|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"One can delude one’s self into believing
that race can be avoided; but at the most
awkward moments, it rears its ugly head
and tears movements apart."
|
|
The
campaign of Bernie Sanders for President of the United States of
America has surfaced as a critically important issue that has faced
progressives in the USA since the 19th century: can the question of
economic injustice stand alone as the platform for a progressive
movement? In fact, it is the #BlackLivesMatter movement that has
elevated this question to a national discussion point.
There is an important segment of the progressive movement (including
but not limited to white progressives) who strongly believe that
economic injustice and (a relatively narrowly defined version of) class
can and must serve as the unifying feature of a progressive movement in
the USA. They hold that other issues are a distraction or are,
particularly in the case of race and gender, divisive. In order to
address the question of divisiveness, we are instructed to believe that
hammering away at matters of economic injustice (including inequality,
unemployment, etc.), will bring us together.
The Sanders Campaign has ignited an immense amount of excitement and
interest in very diverse segments of the progressive population of the
USA. Although some people found this response surprising it needs to be
understood as flowing from the combination of the 2011 Madison,
Wisconsin demonstrations; Occupy Wall Street; and a dissatisfaction
with the Obama presidency (and its failure to pursue a consistently
progressive agenda). Sanders, along with Senator Elizabeth Warren,
stepped into a relative political void and gave voice to an emerging
populist sentiment.
The challenge is that populist sentiment in the USA has not been
consistently progressive, and certainly not consistently progressive
when it comes to matters of race. There are countless examples, not the
least being the Populist movement (and Populist Party) of the late 19th
century that courageously advanced anti-corporate, anti-rich politics,
including calling for unity across racial boundaries, only to collapse
when openly challenged by white supremacy.
The notion that so-called divisive issues are to be avoided in the name
of an overarching and unifying economic theme ignores certain critical
issues. These include, the nature of U.S. capitalism (and how it was
constructed) and the fact that divisions already exist within the base
of the populist sentiment and the progressive movement. This second
point, i.e., the existing divisions, is so obvious that even mentioning
it feels redundant, but the fact of the matter is that a recurring
theme in progressive circles is the suggestion that the mass of the
oppressed and dispossessed are “objectively” united and that there are
these add-ons, e.g., race, that divide us.
What this entire analysis fails to appreciate is that the construction
of capitalism involved race, whether in the approach toward
colonialism; the nature of the societies built after the defeat of
indigenous populations in the Western Hemisphere; or the construction
of racial/settler states (such as the United States). There is no pure
capitalism to which is added matters of race and gender. The very
construction of capitalism has incorporated pre-existing forms of
oppression, e.g., patriarchy, or linked itself to the construction of
what came to be known as racist oppression (and in some cases, national
oppression).
In the case of the United States, the emergence of the settler society
in the thirteen British colonies and the later development of the
United States would not have been possible in the absence of the slave
trade, genocide against the Native Americans, and the construction of a
relative differential in treatment within the working population
between those identified as white and those identified as non-white.
This relative differential in treatment was neither imaginary, a matter
of ideology (alone) or insignificant. The racial divide was essential
for the successful exploitation of the labor of African slaves, the
near elimination of Native Americans, and the subordination of those in
the working population who came to be known as “white.”
There is simply no way of running away from race. It is almost like
Einstein’s view of the curved universe, i.e., that no matter where you
start, you will inevitably return to the same point. In the US, no
matter where one starts, one can delude one’s self into believing that
race can be avoided; but at the most awkward moments, it rears its ugly
head and tears movements apart. That is, unless those movements,
through courageous and enlightened leadership, has prepared the
movement (or specific struggle) for the pending racial tsunami.
The suggestion that race can be resolved through an appeal to class and
economic justice alone suggests that economic justice will equally
resolve the racial differential. It is not simply a matter of “…a
rising tide raises all boats”. The reality is that all boats may rise,
but who finds one’s self in which portion of each boat? Or, to use the
metaphor of the Titanic, who is in steerage and who is closer to the
main deck?
When movements like #BlackLivesMatter and many in the immigrant rights
movement point to this matter of racial injustice, they are not
suggesting attention for a “special interest.” Rather, they are
pointing out that there can actually be no economic justice in the
absence of racial justice. There can be no unity without a commitment
to the fight for equality and justice. These struggles are interlinked.
The sort of “political revolution” that the Sanders Campaign proclaims
has been a long time coming. Yet it will never arrive if there is not a
full recognition that the class struggle overlaps that of racial
justice. The ruling elites, for several centuries, have appreciated
that race is the trip wire of U.S. politics and social movements. When
will progressives arrive at the same conclusion?
This content was originally published by teleSUR.
|
BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member and Columnist, Bill Fletcher, Jr., is
the host of The Global African on Telesur-English
This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:
"http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Why-We-Cannot-Speak-of-Economic-Injustice-Alone-20150817-0011.html". If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article. www.teleSURtv.net/english
the host of The Global African on Telesur-English
This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:
"http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Why-We-Cannot-Speak-of-Economic-Injustice-Alone-20150817-0011.html". If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article. www.teleSURtv.net/english
the host of The Global African on Telesur-English
This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:
"http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Why-We-Cannot-Speak-of-Economic-Injustice-Alone-20150817-0011.html". If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article. www.teleSURtv.net/english
the host of The Global African on Telesur-English. a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfricaForum, and the author of “They’re Bankrupting Us” - And Twenty Other Myths about Unions. He is also the co-author of Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice, which examines the crisis of organized labor in the USA. Other Bill Fletcher, Jr. writing can be found at billfletcherjr.com. Contact Mr. Fletcher and BC.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 is published every Thursday |
Executive Editor:
David A. Love, JD |
Managing Editor:
Nancy Littlefield, MBA |
Publisher:
Peter Gamble |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
