By August H. Nimtz
Reviewed by Steve Halpern
Today growing numbers of people understand that we are faced with fundamental problems. The United States launched an unprovoked war against the nation of Iran. For close to four years, the world has seen a livestreamed genocide against Palestinians. Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are kidnapping our neighbors because they happen to be born in another country. I could go on.
Nicole Hanna Jones, editor of the book The 1619 Project, pointed to another persistent issue that has been a constant feature in the history of the United States. “The effort of Black Americans to seek freedom through resistance and rebellion against violations of their rights have always been one of this nation’s defining traditions.”
August Nimtz’ book Black Marxism takes issue with books by Cedric Robinson and others who argue that the political orientation of Karl Marx is irrelevant to the struggle for Black liberation. After all, what could Marx, who lived his entire life in Europe, and never even visited the United States, have something relevant to say about the Black liberation struggle?
Karl Marx
To begin to appreciate the contributions of Marx, perhaps it is useful to look at his life story. Karl Marx was born in Germany at a time when that nation was ruled by a feudal monarch. His father needed to change his religion from Jewish to gain a lucrative job. Because of his controversial political activities Marx was exiled from his homeland.
Eventually Marx was able to live in Britain, a nation at the center of the capitalist world at that time. Frederick Engels wrote a book that deeply influenced Marx titled, The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844. This book reported on the unimaginably horrendous living and working conditions in the industrialized city of Manchester.
So, this reality presented Marx and Engels with a problem. They understood that capitalism was a clear advance over the feudal system. Yet capitalism also produced horrendous conditions for workers, while a tiny minority lived in opulence.
Looking at the capitalism from this perspective, Marx developed a way of looking at the world that was diametrically opposed to the view presented by most so-called history teachers here. Those teachers ask students to stand up, and pledge allegiance to a flag. They claim this flag represents “liberty and justice for all.” They also argue that everyone is supposed to have equal rights, and that we live in a “democracy.”
In his studies of capitalism, Marx learned that the system needs to continually grow. For the system to grow, a surplus needs to be derived from the workers who produce the commodities we all need. Because of this state of affairs, the owners of capital, the capitalists, are continually obsessed with cutting their costs of production.
So, when you might have a disagreement with a boss, it isn’t just because the boss might be mean-spirited, or insensitive, or stupid. No, the interests of workers and capitalists are fundamentally antagonistic. This antagonist relationship also explains racist and sexist discrimination. This also explains why about 80% of the population of the world lives on ten dollars per day or less.
Sven Beckert wrote a book titled Capitalism: A Global History. In this book, Beckert showed how capitalism has always been an international system. However, politicians routinely argue that our problems can be solved with a national or an America First agenda. In their Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels appealed to the “workers of the world.” Unlike the politicians we listen to today, Marx and Engels argued that workers all over the world ultimately have the same interests.
I believe the quotation by Marx that most attracted August Nimtz is when is when he said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”
It is from this perspective that Nimtz dismantles those who argue that Marx’s example is basically irrelevant to Black liberation. Cedric Robinson argued that Marx had no theory on race. In Marx’s day, the primary struggle was about the abolition of the slave system. Yet Marx was well aware that workers needed to develop an anti-racist consciousness if they ever hoped to achieve liberation.
We also know that Marx’s position evolved on nationalities who were discriminated against. Initially he believed that Irish workers could only become liberated when the more advanced British, workers liberated themselves. Then, he discovered those who were engaged in the struggle for Irish liberation. Marx eventually argued that British workers could not be liberated unless they support Irish liberation.
The former Boxing Heavyweight Champion Mohammed Ali had a few things to say about these issues.
“A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has waisted thirty years of his life.”
“I am America. I am the part you don’t want to recognize. But get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours, my religion, not yours, my goals, my own; get used to me.”
