The term sectarian appears too frequently in your otherwise excellent journal. Is anyone who differs from you a sectarian? How else are we to arrive at correct policies and analyses except by exchange of different viewpoints? Your article on Black Power in the July issue provides little in the way of analysis and does little to explain the policy of Black Power. By lifting one word out of context from the June SOCIALIST WORKER article you distort the [illegible] that ultimately the negro cannot win alone, "Black Power is [a] correct description of the situation as the working negro sees it from the ghetto, where the only whites he encounters are cops and employers,"
International Socialism would certainly encourage [illegible] policy. Do we follow the Floyd McKissick line in the States of all-black businesses, or the line once propounded by Trotsky of all black breakaway states in the U.S.? Ernie Tate's remarks that the [illegible] even capable of defending his own living conditions, together with the implication that white militants are all becoming militant racialists is a slur that is entirely undeserved when the number of strikes is rising and particular sections like Ford workers are showing a re-awakened will to struggle. [illegible] Black and White, organise [for] maximum effectiveness around our particular struggles, But also let us keep in mind the urgent need to link up these struggles and create unity. If a slogan like Black Power creates disunity in some cases, then use it carefully, and [illegible] Mr Tate, as the test for sectarians, with the unthinking demand: are you for or against [illegible]
Yours fraternally Nick Howard (Sheffield)
Have just read your July issue: I regard the concept of Black Power imported to the British situation as complete unmarxian bunk. In the sense that it is taken to mean negro unity in the areas of the world where there is a conscious state [illegible] What the hell are you postulating. Does skin colour determine how a poor black struggles against a rich black? If, in Britain, a negro worker was employed by a rich Indian - what then? The Black Power stuff does not stand up to the flimsiest of study let alone deep analytical scientific and dialectical method used by Marx and his outstanding followers, such as Trotsky.
Concretely in Britain it makes the work of convincing ill-educated white workers in Britain that skin pigment has nothing to do with human values, all that much harder. Of course, I am not saying that Black Power is the exact equation of White Power (supremism, etc.) Black Power is a muddled anti-marxian call and is alien to scientific socialist concepts.
Most coloureds in Britain belong to the working class, The future of that class and its role in socialist development, gradual or revolutionary, will be determined by the temper and ability of the trade union movement. The future of that movement rests in its ability to forge bonds of unity between all wage and salaried workers, Black Power is a separatist call unrelated to British economic forces, therefore unmarxian, In [illegible] the SWP, in the U.S. operating in a totally different climate with nothing like the socialist influences of the British trade union [illegible] always [illegible] to enrol [illegible]'s few negroes struggling against Jim Crowism,
The chief crime of Black Power in Britain and talk of "white monkeys" is to get white workers thinking of "black monkeys", It is therefore [illegible] to the unifying interests of the British workers and, in turn, about as unmarxian as you can get a set of words,
Yours sincerely Sid. Bidwell, M.P. (Southall) House of Commons.
P.S. Where were the black workers when I and Stan Newens led the march against racism and fascism, Sunday last week? (July 7)
Nick Howard complains about the description "sectarian" in relation to International Socialism group's position on Black Power, Actually the article made it clear that the IS position was better than that of the SLL or the British MILITANT, but the formulations he uses to oppose our line are typically sectarian.
For a start, the remarks about Floyd McKissick are a red herring, since not all Black Power militants believe in black businesses, Are we advocating this by supporting the general line of Black Power? It is for the black militants to decide the relevancy of such utopian proposals.
Then, he says: "International Socialism would certainly encourage the formation of Black Power movements in Britain against the cops and employers. But we maintain that in itself the slogan is dangerous, i.e., taken without a class analysis and a revolutionary policy."
What he is saying is: unless the black militants accept our ideas and programme they will be dangerous.
This opposes formally correct ideas to the real life struggle, which whatever its weaknesses, is the thing we must start from to understand Black Power. It is possible to say the same about trade union militants who limit their struggle to economic demands - or tenants' movements - or any movement of partial struggle against the effects of capitalist society.
This is the point: Black Power is a partial struggle which mobilises black people on the basis of problems which affect only them, and therefore against which only they can mobilise effectively.
