, bourgeoisand relative middleclass strata vis-a-vis the non-white peoples whohave become, in fact, the "worldproletarians . " This is the real out-come of "dialectical" processes inour age . If world unity of differentpeoples is ever to be achievedwithina democratic fromework,thisunitymust besought along the pathsof "social consciousness" thatclearly reveal future possibilitiesrather than the "dead ends" of thepast that we have encountered be-fore in radical politics .

Marxism and the Negro StruggleBy GEORGE BREITIVIAN

What Marxism Is andHow It Develops

The Negro movement continuesto unfold with ever-increasingscope and power, but, like mostmass movements, empirically -feeling its way along through ex-periment, trial and error . It isworking out its positions, policiesand orientation step by step underthe press of immediate necessity .

Since the system against whichit is rebelling is capitalist, its pol-icies are becoming more and moreanti-capitalist, implicitly for themost part, but explicitly too. Butthe most advanced elements ofthe movement (radical and na-tionalist) have not yet projectedor adopted a clear-cut ideology ora comprehensive program of so-cial revolution based on a tho-rough examination of U.S. mo-nopoly capitalism and the waysand means to end its domination.

Need for TheoryThe need is felt for the move-

ment to broaden its perspectivesand formulate a fundamentaltheory for its action. Some Negrointellectuals are trying to fill thisneed. Inevitably, this begins withanalysis and critique of existingtheories . Having rejected liberal-ism, that is, liberal capitalism,behind which Lyndon Johnson,

1 5

Walter Reuther, Roy Wilkins,James Farmer and Martin LutherKing are all united, the Negro in-tellectuals are faced with the taskof defining their attitude to Marx-ism, the theory and practice ofscientific, revolutionary socialism.

Marxists can only welcome themost searching examination andcriticism by black radicals . Theone thing we ask is that Marx-ism be discussed as it really is,and not as one of the many strawmen substituted for it throughmalice or ignorance in this coun-try, where the misrepresentationof Marxism is a national industry.

This eiementary condition forfruitful discussion is not met inHarold Cruse's article on "Marx-ism and the Negro" in the Mayand June Issues of Liberator.Primarily a polemic against theSocialist Workers Party, this ar-ticle is designed to supportCruse's thesis that Marxism is un-realistic, unable to adjust to rev-olutionary reality, dominated by"white" thinking, and intent onexploiting and dominating theNegro movement. Cruse's depic-tion of Marxism is on a higherlevel than one finds in most ofthe capitalist press, but it too suf-

fers from many errors and distor-tions. We shall start with his con-ception of Marxism in general.

Estimate of MsrzCruse tips his hat to Marx, ac-

knowledging that he was a greatthinker, whose dialectical ma-terialist method of analysis vastlyexpanded the world's knowledgeabout society. But he can find no-thing positive or creditable to sayabout 20th century Marxists . Heaccuses them of merely repeatingwhat Marx said, of being inflex-ible, of clinging to outdated ideasand failing to adjust to changedconditions . Simultaneously, he ac-cuses them of the opposite fault -of not repeating what Marx said,of being too flexible, of deviatingfrom Marx so much that theydon't really deserve to be calledMarxists.Heads I win, tails you lose:

When modern Marxists repeatwhat Marx said, they are parrots,and when they don't repeat whathe said, they are not Marxists.Let us take up first the secondof these charges - "deviation ."As a theory Marxism began

with Marx, but it did not endwith him. If it had, if Marxismwas only what Marx discoveredand formulated a century or moreago, it would have no claim what-ever to being called scientific ; itwould be classified now as somekind of dogma or cult, and theworld would have stopped de-bating about it long ago. Marxdeveloped his theory and workedout some of its laws on the basisof the knowledge and conditionsof his time. His theory would in-deed be useless todkty if otherthinkers, using his method, hadnot added to it and brought it upto date in the light of subsequent

16

knowledge, different conditionsand new experiences.Cruse eriticizes the 20th cen-

tury Marxists for adding to whatMarx started, adapting his ideasto conditions that did not existin his day, and applying histheory in circumstances it was im-possible for Marx or any otherhuman being of that time to fore-see. This would make sense onlyif one expected a theory to havemagic qualities: to be full grownand fully developed at birth, toapply to all times and places inthe same way, to be perfect, un-unprovable. No one makes suchdemands of other theories andsciences. Modem evolution is not,cannot be, the same thing as thefindings of Darwin a century ago,but it stems from them, it is anextension of them. Similarly withMarxism.

"Deviations from Marx"Cruse would probably concur

with these remarks as a general-ization, saying that what he istalking against are not extensionsof Marx's theory, but deviationsfrom it - deviations so great thatthey have thrown Marxism into ahopeless and insoluble crisis. Wecan better understand what hemeans by deviations from Marx-ism, and therefore what he meansby Marxism, when we turn to theonly example he gives of suchdeviation: the Russian Revolutionof 1917 . (As will soon be seen,the role of Marxism in the Rus-sian Revolution sheds importantlight on the real relationship be-tween Marxism and the Negrostruggle.)The chief deviator, says Cruse,

was Leon Trotsky, "who first saidthat a socialist revolution waseven possible in Russia. This was

in 1905 when none of the RussianMarxists agreed to that possibility(not even Lenin) . Trotsky wasdenounced as a ridiculous vision-ary for saying this but later wonother Russian Marxists over tohis thinking . . .

Serious Dilemma?"Marxism, as Marx himself

developed it, did not foresee orpredict a `socialist revolution' ina backward agrarian country suchas Russia . According to Marx, therevolution he predicted had tocome about in a highly industrial-ized nation which had necessarilycreated a large industrial class ofworkers . . . (who) would revoltand expropriate the owners . . ."(The Russian Revolution) put

the Marxist parties in westernEurope, the U.S., etc., in a seriousdilemma-a dilemma which overthe years has deepened into aseries of crises. This was becauseevery social revolution that hastaken place since the Russian Rev-olution has also developed outof industrially backward, agrar-ian, semi-colonial or colonial con-ditions ."According to a strict inter-

pretation of Marxian formula-tions, Trotsky tampered veryloosely with Marxian 'laws' andreaped the whirlwind . . . . "

It is true that Marx expectedthe working class revolutionagainst capitalism to begin in theindustrially-advanced countries,and it is also true that it began ina backward, semi-colonial country.But neither fact invalidates Marx-ism or convicts Lenin and Trot-sky of "tampering" with Marxism.On the contraryl The overthrowof capitalism in Russia signalledthe beginning of the end of cap-italism as the dominant worldsystem and therefore was, in fact,

1 7

the first major confirmation ofMarx's theory.The time sequence of revolu-

tions expected by Marx wasshown to be faulty or outdated,but that was a minor thingcom-pared to the fart that the wrFJ13g lass revol u ion predicted hhMarx actually took place, that,the workers decisively demon-strated their ahilitg fn tak wpraway from the-capitalists, that agaping wound was torn in theside of world capitalism.A crisis? Yes, the Russian Rev-

olution produced a crisis all right- for capitalism and imperialism,a crisis that still haunts them.For despite the subsequent de-generation of the Soviet Unionduring decades of isolation, theRussian Revolution has been anexample for the oppressed massesin many lands and has inspiredsuccessful revolutions against cap-italism and imperialism by othercolonial and semi-colonial coun-tries. Some more "crises of Marx-ism" like that and world capital-ism will be finished .Lenin and Trotsky were, unlike

Marx, able to see the possibilityof the revolution occurring firstin an industrially-backward coun-try because they lived later and,"standing on his shoulders," wereable to see farther. Much hap-pened to change the world duringthe third of a century betweenMarx's death and the RussianRevolution. That was the periodwhen capitalism definitivelypassed beyond the industrial stageand entered its monopoly stage(imperialism) .

Monopoly CapitalismMarx had shown that capitalism

was inevitably moving in the di-rection of monopoly, but he did

not live to see it arrive there. Theimperialist conquest of the world,the final subjugation and divisionof Asia and Africa by the ad-vanced capitalist powers, createda new situation: They lodged newand deeper contradictions in thecapitalist system - and openednew opportunities for the revolu-tionary opponents of that system.In this situation Lenin and

Trotsky applied the method theyhad acquired from Marx . Lenin'stheory of imperialism, its corol-lary insights into colonialism andnationalism, and Trotsky's theoryof permanent revolution addednew and indispensable features tothe body of Marxist thought. Theyrevealed weaknesses in the cap-italist structure that had not ex-isted or had not been visible inthe mid-19th century: imperial-ism would break first at its weak-est link, the ruling classes in in-dustrially backward countrieswould not be able to put up asmuch resistance to revolution astheir stronger brothers.

