Riot, black worker and white worker, class and racism

English translation of Noi non abbiamo patria‘s text about recent debate regarding the George Floyd uprising from the book Riots! George Floyd Rebellion 2020. Fatti, testimonianze e riflessioni edited by Calusca City Lights and comrades and published by Edizioni Colibrì.

Italian original text Riot, operaio nero e operaio bianco, classe e razzismo – December 15th 2021

In September 2021 Calusca City Lights (Primo Moroni Archive) and created an editorial project presenting a collection of unpublished texts from the United States as testimonies and reflections on the uprising movement that has given itself in the name of George Floyd in 2020 .

The book collection is titled Riots! George Floyd Rebellion 2020. Facts, testimonies and reflections published by Edizioni Colibrì.

The work is truly precious, because too little has been reflected and too often badly about the events that have inflamed the United States of America in more than 100 cities since the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 (in the major cities, large suburbs and up to the smallest rural counties and exurbs) and have seen the deployment of the National Guard in more than 30 cities, the military usage of the federal police and the DHS forces, the active mobilization of large social sectors in defense of white supremacy, the police and private property threatened by mass riots. The witnessed and reflected facts proposed by this editorial work of collection throw a glimpse into the “real movement that abolishes the present state of thing” that looks forward to the future, which, as far as this blog believes, it tests the revolutionary theory of past inherited from the various interpretations of “Marx-thought” especially on racism, slavery and the relationship between black and white proletariat.

The work in subject has been publicized through a series of debate initiatives between September 22th and 24th (in Turin at the Edera squat, at the San Didero Presidium and in Milan at the CSOA Cox18) where, in addition to the presentation of the published material there was the contribution of the comrades of the International Vitalist – Rome section which had already produced since the end of 2020 a rich chronological and political reconstruction in digital format of the main events of the uprising for the Italian insurgents.

That the black rebellion or black revolution is a current fact of the modern class struggle underestimated in its entirety and in its historical process, it is Marx himself who confirms this lack in a letter to Engels in the 1860:

..In my opinion, the most important thing that is happening in the world today is the slave movement – on the one hand, in America, which began with the death of [John] Brown, and in Russia, on the other [regarding reform on serfdom]… I just saw in the Tribune that there was another slave revolt in Missouri, which was put down, needless to say. But now the signal has been given.

What happened in the summer of 2020 is the revival of those ancient scenarios but in a context of the development of the most advanced capitalist accumulation, enveloped by a general crisis of the system and global accumulation of the capitalist mode of production, therefore more incendiary to the mass scale today. The George Floyd Rebellion testifies to this turning point that is foreshadowed on the horizon, precisely because it saw a mass participation of non-black and white young proletarians. Not only at “peaceful marches”, but above all in the most heated moments of the uprising, during riots and looting, joining the assaults to the police departments, correctional institutions and Immigration and Customs Enforcement buildings, in the devastation of those commodity cathedrals where the production of surplus value is realized in profit and where a new proletarian youth (black, white and Latin) is subjected as chronic precariat to this general chain of D-M-D* and M-D-M circulation which is characteristic of capitalism. A scenario where the white ally (by de facto for utilitarianism) of the black struggle becomes an accomplice by sharing the risks (and the legal and extra legal repression consequences) in the rebellion of the black proletariat that has always characterized the social conflict in the United States of America since its foundation.

In fact it was an anti-racist revolt with a proletarian signs, where in the long months from the end of May to the end of October 2020 the forces of capital had to resort to the pacifying role of the black middle class and its leadership to contain this sudden insurgency of mestizo and multiracial characteristics. For weeks, whenever the self-activity of the black proletariat took over the formal avant-gardes by magnetizing the complicit action of a variegated white youth proletariat, we heard the black leaderships (old and new) of the BLM(tm) petty bourgeoisie shouting against the BIPOC proletarians that in Seattle and Portland a white comedy was staged, while in practice we witnessed – albeit without any program and an organized “conscious” avant-garde (??) – the realization in a generalized momentum the expectations of Fred Hampton, of the Black Panther Party, or of the League of Revolutionary Black Workers and its black workers committees in the Detroit auto industry of the late 1960s and 1970s. A momentum happening into the streets in the name of George Floyd now. A momentum shaped by a capitalist geography totally different from the past, where over the years the waterline to the capitalist crisis has smashed the factory of large industry and the North American and Western proletarian urban context, that has been definitively cannibalized by the modern production of goods and services, by gentrification, by the new urban architectures and finally by the relocation of core factories.

