As we have already seen the ideology of bourgeois liberalism conditions relations of paternalism with Black people. But it also conditions certain attitudes and political relations with white workers as well. For one of the main features of this ideology is the tendency to demonstrate one’s anti-racism by dissassociation, as opposed to real struggle against racist ideology among the white masses.
The errors of the DC in relation to the question of racist violence in SW Philadelphia is a good example of this ideology in practice. In the DC’s self-criticism we are told, “Our errors grew out of our generally paternalistic orientation to the struggle against racism. We approached racism not as a class question but as an issue of concern to Black people, consequently we developed our approach to speak to Blacks...This approach, basically trying to prove ourselves (those of us who are white) as cool, anti-racists to the Black community, amounts to posturing and a real attempt to separate ourselves off (my emphasis) from our responsibility to struggle with white chauvinism where it exists... among white people.”
Why did the DC limit its response to an appeal to the Black community, an appeal based on and resulting in the desire to separate ourselves off from the “white racists” of S.W. Philadelphia? Because the flip-side of our paternalism toward the Black community is the anti-white-worker sentiment characteristic of bourgeois liberalism. The white workers are the racists. This is the line of the liberal bourgeoisie. But what has made PWOC cadre so susceptible to this point of view? Surely the white workers don’t buy this line on racism. Previously we have identified empiricism as a basis for underestimating the white workers, and indeed, this ideology certainly plays a role here. But it is also important to recognize that a class bias operates in the PWOC as well, and this class bias conditions a tendency toward empiricism and merges with it opening the door to a bourgeois liberal, rather than a Marxist perspective on the struggle against racism.
The working class, as a whole, is intellectually inferior, as seen through the eyes of the revolutionary from a petit-bourgeois class background. And while the concrete expressions of this perspective vary, it is the essence of the class bias in the PWOC. And one of the most important roles this class bias plays is to fuel the tendency to liquidate the struggle against racism among the white workers.
Over the past year there have been a series of errors made in relation to FC. by a range of PWOC cadre. And these errors, from different angles, demonstrate the operation of a class bias and reveal its political impact on our work.
Last summer the organization decided to hold a fund-raising party for F.C. But the reaction of several white members of the organization to this idea was one of bewilderment and disorientation. Why are we doing this, cadre asked? Shouldn’t we be having a party for the family of Tracy Chambers instead? Our cadre actually felt squeamish about being too closely associated with F.C. and imagined that to do this may look bad to the Chambers family and the Black community.
The fact that F.C. had taken a clear and firm anti-racist stance in the aftermath of the killing of Tracy Chambers; the fact that this represented an extremely significant step which needed to be deepened and broadened in the white community; the fact that such a fund-raiser could create an ideal context for other white workers to be won to an anti-racist perspective...all of these facts had very little meaning for too many PWOC cadre. You see, F.C.’s anti-racism was not expressed with clear, concise and highly developed formulas, his anti-racist understanding may even be said to be immature and tainted in many respects. Here the class bias asserts itself and blinds many PWOC cadre to the significance of his practice, a practice which was in advance of most PWOC cadre.
Another example of the class bias in relation to F.C. was our cadre’s attitude toward his participation in an Organizer circle sponsored by the community cell. Questions were raised as to whether he should be allowed to participate in light of the fact that he opposes abortions. Rather than seeing the circle as the very arena in which to wage struggle with him around this issue the community cell feared that he would be a disruptive force and besides his views would be embarrassing to other (intellectuals) circle participants.
Thanks to a struggle with the community cell leadership F.C. is participating in the circle. Recently the circles agenda was to focus on the struggle against sexism, but it turned out to be a mess. Many conflicts flared up at the meeting, backward lines on sexism dominated the discussion, circle participants became extremely disruptive of the process and undermined the entire meeting. Yet there was one voice in the room that continued to call for the meeting to return to the issues it was supposed to discuss, rape and abortion. This lone voice was that of F.C. But rather than follow the leadership of this white worker our comrades allowed the intellectuals to set the meetings agenda so the circle spent hours talking about “why PWOC women don’t support each other.”
Still another illustration was in our cadres response to the possible recruitment of FC into the organization. At one point it seemed that he was about to join. When this was raised some of our white members objected. Afterall, they argued, he doesn’t seem to have it together around racism and we shouldn’t bring him into the organization until he does. Now, can it be said that the white intellectuals in the PWOC had it together on the struggle against racism when they were recruited into the PWOC? Then what is it that makes this a question in relation to F.C.? The fact that F.C. is a worker.
This double standard is also mirrored in the organization as well. In the opinion of Comrade K. and 0. the concentrated expression of racism in the E...unit is Comrade W’s relation to H, an advanced Black worker at the hospital. Of what does comrade W’s racism consist? In the fact that he has made some serious errors in struggling with H over a personal problem. Comrade W recognizes that this is an important barrier to H’s political development and leadership potential, so he has taken up the question with him. W’ s errors have therefore taken place in the context of his genuine respect for H’s capacity to deal with this problem.
On the other side K. and 0. have erred in the direction of paternalism. They have not made the same type of error as W. But their errors are a reflection of a lack of respect for H. Their errors are conditioned by the dual impact of racism and the class bias, and the fact that they perceive W’s errors as primary is an indication of their class bias toward him. For it is the workers who are racist, not the intellectuals. So goes the logic of the class bias in the PWOC.
The irony here is that when the class bias of the intellectuals merges with racism, as it does in our relations with Black workers the impact and expression of white chauvinism is all the more profound. So, for example, when Comrade Y. demonstrates a real grasp of the material in the Leadership Training Program, white PWOC members are “amazed.” Or if we were to ask who are the three cadre in the PWOC who have read Marx’s Capital we would bet that few if any cadre would guess that Comrade An. is one of the three.
Paternalism in our relations with Black people and this anti-white worker sentiment are two interrelated and inseparable components of the ideology of bourgeois liberalism in the PWOC. And we cannot expect to be able to change, in any fundamental sense, our paternalistic relations with Black people unless we simultaneously alter our attitudes and practice in relation to white workers as well. For so long as these attitudes persist, and on the basis of them we liquidate the struggle against racism, our anti-racism will invariably be reduced posturing ourselves as “the friends of the Black people.”