Prime Example

Applied to Russia and acted on,these additions to Marxist theoryresulted in one-sixth of the worldbeing torn out of the capitaliststranglehold. How can one ask fora more magnificent example ofthe creative application of Marx-ism to a specific country and aspecific set of problems and rela-tionships? What Cruse calls "tam-pering" is Marxist theory en-riched and made concrete underspecial and unique conditions .Marxism would be dead today ifnot for those additions.When Cruse sees deviations be-

cause Lenin and Trotsky did notmerely repeat what Marx had said,heshows an inability or unwilling -

18

ness to recognize important fea-tures of Marxism - its richness,its variety, its ability to cope withchanging situations, its unfin-ishedness. Marxism is not onlywhat Marx worked out a centuryago, nor only what Lenin andTrotsky added when they appliedMarx's method to the conditionsof their time, but also what sub-sequent Marxists did, do and willdo as they apply this theory toother situations, including somethat do not even exist yet.Marxism is a theory in process

of development, which grows inpower and scope as it is appliedto specific situations and to newconditions. It developed whenLenin and Trotsky applied it tothe specific conditions of Russiain the epoch of imperialism("Russianized" it) . It developedfurther when the Socialist Work-ers Party applied it to the specificconditions of America ("Ameri-canized" it) . And it continues todevelop as the SWP applies it tothe specific conditions of the Ne.gro community in the UnitedStates ("Afro-Americanizes" it, asthe SWP put in the 1963 conven-tion resolution, Freedom Now:The New Stage in the Strugglefor Negro Emancipation, PioneerPublishers, 250) .

Based on Reality

Theory is derived from reality;the more closely a theory cor-responds to reality, the better atheory it is . Marx studied theconditions and struggles of thewest European workers, learnedfrom them, and incorporated thoselessons in his theory. Lenin andTrotsky did the same with theRussian workers and peasants .And from its inception the Social-ist Workers Party has been doing

this with the conditions and strug-gles of the American Negro peo-ple, which have always been uni-que in many respects . Embodiedin its theory and program aremany lessons learned from theNegro struggle, and from theideas, feelings and outlook of themasses in the black ghetto.Nor is that all. The Negro strug-

gle in 1984 is not the same thingit was ten or even five yearsago -much has changed. Speak-ing at a recent Freedom NowParty rally in Detroit, state chairman Albert B. Cleage noted:"Everywhere the black man'swhole conception of himself, ofhis struggle, has changed. Youmay not know the day you startedthinking differently but it haschanged." (Illustrated News, June29.) With the change of the blackman's conception of himself andhis struggle have come manyother changes - in goals, strate-gy, tactics - even changes in theway certain words are defined.The SWP has been studying

these changes, trying to under-stand their causes, find out theirdirection and fit their revolution-ary aspects into a theory and pro-gram of action capable of replac-ing capitalism with socialism. Ithas been listening to and learn.ing from nonMarxist figures -such as Malcolm %, Rev. Cleage,William Worthy, Jesse Gray,Daniel Watts, James Baldwin,the exiled Robert F. Williams andJulian Mayfield, even HaroldCruse sometimes - who to onedegree or another eicpress thethinking, feeling and aspirationsof the black ghetto which, asRobert Vernon recently pointedout, is "more solidly working-class and revolutionary in out-look than the trade unions, or

1 9

anything else in America today."From these studies and from its

own participation in the struggle,the SWP in the last year or twohas developed a number of ideas- Marxist ideas - about blacknationalism, separatism, inde-pendent black political action, theNegro's relation to the capitalists,to the white workers, etc. Whetherthese ideas are perfect or lessthan perfect, whether they arecomplete or only beginnings to-ward a more complete grasp ofreality, no one can deny that theydo grapple with vital questionsconcerning the Negro people andtheir allies . Certainly no otherparty in this country has donemore than the SWP along theselines.

A Straw ManThe most discouraging thing

about Cruse's article is not thathe rejects Marxism, but that hedeliberately refuses to confront oreven mention what the SWPthinks, says and stands for. Pre-ferring to construct a straw manthat even a mental flyweight candemolish, he simply ignores whatthe Marxists actually advocateand propose. For example, theSWP is the only organizationclaiming to be Marxist in thiscountry which says that black na-tionalism is progressive and of-fers it support and collaboration.Isn't it strange that Cruse canfind no space for this fact in anarticle about the SWP and theNegro movement? Or would stateing such a fact undermine thewhole structure of his polemic?In some cases where the SWP

position is widely known. Cruseaccuses the SWP of saying thingsit doesn't really believe in, buthe is always careful not to informhis readers just what those things

are so that they can make theirown judgment . He never offersevidence of the alleged insincerity,merely asserting that Marxistscannot believe the unstated thingsthey claim to believe because thenthey would have to give up Marx-ism (at any rate, Cruse's versionof Marxism) . Of the SWP's pio-neering effort to Afro -American'ize Marxism, which should be ofsome interest to readers of an ar-ticle called "Marxism and the

Negro," he never gives the slight-est hint or notice .

This may be one way to "win"a debate, or to create andstrengthen prejudices againstMarxism. But it's a poor way toeducate black militants, or anyoneelse, about Marxism, or anythingelse . Cruse has the right not todiscuss what the SWP reallystands for, but an article aboutthe SWP is a strange place tobe exercising that right.

The Colonial Revolutionin Today's World

The main revolution in theworld is the colonial revolution,says Harold Cruse in his article,"Marxism and the Negro" (Liber-ator, May and June) . And themain trouble with even "the mostastute" Marxists of the SocialistWorkers Party and the Fourth In-ternational, he contends, is thatthey do not and cannot under-stand or recognize this .The reason why they cannot

understand this, Cruse says, is thatthey are obsessed and blinded byKarl Marx's outdated idea thatthe workers in the industriallyadvanced countries are the prin-cipal or only revolutionary forcein the world .The result, he says, is that

Marxists take a paternalistic at-titude toward the (colored) col-onial parts of the world, believ-ing that their emancipation mustwait until the (white) workers ofthe industrially advanced coun-tries make their own revolution,after which they will "lead" thecolonial people to their freedom .An additional result is that Marx-ism is obsolete and the Marxistsin a crisis which they cannot re-solve .Those are Cruse's charges. Now

2 1

let's turn to the facts.It is a matter of record, which

anyone who reads can check forhimself, that the Socialist Work-ers Party and the Fourth Inter-national believe and assert thatthe colonial struggle is the centerof the world revolution today andhas been since 1949.

For evidence, we cite one ofmany documents, Dynamics ofWorld Revolution Today, a resolu-tion adopted by the Fourth Inter-national at its Reunification Con-gress in June, 1963, and printedin International Socialist Review,Fall, 1963 . (Available from PioneerPublishers as a pamphlet, 350 .)

This resolution states very plain-ly that the principal center of theworld revolution shifted to thecolonial world beginning withthe triumph of the Chinese Rev-olution, and explains why thishappened, what its effects havebeen, what the problems of thecolonial revolution are and howthese problems can be overcome .

This position is so well knownthat when Mikhail Suslov, Sovietideological hatchetman, made aspeech last April trying to dis-credit the Chinese leadership, hesaid :

"Does anyone think perhapsthat the Chinese theory makingthe regions of Asia, Africa andLatin America the `principal zoneof the storms of the world revolu.tion' represents something orig-inal? No, this is the repetition al-most word for word of one of theprincipal theses of current Trot-skyism . One can read in the deci-sion of the so-called Fourth Inter-national (Trotskyist) : 'As a resultof the successive failures of thetwo major revolutionary waves of1919-23 and 1943-48 - and of theminor one of 1934-37 - the maincenter of the world revolutionshifted for a time to the colonialworld.' Here is where the sourceolf the political wisdom of the Chi-nese leadership must be sought,"etc.Not only is this fact refuting

Cruse's contention well known,but it is well known to Cruse too!We can state this categoricallybecause Cruse himself quotes inhis article a short passage fromthis same resolution, Dynamics ofWorld Revolution Today. (It is apassage urging revolutionaryMarxists to recruit black radicalsinfluenced by the colonial rev-olution.)Why does Cruse do this? Why

does he misrepresent the SWP'sposition on the colonial revolu-tion? We can only conclude thathe finds it easier to argue againstpositions that the SWP does nothold than against those it doeshold .The facts are similarly damag-

ing to Cruse's charge that Marx-ists ("western" or "westernized"or white) have a paternalistic at-titude toward the colonial (col-ored) people . The only examplehe offers, Leon Trotsky, is aboutthe worst he could pick .

22

Cruse's sole piece of "evidence"is a sentence in the last paragraphof Trotsky's pamphlet, Marxismin the United States . This waswritten in 1939, shortly beforeWorld War II, which Trotskythought would surely provoke rev-olutionary outbursts in both Eu-rope and its colonies . Once the so-cialist revolution began, he wrote,it would spread rapidly fromcountry to country, and : "By theexample and with the aid of theadvanced nations, the backwardnations will also be carried awayinto the main stream of socialism,"He was referring here to all in-dustrially backward countries, in-cluding those in eastern Europe aswell as the colored countries.

Socialism Messianic?

Cruse, however, considers thissentence "proof" that Marxistshave a "lofty detachment" towardthe colored people, that Marxistsocialism is a messianic "white na-tion" conception, that revolution-ary socialists deem it their "dutyto history to lift the 'backward'peoples from their ignominiousstate to socialist civilization evenif the whites have to postpone thiselevation abroad until they havemanaged to achieve it at home."Quite a big indictment to spin outof that little sentence .But it simply doesn't stand up.

Far from believing that workersin capitalist countries are the onlyrevolutionary force, Trotsky in-sisted many times that "the de-cisive word in the developmentof humanity" belongs to "the op-pressed colored races" (1932) . Herepeatedly expressed the view that"The movement of the coloredraces against their imperialist op-pressors is one of the most im-portant and powerful movements

against the existing order andtherefore calls for the complete,unconditional and unlimited sup-port on the part of the proletariatof the white race" (1937) . Thiswas, long before the current col-onil upsurge, and it is in thisspirit that both the SocialistWorkers Party and the Fourth In-ternational have always beenguided.