Sandro Moiso has published a valuable review of this editorial work of collection of texts, testimonies and reflections produced within the context of this movement of 2020 which appeared on Carmilla and on the sinistrainrete, in which he tries to highlight precisely the character proletarian and multiracial contained into these events, taking up an “interrupted” theoretical thread on what concerns the question of slavery and racism from a class point of view.

The theoretical interpretation of Marx thought by post-Marx leftists and of the historical workers’ movement in synthesis has based its approach on two basic axes:

  • The exploitation form of the workforce through the slave regime is resolved by the development of capitalist accumulation by generalizing the form of wage workforce to the mass scale;
  • Racism is resolved inside the proletarian class struggle because in fact the surplus value exploitation does not know any distinction of color, race, nation and religion.

Comrade Moiso attempts to step forward this reductionist simplification entirely from the prophetic “unitary class struggle” of all proletarians beyond color and race (an approach historically criticized by the black liberation movements within the long historical cycle of struggles of blacks). In fact, the risk of the repeating slipping into this limit, emphasized by black militant generations, is not at all simple for the white revolutionary communists.

With regard to slavery, it should be said that the substance of capitalism does not reside in the private ownership of the capital, of the land, of the tools of labor and of its product as a juridical form. Already Marx made it clear that the juridical form of the private property was an irrelevant aspect and that the historical process of the capitalist mode of production was already in place at his time. A process where the physical personal of the capitalistic ownership is replaced by the movement of the capitalist mode of production as an impersonal economic agent forces. The same thing concerns the disappearance of the legal and social form of slavery, for which the substance of the regime of exploitation of the workforce does not change even when its juridical form of the ownership of the mobile labor force commodity disappears with the slavery regime. On the contrary, the subsequent development and up to now has extended the slavery to the mass scale and to the global scale of the market alongside the other forms of exploitation of the workforce, the forced labor and the majority form of the waged labor. The slave regime on the plantation has not been characterized by the physical features of the chain around the worker neck or ankles (which are at most a technical and legal instrument of property ownership and the exercise of the violent submission to agricultural work), but by a set of social and economic relations that forced the men kidnapped with violence from their African origin countries to the territory of the plantation and to beastly shifts of up to 18 hours per day in the intensive cultivation of cotton. Man under the slavery regime was unable to leave the plantation between the times of sowing and the harvesting, remaining to live in nearby shacks and on the verge of survival. Its market price was calculated according to the depreciation costs according to the consumption of the man machine, i.e. on the basis of its life expectancy (an average between 7 and 10 years of work in the agricultural fields), therefore a workforce valued as capital fixed tool economically managed by accounting depreciation, but with the ability to unleash an enormous amount of extra plus value work. If the slave ran away he was a fugitive hunted by the forces of the sheriffs, precursors of the modern police forces of the states, because it was established by a bourgeois law regime that recognized the ownership of man over another man obtained by violence (like any other instrument of production after all) and therefore by an economic ownership relationship that prevented the latter from bargaining the price of his labor power on the free wage market.

Now it would seem that the slavery regime no longer exists within the capitalist market, if anything it survives only as a legacy of the past and of a degrading and backward economic ethics in sporadic islands of underdeveloped markets. On the other hand, the capitalist economic substance is another. Let’s look at the substance, for example, of the Italian plantation and of modern capitalist agricultural enterprises in its overall chain of global agro business. We have millions of immigrant laborers from different countries and continents employed. They are no longer kidnapped through violent and armed mass hunting and round-up operations, taken in chains to Europe, North America or the most industrialized countries of Asia, the mechanism of financial robbery is enough to attract them through a constrained forced process and directed by the circuits of financial plunder. On the other hand, there is an irregular market for men within the immigration circuit, just as the black trafficking continued for decades in an illegal manner despite the fact that Britain abolished the slave trade by law in 1807.