I believe it was this kind of uncompromising attitude that convinced Marx to change his attitude on Irish liberation. Mohammed Ali, in effect, argued that Black people weren’t just part of the so-called “melting pot” of this country, but the Black community had its own independent ideas that represent a distinct perspective.
Marx made it his top priority to support the Union forces in the Civil War. Ultimately the victory of the Union Army led to the abolition of slavery. The exception was in cases of penal servitude.
After the Civil War, Marx was discouraged by the policies of President Andrew Johnson, who worked to reimpose many of the aspects of the slave system. So, Marx wouldn’t have been totally surprised by the vicious defeat of Radical Reconstruction that led to the Jim Crow laws. That defeat effectively abolished citizenship rights for African Americans.
Frederick Douglass
August Nimtz also wrote a book with Kyle Edwards where he compared the political lives of Frederick Douglass to Karl Marx. I haven’t read that book, but Nimtz wrote about Douglass and Marx in his book Black Marxism. Nimtz labeled Douglass a “revolutionary liberal.” In my opinion that characterization is unwarranted.
In his 1852 speech about what the Fourth of July meant to the slave, Douglass had this to say. “For shameless hypocrisy and ruthless barbarity, America reins without a rival.” In my opinion, this was not a statement of a liberal.
Perhaps the reason why Nimtz gives Douglass the liberal label is because he did not advocate for an abolition of capitalism. I believe we get a better understanding of who Frederick Dougass was by looking at his life story. His autobiography is a classic in the literature of this country.
Frederick Douglass was born a slave and witnessed the unimaginable horrors of chattel slavery. At the age of 19 he escaped enslavement and, for the first time, learned how wage labor had fundamental advantages over the system of chattel slavery.
Douglass was enslaved when he worked on the shipyards of Baltimore. Then he saw how three workers in Massachusetts were doing the work of twelve slaves in Baltimore. Also, the workers in Massachusetts were paid a wage and might have their own home where they could raise a family.
Douglass also saw how there was racist discrimination in the North. In spite of this, he viewed northern capitalism as a fundamental improvement from the enslavement he endured.
On the other hand, when Karl Marx was introduced to the capitalist system in Britain he viewed an unimaginable horror story. This contrast in the lives of Marx and Douglass begins to explain why they looked at the world differently.
When it came to the Civil War, Marx and Douglass agreed that the government of the slave owners needed to be decisively defeated. They both saw the limitations of President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln initially argued that the war was about preserving the union. Both Marx and Douglass understood that the Civil War was about abolishing slavery and celebrated when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation.
Both Marx and Douglass understood how the hundreds of thousands who escaped enslavement would play an invaluable role in defeating the slaveocracy. However, they also believed that the enslavers could only be defeated with the full force of the Union Army.
August Nimtz, I believe, accurately argues that Marx and Douglass had different reasons for supporting the abolition of slavery. Douglass’ primary goal in life was to see an end to chattel slavery. Marx felt that the abolition of slavery was a necessary step for the working class in their eventual overthrow of the capitalist system.
Nimtz was critical of Douglass for not supporting a land distribution to freed slaves, as proposed by Thaddeus Stevens. We can only speculate as to Douglass’ thinking with respect to this issue. What we know is that because of the Union victory in the Civil War, Douglass changed his critical view of the United States government. He became an Ambassador to Haiti and was the President of a bank.
However, as Mohammed Ali said, “A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has waisted thirty years of his life.”
In 1894, towards the end of his life, Douglass gave his masterful speech Lessons of the Hour. Here he distanced himself from the vicious racist repression he saw in the North and the South. He advocated to enforce the Constitution that would have given Black people the rights they were supposed to have. However, Douglass wasn’t familiar with the ideas of Marx and his advocacy of a worker’s government that would make human needs the fundamental priority.
Ida Wells
August Nimtz mentioned several leaders who made outstanding contributions to the struggle for Black liberation. These include John Brown, WEB DuBois, CLR James, Malcolm X, Maurice Bishop, and Thomas Sankara. He didn’t mention the name Ida Wells, who was a friend of Frederick Douglass.