In May, 1940, a year after thesentence cited by Cruse, whenWorld War II had already begun,the Fourth International held anemergency conference where itadopted a manifesto on "The Im-perialist War and the ProletarianRevolution" which was supportedby the SWP. Trotsky wrote thisdocument, and since he was as-sassinated a few months later, itrepresents his final, mature, con-sidered Judgment on the question.

It could almost have been writ-ten as an answer to Cruse's claimthat Marxists think the colonialpeople should wait for, depend onor trot humbly behind the indus-trially advanced countries. Afterurging the colonial masses to takeadvantage of the war crisis inorder to break free from theirimperialist masters and urgingthe workers in the imperialistcountries to support the colonialrevolt, Trotsky explicitly stated :

No Need to Wait"The perspective of the per,

m4nent revolution in no case sign-ifies that the backward countriesmust await the signal from theadvanced ones, or that the col-onial peoples should patiently waitfor the proletariat of the metro.politan centers to free them. Helpcomes to him who helps himself.Workers must develop the revolu-tionary struggle in every country,colonial or imperialist, where fav-

23

orable conditions have been estab-lished, and through this set anexample for the workers of othercountries."So the SWP considers the col-

onial revolution foremost today,like Cruse, and supports t "com-pletely and unconditionally," alsolike Cruse. Having disposed ofdifferences invented or exaggerat-ed by Cruse, we can now turn tosome real differences .Cruse holds that the colonial

revolutionary movement is theonly important one; that no otherrevolutionary movement or tenden-cy today means anything; thathow the world goes and how his-tory is made will be determinedentirely by the colonial (colored)revolution against the imperialist(white-controlled) countries.The SWP's world outlook is far

less simple because the actual sit-uation is much more complex. Itsees the fate of the world beingdecided by the combined operationof three factors: 1. The colonialstruggle against imperialism,which is today the central andmost active revolutionary sphere.2. The struggle for political rev-olution in the workers states, in.volving the ouster of the privilegedbureaucratic caste that is nowdominant and the restoration ofworkers democracy. 3. The strug-gle for social revolution in the imperialist states, involving the endof capitalist rule and its replace-ment by the rule of revolutionaryworkers and their allies .To the SWP these three spheres

of the world revolution are in-

timately connected and interde-pendent. Although they developunevenly, t hey reinforce andstrengthen each other. Victoriesfor one benefit, the others, andvice versa. A correct strategy for

the world revolution, which alonecan permanently guarantee thegains won in each of these spheres,requires a realistic appraisal oftheir potentials, limitations and in-terrelationships . (Such an apprai-sal is brilliantly supplied in thealready mentioned resolution, Dy-namics of World Revolution To-day.)

Absurd Illusion?Cruse regards the very idea of

workers revolution in the capital-ist countries as an absurd andharmful illusion ; he appearsmuch surer of this than the cap-italists. For him class strugglebetween workers and capitalistsis meaningless or irrelevant. Helumps together all the antagonisticclasses in these countries as ifthey were one harmonious fam-ily (except the Negro people inthe U.S ., whom he considers a partof the world-wide colonial revolu-tion) . He has nothing to say aboutdevelopments inside the workersstates . (Since he says Stalin wasthe type of leader "needed" in theearlier days of the Soviet Union,he may also think the Soviet work-ers "need" the Khrushchev typetoday.)What leads Cruse to thus exag-

gerate the strength of the enemyand shut his eyes to the possibilityof aid from allies inside the cap-italist and workers states? Theseand related errors flow from hismethod, which sees only things-as-they-are, fixed and frozen,rather than as a process repletewith contradictions, reversals andchange (despite all his talk aboutdialectics) .The class struggle in the cap-

italist countries is at an ebb? Thenit will always be this way! Theworkers are conservative, apathe-tic, hogtied by the capitalists and

24

their labor lieutenants? Then itwill always be this way!

This is the same way most peo-ple viewed the colonial revolution25 years ago, and the Negro strug-gle 10 years ago, when the condi-tions for today's upsurge were stillmaturing beneath the surface. TheCruses of that day, prisoners ofoutward appearances, could alsoonly sigh : It will always be thisway! It is not a mode of thoughthelpful to people who want toprepare for revolutions.The colonial revolution has

made great advances and it willmake more . But these advanceshave not got rid of imperialism,especially on its home grounds.Yet the continued existence of im-perialism, with its preponderanteconomic and military strength, isthe main deterrent to further,deeper and faster revolutionarygains in the colonial sphere .The converse is also true. The

abolition of capitalism in the im-perialist centers and its replace-ment by workers states will opennew avenues for the colonial rev-olution. It will bring invaluableeconomic aid to the colonial rev-olutions, enabling them to curb orprevent bureaucratism, limitationsof workers' rights and other de-formations that breed in the soilof economic backwardness andpoverty.A crucial question for revolu-

tionists everywhere therefore is :How to achieve the abolition ofcapitalism in the imperialistsphere? Must it wait, as Cruse'sposition implies, until the colonialcountries are strong enough to de-feat their imperialist foes in directmilitary combat? And will the im-perialists wait until that occurswithout launching their own of-fensive first, including the H-

bomb?Or -are there forces inside the

imperialist countries that can bewelded together into a revolution-ary movement capable of disarm-ing the capitalists, throwing themout of power and joining in fra-ternal collaboration with the col.onial revolutionists?As Clifton DeBerry, Socialist

Workers Party candidate for presi-dent, wrote in an answer to Cruse(which Liberator invited but hasnot printed yet), the policy Crusecounterposes to Marxism "wouldin fact leave the colonial peoplessubject to an unending threat ofwimperialist attack ."

Hit at RootThe job of ending this threat

bannot be done by the colonialrevolution alone. "That job has tobe done within imperialism's homebase," said DeBerry. "It calls fora revolutionary struggle by theworkers, non-white and whitecombined, to abolish the capitalistsystem from which imperialismsprings."The same error is committed

by Cruse when he tries to definethe nature of the Negro struggle .To nim it is, purely and simply,"a semi-colonial revolt, which ismore inspired by events outsideAmerica than within it ."While we question the last part

of that statement, we agree thatthe Negro struggle definitely hasmany characteristics of a semi-colonial revolt, and believe it is toCruse's credit that he has been oneof the foremost propagandists ofthis idea. (He probably will not bepleased by our assertion that thisidea can be traced back to theMarxist Lenin, who was the lirsi:,to our knoenan Nea_s sarvons the op-

25

pressed national minorities, na_tionalities and nations theworld- butit is true .)People unfamiliar with this idea

may be able to grasp it by askingthemselves: Suppose the Negropeople, instead of being scatteredthroughout the country, were con-centrated in one section of theU.S., or in one area outside of theU.S . And suppose that they weredominated by the same forces thatnow dominate them, and that theywere treated, or mistreated, inexactly the same way they arenow - denied equal rights, con-fined to the worst jobs, paid less,unemployed more, etc. Wouldn't itbe plain then that they are sub-jected to a colonial-type oppres-sion?

Not Only AspectBut while this is one major

aspect of the Negro struggle, it isnot the only one. Cruse oversim-plifies this question, as he does onthe world scale with the colonialrevolution . Here he reminds us ofthose blind men, each of whomtouched a different part of anelephant - tusk, leg, trunk andso on --and mistakenly thoughtthey understood the whole realityof the elephant .The aspect of the Negro strug-

gle that Cruse shuts his eyes to isits class aspect . Negroes are ex-ploited not only because of theircolor, but also because of the classto which they belong in theirgreat majority . They are a part ofthe working class, the most ex-ploited part, the most proletarianpart, and whatever hurts theworkers as a class hurts them too- usually first and always hard-est.To ignore the dual and com-

bined character of the Negrostruggle is to blind oneself to the

dual sources of its full potential.As both a racial-national and classstruggle, it is fed and powered bythe two most explosive fuels inmodern society. These are thesources of its dynamism, and al-though race and class operateunequally and unevenly at differ-ent times, they are both sourcesthat will contribute to the victoryof the Negro struggle.

Any theory which does not rec-ognize and combine both theseaspects will prove fatally defec-

tive. The early American social-ists, who saw only the class as-pect, are an object lesson in howbadly astray you can be led by aone-sided grasp of the dual char-acter of the Negro struggle. Cruseis making a similar mistake in theother direction. The Marxist at-tempt at a synthesis is the mostenlightening so far. If it is not yetfully or adequately worked out,then it ought to be - by blackradicals as well as the SWP -because it points in the right di-rection.

The Role of the White Workers

Can Marxism be of help toblack radicals in working out aprogram capable of winning free-dom for the Negro people? TheSocialist Workers Party says yes.Harold Cruse says no (Liberator,May and June) . This is a ques-tion each person can check forhimself by finding out what theMarxists say and do .