It is therefore quite permissible to support the organisations whose membership, or leadership, is exclusively black, if they are concerned with tackling the problems of black people. This does not mean that a revolutionary movement could operate in such a way, since it is concerned with fighting for all the exploited, but support for a Black Power movement does not exclude the building of such an organisation - they just have different tasks. Since black people, for historical reasons, are doubly exploited, as workers and as black people, it is only natural that they should have special organs of struggle to combat racist exploitation.
Of course, the Black Power movement expresses many ideas which marxists would regard as mistaken - as do militant trade unionist and tenants' organisations. But if we are to help them to overcome these obstacles we must first take a clear firm stand on the struggle which they are carrying out now. Solidarity with Black Power is thus a pre-requisite if we are to intervene in the process of radicalisation which British imperialist racialism is fomenting among black workers.
We say that Black Power is a partial demand and for marxists this can have two edges,
In the catering trade the demand for a 40-hour week would be important to mobilise and organise the workers, but in the civil service this demand would be useless. In other words the relevance of partial demands is determined by the stage of the struggle at which they are advanced. Not only that, but they must be related to the ability of revolutionaries to participate in and lead struggles around them, and so change the consciousness of the workers involved. This is the essence of transitional demands. And this is why Trotsky suggested support for the setting up of black breakaway states in the United States. But, and he made this very very clear comrade Howard, only if the mass of the black people desired this; and as part of a campaign to mobilise black people in struggle against U.S. capitalism.
Can we ask Nick Howard two questions?
1) Do you support workers' control? Are you [illegible] that the German bourgeoisie once constitutionalised workers' councils? In order to immobilise a mass movement which had spawned them, [illegible] course, but does that make the demand for workers' control a "dangerous" slogan in Britain? Of course not, and yet this is a partial demand since it does not in isolation pose the question of the workers taking power.
2) What was your attitude to the Black Power militants when they took over CARD? Did you support the ousted white liberals who have been incapable of stemming the tide of racialism in Britain? Or did you support the black militants, who with all their red book waving and dramatic statements really want to kick racism in the guts? Or did you support the people who were instrumental [in] getting the legislation passed which put Michael Abdul Malik in gaol and allows Colin Jordan to carry on his activities? Or were you neutral? Did you stand aloof from this melee? If you did, our charge of sectarianism would be confirmed because this happens to be where the struggle to build an anti-racist organisation is taking place. In fact, we have the impression that IS was happy when the black militants won that fight,
It was inevitable that the Black Power issue would cause a deep discussion among marxists, and comrade Howard's letter is a healthy and legitimate part of this.
Not so Mr. Bidwell's letter, With impatience not unmixed with intolerance, and with self-assurance not unmixed with arrogance, he berates "Black Power bunk",
He has the gall to presume to lecture us on marxism; [a] single example will show how far he is from the philosophy of marxism.
In a letter which Marx wrote in 1870, he refers to the antagonism between British workers and Irish immigrants, and analyses how this was the product of British imperialist domination of Ireland. In a lucid sentence he says: "This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class...." What is his programme of action? "Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. And it is the special task of the Central Council in London to awaken a consciousness in the English workers that for them the national emancipation of Ireland.... is the first condition for their own emancipation", How does Mr. Bidwell see the problem? Black Power, he says, "...makes the work of convincing.... white workers in Britain that skin pigment has nothing to do with human values, all that much harder."
How inconvenient! Instead of remaining respectably quiet in the face of mounting racism, and relying on Mr. Bidwell to soothe the lumpen scum who follow Powell, the black workers are organising movements of those they know they can rely upon: themselves.
Their crime, you see, is their talk of "white monkey" which gets white workers "thinking of black monkeys". In this paragraph is contained all the cowardice, chauvinism and bigotry which has marred the workers movement in Britain - it is not the British workers' fault that they are racist, we are told, if the black workers would act modestly all would be well. One question, Mr. Bidwell: who started it? You know quite well that the growth of the Black Power idea has been in proportion and reaction to the growth of racism in Britain.
If Marx had employed this method he would have denounced the United Irishmen and the Fenians, and since he was always more consistent than Mr. Bidwell, he would have called for the deportation of the Irish.
Typical of Mr. Bidwell's arrogance is his postscript demanding to know the location of the black workers when he was leading a march against racism. Why should the black militants follow such a man? What has he to offer? What has he done to help organise in Southall?
By their absence, the black militants gave the most lucid answer possible.