“...the science for revolutionary change…is forged by human persuasion and building social consciousness based on the class analysis which sees the struggle against racism as central.”
The late civil rights activist and educator Gwen M. Patton’s short essay “An Open Letter to Marxists” is among the most profound and scintillating analyses of the fraught and frustrating relationship of Marxists to the Black struggle we have ever encountered. Published in the “Reader Forum” section of the Black Scholar in 1975 (at a time when the Black Scholar was doing something), Patton’s “Open Letter” does not make for easy reading. She indicts hardcore Marxists, both white and Black, for their elitism, condescension, and paternalism. She sees the emergence of “super-star strategists” who develop theoretical “fan clubs” as a byproduct of capitalist administration, not progressive organizing. She spares no criticism of the racism of white Marxists who dismiss those Black people who have neither religiously committed themselves to a defined Marxist tendency nor systematically read the entirety of the Marxist canon. Moreover, she calls out those Marxists, Black and white, who dismiss legitimate critiques of racism as only a degraded form of bourgeois nationalism.
And Patton, mind you, was a Marxist. Her criticism comes from the application of Marxism to historical transformations and present social and political conditions in an attempt to “initiate and consistently agitate for concrete democratic struggles and revolutionary change.” In the process, she eschews verbiage, jargon, and “hifalutin formulations”– and she explicitly rejects an identity as a “theorist” in favor of an “analytical activist,” whose critiques and conclusions emerge from the successes and failures of political practice. Patton writes that “the superstar strategist role has been a self-deluding experience which has manufactured many charlatans in our struggle for fundamental social change, among blacks and progressive whites.” We could not agree more, but might only suggest that there are more charlatans now than ever, while analytical activists, like Patton, have become an even rarer breed.
We reprint Gwendolyn Marie Patton’s “An Open Letter to Marxists” below.
Open Letter to Marxists
Gwendolyn M. Patton
From the outset, let me categorically state that I am not a theoretician; an analytical activist perhaps, but not a profound, tactical, revolutionary, theoretical, super-star strategist. However, an analytical activist is not only guided by the objective motion of the period, but also by studying past movements, consciously understanding the interrelationships (victories and errors), and by developing an operational knowledge of Marxism. The analytical activists, based on social conditions of the period, initiate and consistently agitate for concrete democratic struggles and revolutionary change. Conversely, the superstar strategist role has been a self-deluding experience which has manufactured many charlatans in our struggle for fundamental social change, among blacks and progressive whites. This tendency to naive and superficial class analysis has fed into racism in the most subtle forms. Consequently, the legitimate criticism of racism has been negated by arrogant labeling, such as calling potential allies "pork chop"or "bourgeois" nationalists.
Many of us understand the political principle of black/white unity, but many of us are not willing to develop this unity by any means necessary, in other words, by capitulating to racism for the sake of appearance. Those of us who are in such coalitions raise the question of racism, only to receive a retort of not understanding the "fundamental contradiction," including the possibility of being labeled an "anti-communist" or as an "incompatible force in the people's movement." The logic of this rhetoric is beyond comprehension. At best this logic can be interpreted as trade unionism (even though the forces do not work), but it is clearly an abuse of Marxism and is used as a cover for opportunism and a cloak to hide the need to struggle against racism. This is especially regrettable when we basically know that the science for revolutionary change, particularly in this transitional period of struggling for economic, social, political and educational equality, is forged by human persuasion and building social consciousness based on the class analysis which sees the struggle against racism as central.
What has been most puzzling is the behavior and declarations of participants at the now, sophisticated conferences. Unless a white person makes a blatant, overt racist statement, it is assumed that her or his politics stem from a progressive stand. But, nowadays blacks, in order to establish credibility as a bona fide force in the movement, must authoritatively declare: (1) the person is a member of this or that Marxist grouping, and (2) the person has read all the Marxist and Marxist-related literature which has been printed to date. If not explicitly stated, the resulting jargon is such that you deduce that this is a "heavy, profound revolutionary" with a dedication and commitment which surpasses the total historical struggle of all peoples in the black experience.
In order for you to have any input or seek clarity, you must first join the "fan club," which is to the delight of the "progressives" and "liberals" (racists) who support and finance the charlatans for the express purpose of either capitulating to racism or isolating progressive, political criticism. As a result of this new emphasis, the struggle against racism has increasingly been neglected, even to the point of being attributed to blacks: a clear cliche is, "Racism Hiding Behind a Black Skin." The irony of it all is that the masses of black people, due to conditions, are objectively a progressive force. The mandate for the revolutionaries is to develop those intermediary forms and the positive approach to raise the political consciousness of the people. This is an education/action, not a whipping process.