Especially what they say anddo about the nature of the so-,ciety we live in (capitalism), itsstrengths and weaknesses, and therelations its ruling class has withother forces at home and abroad .The Socialist Workers Party

says that American capitalism isa sick and unjust system, whichhas seen its best days and is slatedto be replaced by a new, socialistsystem. This change will not beimposed by some force outsidethis country, although outsidepressures will help, but will bebrought about by internal forces,by classes and groups here insidetheU.S., rebelling against capital-ist domination and mismanage-ment .One of the major internal weak-

nesses that will bring about thedownfall of capitalism is its rac-ism. The capitalists have no inten-

27

tion of abolishing racism, whichbenefits them politically by keep-ing the workers divided and eco-nomically by keeping down thewages of all workers.

it is doubtful that the capitalistscould abolish racism even if theywanted to, but nobody has to losesleep over that question becausethey don't want to. The most theywill grant are mild concessions andvery gradual reforms (like the1984 civil rights law) that mayeventually make the South likethe North, where racism is stillsupreme, despite all the laws,commissions and constitutionalprovisions .Reforms will not end racism,

now or`a hundred years from now.Rocking the boat is needed to getconcessions, but it is not enoughto get equality. We need a newcaptain; we also need a new boat.There are only two ways toachieve Negro equality Ones.through a socialist revolution thatwill end capitalist rule The other.fi-H90_seoarat~ns from it to form a newnation or to migrate to a coun-try free of racism . Nether way ise

is a socialist revolution pos-

sible? The answer would probablybe no if racism were the onlyevil bred by capitalism. It isn't.Capitalism spawns many otherevils, which it would take a bookto list. The most prominent-andthey all generate opposition tocapitalist rule-are unemployment,poverty, insecurity, thought con-trol, the growth of ultra-rightreaction and the danger of a warthat may wipe out humanity.

Nothing to LoseThese evils, which are inherent

in capitalism, create the condi-tions for an anti-capitalist move-ment which, properly led, canoust the bankers and corporationexecutives and four-star generalsand white supremacists now incontrol. The members of thismovement will come from theclasses and groups that have mostto gain and least to lose from pro-found and far-reaching change :revolutionary workers, young -"Wait! Now wait just a minute,"

interrupts Harold Cruse, who hasbeen sitting by imlpatiently up tonow. And he launches into hisattack on the idea that the work-ers can play a revolutionary rolein this country. His position issubstantially this :There was a period of labor rad-

icalism in the 1930's but it hasdeclined and ended. White work-ers have become conservative,pro-capitalist and hostile or in-different to the Negro. There wasa time when it seemed reasonableto expect that they would usherin socialism, but it's too late now.The only ones capable of revolu-tionary action in this country arethe black people.

Labor Mystique?Then, turning to the theme of

his Liberator article, he lets the

Marxists have it. They are soobsessed by this "working class-socialist myth," this "grand illu-sion," this "white labor mystique,"that they have lost touch withreality and are virtually out ofthis world. He says :

. . . the theory and practice ofrevolutionary Marxism in Amer-ica is based on the assumption thatwhite labor, both organized andunorganized, must be a radical,anti-capitalist force in Americaand must form an `alliance' withNegroes for the liberation of bothlabor and the Negro from capital-ist exploitation . No matter whatthe facts of life reveal to thecontrary, no matter what theMarxists say or do in terms ofmomentary 'tactics, this is whatthe Marxists believe, and mustbelieve or cease functioning as aMarxist tendency ."

If this means what it says, itcertainly is a poor argument . Whena man insists something "mustbe," and it obviously isn't, theneverybody concludes that man issome kind of a nut, and every-body is right. But if he's ob-viously a nut, why spend so muchspace and time refuting him?The truth is that the Socialist

Workers Party does not believethe workers must be radical andanti-capitalist. We are well awarethat the overwhelming majority ofwhite workers in this country to-day are not radical, thanks to cap-italist brainwashing, relative pro-sperity, treacherous labor leader-ship and political immaturity .That ie why socialism in general,and our party in particular, arenot stronger and better able toback up the Negro struggle. Whatwe believe is that the workersmust become radical if they are tosolve their problems, and that theywill become radical under certain

28

conditions and at certain times."Must become" is a different horsefrom "must be."

Not InevitableMarxists have never believed

that the workers in capitalistcountries must be or have beenradical all the time . We do notidealize the workers, knowing fullwell and from painful experiencethat they can be and often areinfected, corrupted, demoralized,exhausted and disoriented. Theirradicalism waxes and wanes, risesand sinks, depending on their con-ditions, leadership and level ofconsciousness . (Isn't this also trueof the Negro masses?)The American working class has

not been radical during most ofits existence. Even when it wasmore radical than today, duringthe 1930s and 1940s, it neverreached the point of breaking withthe politics of the capitalists whomit was battling on the picketlinesand creating its own. non-capital-ist, political party. The most rad-ical sector of the working classtoday, the black workers in theghetto, wasn't always as radicalas it is now.

Socialists believe that the work-ing class can become revolution-ary - not always, but sometimes.And that on such an occasion,which does not occur all the timeor last forever, it can, in coopera-tion with other non-capitalistforces, and with consistently rev-olutionary leadership, abolish thesystem that breeds racism, pover-ty, regimentation and war. Thequestion of leadership is crucialprecisely because such opportun-ities do not knock at the dooroften, or for long.Our assumption, therefore, un-

like the one Cruse imputes to us,

29

is not that the working class canor will be radical all of the timeor most of the time, but that theconditions created by capitalismmust radicalize it some of thetime, and that even though rev-olutionary situations occur rarely,one can be turned into a success-ful conquest of power. As theCuban experience demonstrates, asuccessful revolution can thenquickly alter conditions enoughso that the revolutionary cons-ciousness and will of most of theworkers will remain high and be-come permanent.Cruse does not consider such a

working class revolution possible,like most Americans, or even NewLeft professors like C. WrightMills. With other sophisticated op-ponents of Marxism, he lives in aworld that is changing with dizzy-ing speed, but he thinks every-thing is going to change exceptthe workers. Talk about a grandillusion! Even the most ignorantcapitalist knows better than that.That's why they distort the teach-ings of Marxism and try to isolateand suppress socialist ideas andmovements.The future of this country will

be determined in large part by therelations among its three majorforces : the capitalists, the whiteworkers and the Negro people(mostly workers too) . At presentthe capitalists dominate and havethe support of most white work-ers. Cruse thinks this is going tolast forever. It won't, because ofthe internal contradictions of thissystem.

The central contradiction is thematerial readiness of our societyfor socialism and the ideologicaland political unreadiness of thewhite workers to fight for it . Tiedup with this is another acute con-

tradiction - the readiness of theNegroes to fight for jobs and jus-tice by the most militant meansand the unreadiness of organizedlabor and the white workers asa whole to support the black peo-ple.From our analysis of the social

structure, we conclude that thecontradiction prevailing betweenwhite workers and Negroes is notabsolute, but relative ; not per-manent, but transitory . The alien-ation between them is no moreenduring than the political andideological partnership betweenthe white workers and their bosses .

Can Narrow GapIn fact, these two states are in-

terconnected . Any deepening ofantagonism between the whiteworkers and the ruling class, anycutting of ties between them, anyopening or widening of breachesbetween them, objectively sets thestage for a lessening of the an-tagonism and a narrowing of thegreat gap between the Negromovement and the white workers.The outlook of white workers

is going to be altered from twodirections . One is from the inde-pendent struggle of the Negroes,which tends to upset the statusquo and introduce unsettling ele-ments into class relations. The dis-rupted patterns of politics in thiselection year testify to the powerof the independent Negro struggleto disarrange and overturn cus-tomary modes of thought and ac-tion, Is there any reason to thinkthat white workers will not alsobe shaken up and divided, andsome of them torn out of theirruts, as the Negro struggle con-tinues to develop and explode?The other and more basic

modifying factor comes directlyfrom the operation of the cap-

30

italist system itself . In the nextdecade automation will create vastarmies of unemployed and under-mine the security of all workers,even those of high seniority, skilland privilege. America's share ofthe world market will be shrunkby the colonial revolution andcompetition from other capitalistcountries, and this will drive thecapitalists to attack the wage ratesand living standards of the em-ployed workers.

Isn't this certain to provoke anti-capitalist sentiments and attitudes,not only among the youth and un-employed, but also among union-ists still on the job? Won't suchradicalization make white work-ers more susceptible to suggestionsof joint action with the Negromovement? Won't the possibilitybe opened for a change in thepresent situation, for united ac-tion by the two anti-capitalistmovements against the upholdersof the system responsible for theircommon insecurity and misery?We hope that what we have just

written will not be distorted. It isa perspective to be worked for, notan existing reality. We do notthink the achievement of joint ac-tion will be easy or quick. Weare not suggesting that the Ne-groes should wait until the whiteworkers are ready for collabora-tion, before they build their ovenmovement, with its own leaders,ideology and program. We are notproposing, and we do not favor,any alliance where the whiteworkers call the shots and theNegroes comply.We are talking about an alliance

of equals . An alliance with rad-icalized, not conservative, whiteworkers. An alliance against allcapitalist parties, not one behindthe Democratic Party. Therefore

what we are talking about is thefuture (less distant than it mayappear on the surface) and nottoday. We concur 100 per centwith the decision of militant Ne-groes to concentrate on buildingtheir own movement and workingout tactics based first of all on thesituation as it is today.

Coming ChancesWhat we add is that it will not

remain as it is today. A correctover-all strategy has to take thatinto account too, be prepared forthe changes coming, and promotethem . For they will benefit Ne-groes as much as white workers.