I believe both Ida Wells and Douglass agreed with Marx when he argued that they weren’t about interpreting the world, but about changing it. Wells became a champion in the struggles against lynching as well as the liberation of women. In my opinion, Ida Wells, in a way, was a bridge from the politics of Frederick Douglass to the politics of Malcolm X.
Malcolm X argued that the struggle for Black liberation needs to be advanced “By any means necessary.” Ida Wells argued that Black people need to reserve a special place in their home for a “Winchester rifle,” to defend against lynch mobs.
Malcolm viewed the liberation of women as necessary to the struggle. Ida Wells shared that view.
Private property
August Nimtz reported that the primary goal of Karl Marx was the abolition of private property. When workers think about that, they might conclude that a socialist government would take away our toothbrushes. This is the kind of slander spread by the mainstream so-called “news media.” So, what did Marx mean when he argued for the abolition of private property?
In the capitalist world, the owners of capital own and control the productive forces of society. Workers go to work, but capitalists control the work environment, as well as the prices we pay. While workers do the work, capitalists produce nothing useful, but reap the profits.
We were all raised to believe that banks finance corporations. Marx argued that to produce a commodity in the capitalist system there are three requirements. These are labor, the materials and machinery, and what he called “surplus value.”
For Marx, surplus value doesn’t merely consist of profits. There are entire enterprises such as banks, insurance companies, advertising agencies, corporate law firms, and landlords. These enterprises do not directly produce useful commodities. However, the surplus derived from the production and distribution of commodities effectively finances all these enterprises. In other words, workers, in a real way finance banks. Banks merely absorb the surplus derived from the workers who produce commodities.
So, when Marx argued for the abolition of private property, he was arguing for an end to the antagonistic relationship between workers and capitalists. A worker’s government would make it their top priority to use the means of production to serve the needs of all workers and farmers.
The outstanding singer Etta James has a song where she said she wanted “security.” This song is about a relationship James had with someone she loved. However, isn’t security something we all want? Don’t we all want the right to have a decent place to live, food to eat, clothing, health care, education, transportation, communication, and exposure to culture.
In the capitalist world we need money to get these things. We can only have money if we work for an employer who is obsessed with gouging out profits. Even after we worked our entire lives, we need to have the money to provide for our basic necessities. This drive for profits is the root cause of racist discrimination.
We won’t have an egg unless there first is a chicken. There can only be racist discrimination because of an outgrowth of capitalist exploitation.
I believe August Nimtz book Black Marxism makes the argument that the working class will not be liberated unless it unconditionally supports Black liberation. The reverse is also true. Only the entire working class has the potential power to bring about a political-economic system that can begin to erase all vestiges of racist discrimination.
Zohran Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America
The election of Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York City raises the question: What do socialists stand for? In my opinion, there are a few ways to answer this question.
First, Mamdani’s opposition to the genocide organized against Palestinians separates him from mainstream democratic and republican politicians.
Mamdani, who is Muslim and born in Uganda actively worked to recruit the diverse communities of New York City. I can’t recall other candidates who had that kind of success in celebrating the international character of this country. This contrasts with the politics of President Trump, as well as Democratic Party politicians. They support agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who kidnap and deport our neighbors merely because they were born in another country.
However, Mamdani has no plans to aid in the mobilization of working people to ultimately take the control of the productive forces we all deal with. As I have attempted to argue, capitalism has its own driving forces. Those forces work continually to compromise the interests of the working class around the world.
This means that as capitalism continues to deteriorate, Mamdani will be unable to institute fundamental change. I believe that August Nimtz’s book Black Marxism gives us the background to the history of the movement for Black liberation. That history gives us many inspiring examples of how working people indeed have the capacity to mobilize and bring about fundamental change.
No comments:
Post a Comment