💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › black-action-movement-on-white-radicalism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:52:58. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: On White Radicalism Author: Black Action Movement Date: 1968 Language: en Topics: radicalism, anti-racist, Black & Red Source: Black & Red Number 3, November, 1968, page 2 Notes: Scanned from original.
There can be no revolutionary practice without revolutionary theory.
The two articles which follow are an initiation and invitation to the
REVOLUTIONARY FORUM IN KALAMAZOO.
The first, by the Kalamazoo BLACK ACTION MOVEMENT, is a critique of
white radicals by black militants: the actions of white “radicals” are
not revolutionary actions; they are not actions which emerge from
revolutionary theory.
The second is a self-critique by the Committee on Higher Education
(CHE), a gang with an analysis, a grouplet with a theory.
These are not the only parts of the Kalamazoo movement. Critiques, and
self-critiques, of other groups will be published in future issues of
Black & Red.
The purpose of the REVOLUTIONARY FORUM is not to publish the histories
of radical groups; this is the purpose of bourgeois historians. The
purpose of the FORUM is to analyze the limitations of past actions IN
ORDER TO DEFINE THE PRESENT SITUATION, and to define the present
situation IN ORDER TO MOVE BEYOND IT in such a way as “to create at long
last a situation which goes beyond the point of no return.”
One act of rebellion does not assure the revolution, especially not an
isolated personal act. Hopefully, the radicals who now “exist” in
America understand the importance of this sentence. Yet, in looking
around at the “New Left,” one often wonders if they do. One also wonders
whether the self-appointed, self-annointed revolutionaries really
understand the revolutionary dynamics that they have helped to set in
motion.
In looking at the “culture cults” that have begun to assert themselves,
the question arises as to their purpose, both explicit and implicit.
That is, are they really revolutionary or, in fact,
counter-revolutionary? It appears to me that most of the so-called
radicals in America are simply being victimized by their own “cultural
nihilism.” I say cultural nihilism because it appears that their force
is, in essence, consigned to a slow death.
It is the business of the revolutionaries to set the stage for
revolution. This means, among other things, hard, serious work. One of
their most important tasks is to politicize the masses, not to further
alienate them. Can today’s radicals truly say that they are doing the
former? It appears that they are helping to isolate themselves, which
makes the job of the Establishment that much easier.
To begin with, a revolutionary situation comes into existence “when a
society is ill-at-ease with itself and when established values,
legitimacy and authority are beginning to be seriously questioned.” It
is then the business of the revolutionaries to confront this authority
in a manner which is designed to gain support for their cause. The
question now becomes, does a simple rejection of Western culture, values
and ideas constitute a serious confrontation which will gain support? In
itself, No! In many cases this simply will attract most of society’s
deviants who are not interested in working for anyone. What is
desperately needed is a program and a theoretical foundation.
The lack of a meaningful program is presently exemplified by the present
confusion of issues, the stop-start quality of the movement and the lack
of a realistic analysis concerning priorities.
Radical students are presently being victimized by these kinds of
mistakes. It may be a function of many things, but a most obvious cause
is a misunderstanding of the historical process (if they have one at
all) and, related to this, no knowledge of the nature of American
society. These lacks have combined to produce the Vietnam issue, the
draft, the issue of making the university relevant to the needs of
students and, of course, just lately, the issue of police brutality. All
of these issues are outgrowths of the American system; symptoms, as it
were, of a more fundamental fountainhead--Capitalism. This is not to say
that none of them are important. It is only to point out that they have,
as an origin, the American System, and it is to an understanding of this
that radicals need to address themselves.
It now of course appears that all one would need is a basic
understanding of Marxism and he would be well-equipped with the bare
essentials. This, however, is not the case at all. It may very well be
that Marxism gives one an analysis of this system, but it certainly does
not end there. I believe that there are certain fundamental problems
inherent in attempting to apply Marxism to the American scene--the most
important being the obvious racism of the American people, e.g., white
workers. This has proven to be an almost insurmountable obstacle, and
has simply “bogged” radicals down while they were attempting to arrive
at a solution. Racism is an integral aspect of the western world.
Ignoring it or subordinating it to other issues does not diminish its
effectiveness; it simply renders one less effective. The problem becomes
one of analysis and theory.
This lack of analysis and theory has put many white radicals at a clear
disadvantage: they are unable to liberate themselves, let alone the
masses.
To state more clearly what I am getting at, let me be more explicit.
Earlier I stated that racism is an integral part of the western world,
that there have been and are victims and victimizers, and both have been
dehumanized in their respective fashions. Given the pervasive nature of
racism, all have in one way or another been victimized. This is
important because there should be no illusions as to who needs “help.”
White radicals must therefore purge themselves of the effects of racism
if they are to be of any “help” to anyone. That is, they must deal
directly with racism and not its effects. The war in Vietnam is an
effect of a racist society, the draft is an effect of a racist nation,
Universities are tools in the hands of racists; all of these are simply
aspects of racism, nothing else. To deal with these issues with
something else in mind is romanticism. But this, I think, characterizes
a considerable number of those who call themselves radicals. They view
revolution in a very romantic fashion. They do not seem to understand
what is really at stake, that is, they like being labeled “radicals,”
yet have formulated nothing which makes them deserve such a title.
Having posters of Mao, Che and Malcolm makes one nothing. Having read
Fanon, Che, Marcuse and Debray only allows one aptly to quote authors on
the surface. Revolution means, among other things, proselytizing the
masses, increasing their revolutionary consciousness, which again means
hard, hard work; it does not mean quoting what you have read but putting
it to use. Revolution does not mean long hair or “dropping out”, for
that can, in itself, simply become counter-revolutionary. Calling
something a revolution which is non-programmatic and has no content is
simply self-disillusionment, which can also become
counter-revolutionary.
What white radicals are faced with is, first, a therapeutic process of
introspection and then, secondly, a realistic analysis of what they are
about. Only then can they begin to talk seriously of revolution, and
that is only a small beginning. America is a racist society for many
reasons, one of which is to prevent an alliance between Black and white
from becoming a reality. This has historically been the case. It is
equally historically obvious that black revolutionaries cannot align
themselves with racist liberal quasi-revolutionaries. Sellout has always
been a problem and will continue to be, but unrealistic alliances only
ask for it.
What, then, is necessary? Radicals must begin to ask very serious
questions about themselves, their respective “movements,” this society,
and only then can we seriously entertain the “notion” of Revolution.