The SWP's 1963 conventionresolution (Freedom Now : TheNew Stage in the Struggle farNegro Emancipation) stated thatthe first stage of the alliance weforesee and predict will very like-ly be the knitting of ties betweenthe black vanguard and the rev-olutionary socialist vanguard. We

continue to seek such ties. We areon the side of the Negroes wher-ever they clash with prejudicedand privileged white workers. Wesupport and work with blackradicals even though they havecrossed off the white workersforever as any help to their strug-gle.We feel no inconsistency in do-

ing so because we are confidenttheir own experience will teachthem, as it will teach white work-ers, that collaboration betweenboth camps is ultimately indispen-sable if the power structure is tobe toppled and not simply shakenand renovated. Experience willprove that the monopolists cannotbe dislodged from their seats ofpower except by a transformationof the relations among the threemain forces - a dialectical trans-formation of the capitalist-whiteworker partnership into a Negro-white worker alliance against thecapitalist regime.

The Need anti Resultof Independence

A program to win the Negrostruggle for equality must be basedon a correct analysis of its mainfeatures . Among these are its in-dependence, its vanguard role andits need for independent politicalaction. We shall compare the So-cialist Workers Party positions onthese questions with what HaroldCruse claims are its positions (inLiberator, May and June) .Cruse says the growing inde-

pendence of the Negro movementproduces a crisis for Marxists :"the greater the Negro movementbecomes as an independent force. . the deeper does the crisis be-com

,e for the Marxist movement

itself . For the `alliance' it attemptsto forge with the Negro must beone where the Marxists dominate"But facts are stubborn things,

and the record bulges with factsrefuting Cruse's claim that theSWP is opposed to the indepen-dence of the Negro movement fromthe labor movement, or from any-thing else, including the SWP it-self . Throughout its entire exist-ence the SWP has thought, saidand argued just the opposite . Itwas the first radical organizationin this country to assert the cor-rectness and necessity of Negro

32

independence .As long ago as 1939, when the

SWP was only a year old, it de-clared in a unanimously adoptedconvention resolution : " . theawakening political consciousnessof the Negro not unnaturally takesthe form of a desire for indepen-dent action uncontrolled by whites.The Negroes have long felt andmore than ever feel today theurge to create their own organiza-tions under their own leaders andthus assert, not only in theory butin action, their claim to completeequality with other American cit-izens. Such a desire is legitimateand must be vigorously support-ted .

"" (In Documents on the

Negro Struggle, Pioneer Publish-ers.)

The SWP has never wavered inthis position in the 25 years sincethen . as an examination of itslatest (1963) convention resolu-tion will prove . It states that "theliberation of the Negro people re-quires that the Negroes organizethemselves independently, andcontrol their own struggle, and notpermit it to be subordinated toany other consideration or interest." (Freedom Now : The NewStage in the Struggle for Negro

Emancipation.)Why do genuine Marxists take

this position? Why do we advocatethat the Negro movement must beindependent, even of the SWP?Because the history of Negro op-pression in this country has beensuch that the more independentthe Negro movement becomes, themore revolutionary it becomes.And the more revolutionary theNegro movement becomes, the bet-ter it is for all revolutionists,white and black. The radicaliza-tion of the Negroes cannot helpstimulating radicalization amongwhites too.Contrary to J. Edgar Hoover -

or to Harold Cruse-we Marxistshave no interest whatever in"dominating" the Negro move-ment. Our aim is to influence theNegro movement, as it is to in-fluence the labor and any otherprogressive movement, and wemake no secret of that. We do soby offering it our revolutionaryideas, which the participants inthe Negro movement of course canfreely accept or reject in accordwith their own estimate of whatthey need and want.We believe that the sooner the

Negro movement becomes com-pletely "undominated" (that is,the sooner it becomes completelyindependent and revolutionary),the sooner it will approach andaccept the ideas and policies thatthe Marxists have reached; andthat the process of ever-grow-ing independence will in the endinevitably lead it, as the resultof its own experiences, towardclose collaboration with other rev-olutionary forces, including theSWP. That kind of fraternal rela-tion, rather than domination, isthe only one worth having, and itis the only one we seek .

33

One of the more astonishingstatements in Cruse's article isthat "the Negro movement's riseto the ascendancy as a radicalforce in America completely up-sets Marxian theory" and there-fore deepens the alleged crisis ofMarxism.We can only wonder what

"Marxian theory" Cruse is talkingabout. Since he insists, wrongly,on identifying the CommunistParty and the Socialist WorkersParty as "twin branches of thesame withering tree trunk of west-ern Marxism," despite the irre-concilable differences betweenthem, maybe he is thinking aboutsome kind of "Marxian theory"coming from the Communist Par-ty . It certainly is not and neverhas been any theory of the SWP,which is the target of his presentpolemic.

Permanent Revolution

Our theory has been strikinglyconfirmed by "the Negro move-ment's rise to the ascendancy asa radical force." For Leon Trotsky,making use of the Marxist concep-tion of the permanent revolution,predicted more than 30 years agothat the Negroes could become "themost advanced section" of theworking class, that they couldreach revolutionary consciousnessahead of the white workers, thatthey could become the revolution-ary vanguard . Twenty-five yearsago the SWP adopted a conventionresolution declaring that the Ne-groes were destined to become "thevery vanguard of the proletarianrevolution ." (Documents on theNegro Struggle.)So the Marxist theory which

Cruse tries to discredit foresawthe radicalization of the Negromovement (not in all its detail,

but in its general sweep) long be-fore it happened, when the em-piricists of that day and othersstupefied by the status quo couldnot even dream of such a develop-ment.Moreover, the SWP not only

predicted that the Negro move-ment would become the radicalvanguard, but advocated it, andworked for it, and exults now thatit is happening. Why in the worldthen should we feel that our theoryhas been upset? Why should theconfirmation of our theory by reallife throw us into a crisis? If onlyall our theories could be "upset"this way! The truth, once again, isthe opposite of what Cruse says,and happens in this case to be anespecially good reason for blackradicals to become better ac-quainted with the Marxist methodand program.When we say that Negroes will

play a vanguard role, Cruse triesto confuse what we mean, and toimply a manipulative motive-, byattributing to us the "belief thatthe 'historical laws' have pre-ordained the Negro movement inAmerica to be used as a kind oftransitional social phase leadingto the 'Marxian revolution ."'

If he will be so kind, we wouldlike to state our position our-selves, minus the slanted terms heprefers. We do not know of any"Marxian revolution," with orwithout quotation marks, and thatis not what we advocate . TheAmerican revolution will be a so-cial revolution - that is, it willremove the present ruling classfrom political power and recon-struct society on new, non-ex-ploitative foundations.Nor do we consider the Negro

movement to be any kind of"phase," transitional or otherwise.

34

We expect it to be an integralpart of the revolution, before, dur-ing and after the winning ofpower, until it, the Negro move-ment, is satisfied that racism isabolished beyond the possibility ofreturn .

Vanguard PositionWhat we think is this : Historical

conditions, yes "laws," have placedthe Negro movement in a vanguardposition - in the leadership of themass struggle to change societysocially, politically and econom-ically. Its radicalization marks theopening stage of the revolutionthat will accomplish these changes.As this revolution continues anddevelops, the whole political struc-ture will begin to come apart,and other forces will be drawn in-to the revolution, for and against.Which side wins will depend onwhich draws the strongest supportfrom the as-yet uncommitted andinactive majority .

Cruse's snide implication thatthe Marxists plan to "use" theNegro movement and then cast itaside has no basis at all. We havesaid a thousand times what wesaid in our 1968 convention resolu-tion : "The SWP believes and actson the belief that the workingclass cannot achieve its aims with-out the Negro people achievingtheirs . The American revolutionfor a socialist democracy cannotsucceed unless it is based on anequal and mutually acceptablepartnership between the workingclass and the Negro people."

This is our perspective, openlystated . It does not involve subor-dination of the Negro movement"to any other consideration or in-terest." It does not involve theslightest infringement on the in-dependence of the Negro move-

ment, which at all times must beled by its own representatives andanimated by its own goals. We donot believe that this perspective isinconsistent with what black rad-icals want, if what they want isrevolution . If we're wrong, we'dlike to be shown.In the light of what has already

been said, Cruse's distortions aboutthe SWP's attitude to the FreedomNow Party can be handled ratherbriefly. His four charges, some-what contradictory, are:

1) We don't believe in or wanta truly independent black politicalparty. 2) We engage in maneuversagainst the Freeedom Now Party.3) We compete with the FNP,even before it is established, byrunning a Negro candidate forpresident in 1964 (Clifton De-Berry) . 4) We disrupt the FNP'sdevelopment.The SWP's well-known position

in favor of Negro independenceof course applies with full forceto black political action. For manyyears we have endorsed and sup-ported independent Negro candi-dates running against the capital-ist party candidates. To supportsuch candidates when they bandtogether in a party of their own,and to defend their right to do soin their own way, is only an ex-tension of our long-held position,and comes almost automaticallyfor us.

Every politically informed per-son in the country knows this .The anti-Marxist writers, TomKahn and August Meier (in Net:;Politics, Spring, 1964), have evensaid that the all-Negro FreedomNow Party idea "was originallyprojected by the predominantlywhite Trotskyites and for somemonths received its chief organiza-tional support from them."