The perplexity increases when we state that the principles of the social sciences are in tune with the principles of the natural sciences. (If this is so, why don't scientists call themselves Newtonists, Einsteinists, etc.) There is no objection to Marxism as the basis for the theoretical understanding of the social sciences and the historical development of humanity and its governing institutions. And the Bolsheviks (dig it, THE BOLSHEVIKS) manifested this theory (Marx's) into concrete, practical realities. I am convinced that Lenin was not about building a Leninist "fan club." And Castro is not about Castroism.
This need for subjective identity, to belong to a "fan club" as opposed to a political, honest form has its roots in the capitalist version of leadership, management and administration of work. The most ludicrous exercise is, after joining the fan club, to try to become a super-star strategist, and if successful in this endeavor, to tenaciously expend all kinds of energy (and money) to maintain that position, including ruthless attacks upon other individuals who are feared to have any influence (real, but most times imaginary) in the movement. Sometimes, this behavior runs rampant within the black movement, even to the point of murder. The sad thing is that this divisiveness, this lack of clarity as to what is the priority (the content of the black workers' movement and its allies, or the struggle for hegemony as the theoretician) is done under the banner of Marxist formations and hifalutin formulations. Again, whatever the level, this subjective behavior feeds into the most complicated, covert forms of racism.
The most disturbing attitude in this jockeying for the new vanguardism is that it looks upon the period of 1954 to 1968 with disdain, especially upon those people who made the direct, physical conviction to struggle for voting rights and equal access to public accommodations. At best the new strategists label the thousands of people who joined the Southern movement (while they did not) as reformist and naive, while in the same breath espousing the fundamental law of quantitative to qualitative changes in the democratic struggle. Could this possibly be because they were not a physical part of this important period of the Black Liberation Struggle? Is it not reminiscent of Kissinger's rationale that his presence, alone, can resolve the contradictions in the Middle East, and if necessary he has access to the war machine to maintain that role? The objective, world reality spanked Kissinger and sent him back to the U.S. State Department and his "fan club" in waiting.
What the strategists hold in utter contempt are those forces who grow strong in their convictions and who will emphatically cling to their victories, becoming critical in the process because of past mistakes, as a maturation process of their daily indigenous struggles. The strategists have great difficulty in winning, and if they do, accepting and helping these forces in the furtherance of this concrete, developing political activity. Unfortunately, in some instances, the insistence of the strategists to become the absolute theoreticians has been the major cause for the deterioration of sound, political movements. The major obstacles are the inability to deal with honest, political criticism of racism, the inability to join and to practically work in a struggle on a sustained basis, and the inability to shed the elitist role.
With this present internal discussion in the Black Liberation Struggle, our new white allies brazenly state how shocked they are about black politicians possibly coalescing with Southern white politicians. And the progressive blacks are dismayed that there is no analytical respect for the political development which is a natural product that grew out of the 1950's-60's Southern Movement. It is clear to the progressive blacks that our new white allies do not apply class analysis with all of its complexities of the National Question to the Black Liberation Struggle. Thus, we see a rationalization and a justification of white workers' racism, a constant apologizing for the racist behavior of
white workers. The most confusing aspect is the rationalization that "racism is the ideology of the ruling class" (and we agree), but this fact becomes a scapegoat for not dealing with the racism of white workers and progressive white forces. While this static, dynamic is taking place, there is, on the other hand, a total rejection or a contrived misunderstanding of the political gains made on all levels of the Black Liberation Struggle. This is a crisis situation.
If we are serious about revolution– which means it is mandatory for objective ideological debate – we have to do away with offensive labeling; we have to analyze more concretely the democratic content of movements, especially the black workers' movement and its allies; we have to have respect for histories of social movements in this country; and we have to become a part of the people's movement.
While these criticisms are especially pertinent to today's vanguard, let us also remember that these tendencies have emerged in other phases of the movement, be they revolutionary nationalist, cultural nationalist, or reformist, with the same detrimental effects upon the struggle. Let us note and sharpen our struggle accordingly.
*For biographical information on Gwendolyn Marie “Gwen” Patton (October 14, 1943 – May 11, 2017 please read her essay “Insurgent Memories,” published in Southern Exposure (1981) and her 2008 interview, “No Outside Saviors!” with Against the Current.
NSPM-7 and the State Department's international campaign against "far-left political terrorism" represent new and more dangerous forms of domestic repression in the 21st century, while reconstructing…
In this series, we ask acclaimed authors to answer five questions about their book. This week’s featured author is Colin Kaepernick.
The climate movement has been captured by a professional managerial class that prefers charity galas and virtue signaling to building power.
"Find me another 11,780 votes?" is the latest from BAR's Poet-in-Residence.
The Yemeni attack involved dozens of ballistic missiles and drones, targeting sites from which Saudi warplanes took off to strike Yemen.