35

This is untrue. The SWP's 1963convention resolution endorsing"the idea of a Negro party, acivil-rights party or an equal-rights party" specifically notedthat the idea had been raised inprevious years by Adam ClaytonPowell and Liberator, and early in1963 by Elijah Muhammad andWilliam Worthy . We would beglad to claim credit for conceivingthe idea, but it would be dishonestto do so . What we can claim creditfor is having publicly supportedthe idea of an independent blackparty before anyone had takenorganizational steps to create one.

But if we did that, then why,even before the new party hasbeen established nationally and ona stable basis, would we rush to"competip" with it? Cruse calls us"astute." But what's astute aboutencouraging the formation of an-other party if your first response,before it has even been assembled,is to compete with it? The chargeis ridiculous on the face of it.There isn't the faintest trace of

"competition with the FNP" inClifton DeBerry's presidential can-didacy, except inside Cruse's head .When DeBerry was nominated bythe SWP, it was perfectly plainthat the FNP would not be ableto run a presidential campaign inthis, its first year of existence.Moreover, DeBerry, every chancehe gets, expresses his and theSWP's complete support for theeffort to create a mass, indepen-dent FNP. (And gets criticized byCruse for doing so . What is De-Berry supposed to do : keep silent- or oppose it?)

Michigan BallotThe FNP has won a state-wide

place on the ballot only in Michi-gan. There, the day after the FNPfiled its petitions last spring, the

SWP, which had filed its own peti-tions and won ballot rights in1963, publicly stated that it wasin the campaign to fight the Dem-ocrats and Republicans: "We arenot campaigning against the Free-dom Now Party, which in our viewhas valuable contributions to maketo the electoral struggle for aworld free of oppression and ex.ploitation . We welcome its entryinto the election campaign, andhope it will get a fair hearingfrom whites as well as Negroes."As proof that this is not just talk,the Michigan SWP is not runningagainst, and is endorsing, the FNPcandidates in every Michigan dis-trict where they have the slightestchance of being elected.

Clifton DeBerry has already re-futed the "maneuver" charge. Theclaim that he "linked himself withthe Freedom Now Party withoutthe party's permission to do so"rests in its entirety on the fact thatDeBerry, without ever pretendingto be a spokesman of the FNP,expresses support for the FNP andurges black militants to help buildit. Any expectation or demand thatDeBerry has to get permissionfrom the FNP, or the DemocraticParty, or the Republican Party,before he expresses his politicalviews about them, is - what shallwe say? - slightly fantastic.The "disruption" charge is

equally baseless. DeBerry and theSWP are said to be "disrupting"the development of the FNP be-cause when they discuss the FNP'smeaning and effects, "they mustattempt to project the idea of theFreedom Now Party in their ownMarxian image, with the old worn-out, discredited theme of Negro.Labor unity"What this means is that De-

Berry and the SWP discuss the

significance of the FNP as Marx-ists. But what's wrong with that?Does it stop other people fromdiscussing it from whatever anglethey wish? Does it interfere withCruse's right to discuss it as ananti-Marxist? Or the right of anyFNP member to discuss it as hepleases? How is DeBerry's exer-cise of his right to express hisopinion, whether the opinion isright or wrong, "disruptive" tothe FNP's development?

36

The whole charge is further ex-ploded when we observe thatCruse bases it exclusively on aNew York Times report that hadDeBerry saying he supports theFNP as "a step toward indepen-dent political action by labor andNegroes." Twisting this a little,Cruse paints this as opposition tothe FNP: "The Trotskyist . theore-ticians realize very well that atruly independent black politicalparty which functions irrespectiveof what white labor does and doesnot do will further deepen thealready serious crisis of Marxistcreed in the West. It could showthat Marxian ideas about capital-ism in advanced countries are notto be taken seriously."Even If DeBerry said it the way

the Times reported (a "step toindependent political action bylabor and Negroes") rather thanthe other way around ("by Ne-groes and labor"), Cruse knowsvery well what is meant: ThatDeBerry and the SWP believethat a mass black party, by up-setting and then destroying theDemocratic-labor-Negro coalition,will give impetus to the forma-tion of an independent labor par-ty too.And what's so terrible, worn-

out or discredited about such aprediction? Does Cruse think that

the stimulation of an independentlabor party by the growth of amass FNP would be bad? Then lethim argue that . Does he think itimpossible? Then let him arguethat, And let him not substitutefor such arguments, which wouldbe fruitful, his unfounded claimthat we cannot be for a truly in-dependent black party because itwould deepen "the crisis of Marx-ism"

The only crisis it would deepenwould be the crisis of capitalistpolitics, the crisis of the Demo-crats, the labor bureaucrats, theliberals, the Negro gradualists -which is precisely one of the rea-sons we are so strongly for it.And by the way, aren't the break-up of the two-party system andthe radicalization of American pol-itics high on the list of "Marx-ian ideas about capitalism"?

Relations Between Whiteand Black Radicals

Marxism so far has done morethan any other theory to shedlight on the nature of the Negrostruggle and the direction inwhich it is moving. Since Marx,it has illuminated the economicroots of racism, and the workingsof the capitalist power structurewhich oppresses the Negro peopleand must be toppled if their op-pression is to end. Since Leninand Trotsky, it has clarified andshown the progressiveness of thenationalist and racial aspects ofthe Negro movement . And in ourtime the Socialist Workers Partyis working hard to understand andexplain current trends and to com-bine them into a realistic pro-g%un for emancipation .Harold Cruse (in Liberator, May

and June) accuses us of harbor-ing a "white labor mystique,"which it was not hard for us todisprove because we are againstmystiques of any kind or color.In the same breath he creates amystique of his own when hespeaks of the "unknown qual-ities" of the Negro movement, asthough they somehow defy ration-al and scientific analysis .

In our 1983 convention resolu-

38

tion, which Cruse persistently re-fuses to confront, we have madean analysis of the very qualitieshe calls unknown (separatism,assimilationism, nationalism, self-determination, independence,etc.) . Our analysis may not beperfect or complete, but it has al-ready proved - fruitful . Furtherprogress can be made by testing,deepening and extending this an-alysis, not by labeling the con-ditions it studies unknown andimplying they are unknowable.

Historical ScienceIn another place, Cruse says

that "if `historical science' or`dialectics' is to be consideredreally scientific it must be devel-oped and verified in life by theinclusion of the social experiences,the history, the ideas and polit-ical philosophies, the points ofview of the backward peoples"(among whom he includes theAmerican Negroes) . Well, that'swhat we've been saying too, be-fore Cruse did. That's just whatwe've been trying to do when weundertake to Afro-AmericanizeMarxism. Robert ' Vernon's writ-ings on the black ghetto in TheMilitant are a striking example of

the value of this approach .But when we do it, Cruse re-

fuses to even comment on the re-sult. We hope that other blackradicals, who don't have,any anti-Marxist axes to grind, will be-come acquainted with our work inthis field and join in on it .While we recommend Marxism

as the best theory now availableand defend it against Cruse's typeof attack, we know that no theory,not even the best, is perfect. Thatwould mean knowing everythingabout a given situation, which isimpossible . No theory automatical-ly provides all the answers ; thattakes work. No one gains accessto the answers merely by adopt-ing a theory, or by saying I ama Marxist, or a black nationalist,or any other ist.Even the best theory in the

world does not safeguard anyoneor any movement against makingmistakes and lagging behindchanges in reality. The question iswhether their theory enablesthem to avoid fatal mistakes,whether it enables them to learnfrom mistakes, correct them andavoid repeating them. In this re-spect too, the Marxist record issuperior to others.Years of isolation and attack

by backsliders and refugees fromMarxism as well as by capitalistspokesmen, and the need to standfirm against them, have unfortun-ately tended to create the impres-sion that Marxists are rigid peo-ple who think they know it all :"Here is a finished science withall the answers worked out, sitdown and study it" But this isnot the case, and mature Marxistsdo not think it is .We don't have all the answers.

We think we have the method for

39

finding them, and we have nopatent on that . In seeking the an-swers and using the method tofind them, we urgently need andwant the active collaboration andaid of those who have most togain from revolution, the peoplewho are least privileged and leastcorrupted by this society, - theblack masses and the radicalthinkers who most authenticallyrepresent them. We think Cruse'sarticle does harm because it triesthrough misrepresentation ofMarxism to discourage this col-laboration.

"White" Theory?Another impression which we

hope to dispel is that Marxism isa "white" theory and philosophy.We know it isn't, but that's howit looks today to many black peo.ple, especially in this country, whoare justifiably suspicious of whiteideas and influences because theyare usually oppressive to Negroes.Cruse tries to fan this suspicionagainst Marxists in order to prev-ent a fair examination of ourideas.

It is true that Marx was clas-sified as a white, and that theearly development of the Marxistmovement occurred mainly amongwhite people in the advanced cap-italist countries. But Marxism is,and is meant to be, a tool andweapon for the revolutionists ofall races, and should not be re-jected out of hand any more thana gun should be rejected by blackrebels in South Africa merely be-cause it was manufactured bywhite workers.

In any case, things have changedsince Marx's time, and in theworld today the millions of non-whites who consider tlAemse-lvesMarxists and sunvorters

ctsx-

ixm outnumber their irltite co-thinkers . As Clifton DeBerryasked, in an article which Libera-tor asked him to write but has notprinted, "if Marxism is white,western and obsolete as Cruse con-tends, how can he account forthe fact that from China to Cuba,where capitalism has been abol-ished by mass revolution, thiswas done under the banner ofMarxism? How does he explainthe fact that socialism is becom-ing the most popular mass creedin almost all the countries andcontinents where colored peoplesare fighting for freedom?"Because Cruse considers the

American Negro struggle a semi-colonial revolt, DeBerry askedfurther: "if Marxism has been sohelpful and correct as a guidein the fight against imperialismand white supremacy in the col-onial world, what prevents thismethod from being equally usefulin the Freedom Now struggle herein the heartland of imperialismand white supremacy?"

Cruse says that "the real issueis : Who is destined to be the dom-inant and decisive radical force inAmerica - Black Radicals orWhite Radicals?" We don't seethat as the real issue at all . Farmore important is the question ofhow black and white radicals canpool their forces to promote theircommon aims against their com-mon enemies.

Black LeadershipCruse's assumption here is that

Marxists are opposed to blackleadership, but it simply isn't so .We don't care what the color ofthe leadership of the comingAmerican revolution may be -only that it be a leadership witha correct program and be capable

40

of guiding the masses to the aboli-tion of capitalism .We expect that such a leader-

ship will include members of allraces in this country, whether theyare organized in a single revolu-tionary party, or an alliance ofsuch parties; that Negroes willcontribute more than their propor-tionate share to this leadership ;and that they may well be amajority . In any case, it is ab-solutely certain that the struggleof the Negroes today, in the rev-olution that is coming, and after-ward, will be led by Negroes.When we say black and white

radicals have common aims andtherefore should be able to worktogether, we do not mean to min-imize the differences that do existbetween many black radicals andthe Socialist Workers Party. Be-sides our differences over the fu-ture role of the white workers,there are three others that shouldget mention here:A weakness of some Negro in-

tellectuals, like Cruse, is that theyproceed with their analyses andarrive at their conclusions byassuming the indefinite perpetua-tion of the present conditions ofthe struggle and of the relationsof social forces on a national andworld scale. They do not seefurther than the initiating stagesof the Third American Revolution.

The arereasoning - a metwitut inrnncistnnt with a thornl7Eh-

ly revolutionary outlook. Thisme od is faulty and can be fatalbecause it leaves its practitionersunprepared for sharp turns andliable to be caught by surprise.This is one reason for their rejec-tion of Marxism, which views all

things in their contradictory devel-opment.

Basic PerspectiveAnother difference Marxists

have with some black radicals con-cerns a basic perspective . As wehave said, w b

that Negroeswill not achieve e ualit orgiom in a ca italist America the

will get it through socialist rev-olution or through separ-aition ormi ra ion,

is flows from ouranalysis of American capitalism inits monopoly stage and from ouranalysis of the combined national-proletarian character of the Negroquestion .What about those who see only

one side of this dual character,only the national-racial side andnot the proletarian? (Let us callthem pure-and-simple national-ists, to distinguish them fromblack nationalists with a broaderview, including socialist-national-ists .) Some of them think Negroequality can be won in this coun-try without abolishing capitalistrule ; others leave this open as apossibility. Neither, in our opinion,has thought the question through .

If the capitalists can give em-ployment, education, housing andan end to police brutality, segrega-tion and discrimination to 20 mil-lion Negroes, at the bottom of thesocial structure, then Americancapitalism would have succeededin eliminating the most funda-mental and urgent economic andsocial evils of our time . Thiswould even enable it, some wouldeven say entitle it, to endure in-definitely .

Reformist LineAcceptance of such a possibility,

or even a half-hope of it, impliesthe adoption of a non-revolution.

4 1

ary perspective and a reformistline of thought. It then would notbe necessary to wage an uncom-promising struggle for basicchange in the power structure andin social relations . It would beenough for the crew to rock theboat so as to exert pressure onthe captain - instead of organ-izing a mutiny to get rid of thecaptain and his slave ship .A pure-and-simple nationalist

outlook, which ignores the work-ing-class element of the Negrostruggle and its dynamics, that is,its implicitly anti-capitalist ten-dencies, runs the risk of being de-railed at some point along theway because it fails to foresee thedirection of the mass movement,both black and white, and thekind of resistance it must en-counter from the capitalists . Np_roes will lay a leading role ian

anti-ca 2i a is

r vo u ion

inthis country . hut it will

not _ hP

uccessfulL;inti-ranitalict fnr^r involvedA third difference exists be-

tween us and those like Crusewho assume that not only theideas and attitudes of white work-ers, but the ideas and attitudesof militant Negroes, will remainsubstantially unchanged . Theyunderrate, even exclude, the in-fluence of socialist ideas as form-ulated by Marxism in the comingstages of the fight for freedom.There are actually three com-

ponents, very unequally developedat this point, at work in the Ne-gro movement : its proletariancomposition, its nationalism andits socialism . The first two are al-ready obvious ; the third is stilllargely latent although distinctlyimplicit in its orientation in prac-tice. The socialist element is smalland embryonic at present, just

as the conscious and avowed so-cialists are few. Will It remainthis way?Those black nationalists who

slight the socialist element in-herent in their movement commitan error comparable to those whotoday slight black nationalism,Here the colonial revolution theyfeel kinship with has somethingto teach them . Cuba and Algeriahave recently shown how a na-tionalist, democratic, revolution-ary mass movement can, throughconclusions derived from directexperience in struggle with im-perialism and its agents, growover into a consciously socialistmovement, party and government.We hhelieve that hit dynamic of

The n rm pent revolution will beoperative in the evoluti AM=man black- naUcfurtherert goes in a revolutionaryand anti-cav alist ecloser it comes to socialist. Ma -ist,policies, methods and outlook.

F

e can

all the more confidentof this because black nationalismin this country is far more urbanand proletarian than rural andpeasant.A final point: despite differ-

ences and the critical exchange ofviews, black radicals and Marx-ists are both engaged in findingthe solutions to the evils bred bycapitalism. These specific answersare not given in any books. ButMarxism is our method and it istoo useful for us to surrender ituntil we can be shown a betterone.

Let the non-Marxist black the-oreticians try other methods andlet's compare the results. What-ever they come up with that isgood and useful we shall gladlyadopt, as we have done in thepast . -There is plenty of room inMarx t theory o accommodateand into orate ev r

essive

at develops out of theeorv and prat :e of th~ earo

revolt. At the same time we be-eve the non-Marxist nationalists

should try to think out their posi-tions to the end and state themplainly, so that everybody cancheck and learn from the conclu-sions of both their tendency andours as the struggle moves fromone stage to the next .

While awaiting sucn tests, weproceed in the conviction thatMarxism is relevant to the Negrostruggle ; that Marxists have muchto learn from the black working-class ghetto that can make theirtheory more effective and com-plete; that black radicals havemuch to learn from Marxism thatcan be used to formulate a pro-gram to win freedom for the Ne-gro people; that non-Marxist blackradicals and white and blackMarxists have so many things incommon that they can and shouldwork together in as many areasas possible, despite their differ-ences; and that their commonneeds and further experience willbring them closer together andinto genuine collaboration before,during and after the coming Amer-ican revolution .

A Reply to Harold Cruse

In a two-part series on Marxismand the Negro in LIBERATOR,Harold Cruse attacks Marxism asbeing obsolete, white and not ap-plicable to the Negro struggle to-day . He views the Socialist WorkersParty as an opponent of the Free-dom Now Party,and considers me a"pawn" of the Socialist WorkersParty in my role as the Party's presi-dential candidate .

It is my hope that an exchangeof views between Cruse and myselfwill aid in clarifying misunder-standings and misrepresentations ofwhat he terms "western Marxism ."To begin with, I find myself more orless in agreement with three broadpropositions stated by Cruse . Iwould sum these up as: 1) The prin-cipal revolutionary struggle in to-day's world is that of the colonialpeoples, who are generally non-white, against the imperialists . 2)Black nationalism is an extensionand embodiment of this worldwidestruggle within the United States .3) In both areas, the privilegedwhite workers have tended to alignthemselves with the capital istrulersagainst the freedom struggles .

Although concurring with these

By CLIFTON DE BERRY

43

propositions from a factual stand-point, I disagree with the conclu-sions Cruse draws from them . Par-ticularly so when he contends, as Iunderstand his views, that the real ityof world revolutionary events con-tradicts and nullifies the teachingsof Marxism, generates an insolublecrisis within it and counsels itsabandonment or at least profoundmodification .

In dismissing "western Marxism"as a revolutionary factor, Cruseseems to substitute the idea of anon-white revolutionary struggleagainst whites for the Marxist con-cept of a class struggle of workersagainst capitalists . If that is hisview, he would in fact leave thecolonial peoples subject to an un-ending threat of imperialist attack .

H istory teachesthat the victoriesand achievements of the colonialrevolution, immense though theyare, have not and cannot by them-selves get rid of imperialism . Thatjob has to be done within im-perialism's home base . It calls fora revolutionary struggle by theworkers, non-white and white com-bined, to abolish the capitalistsystem from which imperialism

springs . For that reason, amongothers, the Marxist program of revo-lutionary class struggle retains fullvalidity everywhere, including theUnited States .

From another viewpoint, ifMarxism is white, western, and ob-solete as Cruse contends, how canhe account for the fact that fromChina to Cuba, where capitalismhas been abolished by mass revolu-tion,thiswasdone under the bannerof Marxism? How does he explainthe fact that socialism is becomingthe most popular mass creed in al-most all the countries and continentswhere colored peoples are fightingfor freedom? At a public meetingin New York last month, a commentmade by Malcolm X seemed to indi-cate the growing popularity of so-cialism abroad . He said that in histravels through Africa and Asia hetalked to many people . He foundtheirpoliticstobe "socialism ." Howexplain this if Marxism is obsolete?

Here is another question I be-lieve Cruse should give some seriousconsideration : If Marxism has beenso helpful and correct as a guide inthe fight against imperialism andwhite supremacy in the colonialworld, what prevents this methodfrom being equally useful in theFreedom Now struggle here in theheartland of imperialism and whitesupremacy?

Perhapshis thinkingon this sub-ject suffers froma tendency to mis-take the policies of the CommunistParty for Marxism . The facts are,however, that the CP has supportedthe Democratic Party, a capitalistparty, since the New Deal . InWorld War II it opposed Negromilitancy as "unpatriotic ." In the1964 elections it is still supporting

44

the Democratic Party and its"liberal" leader, Lyndon Johnson .TheCP hosattacked the Black Mus-lim organization, and by inferencethe Freedom Now Party, as blackfascism and segregation in reverse .This whole policy is Stalinism-theopposite of Marxism .

There is a very fundamental dis-tinction between the SWP and theCP, and Cruse only confuses thingswhen he presumes to link these twoparties together in his attack on"western Marxists . "The SWP viewson the application of the Marxistprogram to the class struggle in theUnited States, with particular re-ference to the Freedom Nowstruggle,were set forth in a resolu-tion publ ished in the Fal 11963 issueof the International Socialist Re-view . The resolution takes up thenew phenomena developing in theFreedom Nowmovement-black no-tionalism-and indicates how thelogic of the struggle impels the Ne-gro people toward independentblack political action which theSWP supports .

Letme quotefrom the resolutionitself : "The Socialist Workers Partycontends that racism, like unemployment, exploitation and war, canbe abolished in this country onlybyindependent political action aimedat taking control of the governmentout of the hands of the capitalistsand their parties . As a step in thisdirection, we have long advocatedthat the unions break from theDemocratic Party and form an inde-pendent labor party that would seektopolitically unite workers,formersand Negroes and elect their repre-sentatives to office . In addition,and for the same reason, we have

endorsed and supported representa-tives of the Negro communitywhen-ever they have run for office inde-pendently of and in opposition tothe old parties, even when theywere not socialists .

"Extending this policy in thelight of current developments, wepublicly express our readiness tosupport and collaborate with anyNegro party or Freedom Now partythat runs candidates of its own inopposition to the capitalist partiesand seeks to elect representativeswhose primary allegiance will beto the Negro community . Our sup-port of such a party in no way con-flicts with our own independent so-cialist political campaigning orwith our continued advocacy of alabor party . On the contrary, webelieve that a Negro party, a so-cialist party, and a labor partywould find much in common fromthe very beginning, would work to-gether for common ends, and wouldtend in the course of common ac-tivity to establish close organiza-tional ties or even merge into asingle federated party ."

Harold Cruse commented on theSWP resolution and in doing socomplained that I have linked myself with the Freedom Now Partywithout that party's permission to doso . He accused me of "a we I I-knownMarxist typeofmaneuver" in Negroaffairs. Here are the facts:

I support independent black po-litical action as does the organiza-tion I represent, the SocialistWorkers Party . I repeatedly stressedthis idea as a Councilmonic candi-date in New York City last year,and do so now as my party's presi-dential candidate . I have told allwho would listen to me that I favor

45

the formation and growth of theFreedom Now Party . I have de-fended it against its detractors andhave urged black militants to helpbuild it . But I have never pretendedin any way to be a spokesman forthe FNP .

I did not ask the Freedom NowParty's permission to express supportof it, that is true . Neither did I askthe permission of Malcolm X tovoice my support of his position onself defense against white-su-premacist violence, or the permis-sion of JesseGrayand h is ossociatesto voice my support of the rent strikein New York City . Nor did I askFidel Castro's permission to voicesupport of the Cuban revolution . Ididthesethings,and I will continueto do them as a spokesman for theSWP, without asking any specialpermission .

To voice open and honest supportforany public position or action byothers, with which I agree, isneither maneuveristic or unscrupu-lous . It isaprincipled political act .

Cruse may not agree with myparty's position or program; that ishis right. But I have not seen anybasis for the contention he makesthat our basic beliefs as Marxists inanyway contradict our firm supportto all serious attempts to create anindependent black party . The SWPrecognizes the revolutionarycharacter of black nationalism,de-fends and supports it . We recognizethat the Freedom Now movementmust develop its own program, gothrough its own experiences anddevelop its own leadership . We seethisprocess asa necessary conditionfor the development within theFreedom Now movement of a van-guard force ready to join in the

struggle to abolish capitalism . Any-one who fails to recognize thesepolitical facts is neither a socialistnor a Marxist .

Harold Cruse claims to see aninsoluble contradiction betweenwhite and black radicals . He makeshisdistinctionbasedsolelyon color,the Black Nationalists at one poleand all whites, indiscriminately, atthe otherpole-capital ists, workers,Marxists, everybody white .

If Marxism can be associatedwith any color it would be red, notwhite . And to be thoroughly blackin the United States is to be red-revolutionary and anti-capitalist .

It is the Marxists ("reds") whocan help the Freedom Now move-ment resolve the contradictionCruse finds insoluble . I believe thepresent election campaign of theSocialist Workers Party is a step inthat direction . It is designed topoint out to all sections of theAmerican working class their ownneed for class solidarity with thedynamic struggles of the blackworkers throughout the world-herein the United States and abroad .The SWP undertakes to point out tothose 70millionwho live in povertyin this land of plenty what theyhave in common with Negro free-dom fighters battling against injus-

tices, brutality and inequality . Weseek to explain how their own in-terests in freedom and justice, theright to work, to live in peace, tobe equal, are linked with thestruggles of the Negro people .

In conclusion, let me say in re-ply toHarold Cruse'sassertions thatI am just a pawn of the SocialistWorkers Party as follows: I am ablack revolutionary socialist. Be-fore adopting Marxism as myphilosophy, I made an intensivestudy of all the methods of thought,the theoretical foundation of thevarious philosophies . I came to theconclusion that the most effectivetools for understanding capitalismand how to set the process into mo-tion for change were provided byMarxism . I examined the revolu-tions which have taken placethroughout the world . These studiestaught me that the concepts neededto liberate mankind through thenecessary seizure of power from thecapitalist class are those of scien-tific socialism .

Fidel Castro very accuratelysummed up my feelings in a state-ment he made not long ago: "I shol Ibe a Marxist-Leninist for the rest ofmy life ."

July 7, 1964

GOOKSAND PAMPHLETSON THE

AFRO-AMERICANSTRUGGLE

By MalcolmXAutobiography of Malcolm X

7.50

1 .25Malcolm X Speaks

5.95

.95Malcolm X on Afro-American History

.50Malcolm X Talks to Young People

.35Two Speeches by Malcolm X

.25

BGeorge Breitman

Cloth

Paperhye Last Year of Malcolm X, The Evolution

of a Revolutionary

4.50

1 .95Malcolm X, The Man and His Ideas

.25How a Minority Can Change Society

.25Myths About Malcolm X by Rev. Cleage and

George Breitman

.35Marxism and the Negro Struggle, Harold

Cruse, C. DeBerry, George Breitman

.50Black Nationalism and Socialism by George Breitman

and George Novack

.50

By W.E.B. DuBoisBlack Reconstruction in America

3.45John Brown

2.45The World and Africa

1 .95Souls of Black Folk

.60

Other Works on the Afro-American Stru

leThe Case for a Black Party, Introduction

Paul Boutelle

.25The Black Uprisings, Newark, Detroit 1967

Introduction by Paul Boutelle

.25The Black Ghetto by Robert Vernon

.50Why Watts Exploded by Della Rosso

.25Should the U.S . Be Partitioned : Into Two Separate and

Independent Nations-One a Homeland for WhiteAmericans and the Other a Homeland for Black Americans?A Symposium by Robert S. Browne and Robert Vernon

.50Harlem Stirs by Fred Halstead

2.50Freedom Now: New Stage in the Struggle for

Negro Emancipation, 1963 SWP Resolution

.25Soul on Ice by Eldridge Cleaver

5.95

Brit873 Broadway

ublishersNew York, N.Y . 10003 ,

SEND FOR A FREE COPY OF ACATALOGLISTING BOOKS AND PAMPHLETSON SOCIALISM, VIETNAM, THE LABOR MOVEMENT, CIVIL RIGHTS,AFRO-AMERICAN HISTORY, CUBA, CIVIL LIBERTIES, HISTORY.

MURDER I IN MEMPHISMartin Luther King and the Future of

the Black Liberation Struggle

Articles by Paul Boutelle, George Novack,

Joseph Hansen, and Clifton DeBerry

Should the U .S .Be Partitioned

Into Two Separate and IndependentNations-One a Homeland for White

Americans and the Other aHomeland for Black Americans?

A Symposium by Robert S . Browne and Robert Vernon

873 9roadwoy

pUlDllisnersNow York, N.Y . 10003

50C