But in the previous centuries and beyond the mid-nineteenth century this market was financed through the capital anticipation of various bankers and industry masters, today it is financed directly by the sacrifice of the indigenous exploited communities. What a huge savings for modern slavers (and good business for many NGO).

Is this damned humanity forced to its destination then let be free to move in the territory where they emigrated and to bargain freely on the market for their workforce? Can they leave the modern plantation once the time of sowing and the time of harvesting are over? No, they do not have the possibility to do so and it does not take a chain around their neck to nail them to their condition of super exploitation. Most of them remain in the capitalist plantation continuing to live in the shacks near the agricultural fields at the limit of survival conditions, as was the case in the plantations of the southern states of the United States of America and at the former colonies. Submission to the slave regime is achieved through a new institutional form of law and control that does not change the substance of the economic structure and social relations and capitalist relationship: the immigrant laborer does not have a stay resident permit, a document which guarantees freedom of movement and therefore the possibility of becoming a wage worker who can make use of the bargaining of his wages on the market. If he leaves the modern plantation he is like the eighteenth and nineteenth century fugitive hunted by United States sheriffs. He is a contemporary fugitive stowaway hunted by the modern police regime and then subjected to restraint places called CPR or ICE camps (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Massed in boats, the migrant ship remains anchored off the coast for weeks, there are no chains at the ankles and wrists but the boat is surrounded by an armed naval cordon. These mechanisms are the modern technique of ownership and control of slave production imposed to the new slaves, like the whip and restraint with the chain around the neck and prolonged regimes of bread and water used against ancient slaves. The police regime of control and restraint of bodies are a warning to the immigrant in case he want to try the path for better fortune by abandoning the regime of slavery, escaping from the modern plantation of capitalistically advanced agricultural enterprises. The restraint ships and the CPR then carry out the re-education to the social discipline of the captured fugitive, a re-education that’s based on forced psychotropic drugs usage, physical and psychological violence (painful as the whip of the past). If the fugitive, despite everything, still does not yield to the discipline of slavery, then the old-fashioned steel chain is triggered and finally the death penalty arrives, as recently it happened to the young Tunisian Abdel Latif first locked up in the Ponte Galeria CPR, then transferred to the psychiatry ward of the San Camillo Forlanini state hospital, where he was kept tied to the containment bed for over three days and then he was found dead.

The immigrant, characterized by modern sociology with the noun migrant, is such only in the repetition of the circle of immigration – slave regime – expulsion – immigration from one country to another or in the same country of destination.

This should be enough to demonstrate the error of analysis of the capitalist mode of production (where certainly the form of wage labor is the most widespread) which would supplant slavery. Labor under the slave regime does not only remain here and there sporadically, but it has expanded to the global mass scale even more than before in its economic substance and capital relations, because it is capitalism itself which is founded – functionalizing it – on slavery. If this is true, then Marx’s warning to the American labor movement of 1867 and to the whole international labor movement is true as well, that the question of slavery and racism is not addressed by the workers’ movement, the workers’ movement will be politically null in spite of its organizations.

Moiso’s writing comments of the editorial work edited by Calusca and comrades lends itself to this slipping – despite himself – around the erroneous axioms underlying the historical wrong interpretations of “Marx-thought” mentioned above, starting with its title: Universal Class or Nationalistic identity?

Starting from the correct observation that the George Floyd Rebellion temporarily resolved towards reform and not revolution due to the pressure of the concentric attack made by the repression of the state (to which it did not yield due to the unitary courage of the proletarians of color, to which white, Latin and even white proletarians were added as never before in history of Asian origin), of the armed supremacist social forces of the middle class (according to the shared understanding that the concept of middle class also represents a portion of the workers included in the American dream of the white and now more colorful suburbs) and of the counter-insurgency of the great liberal capital through the sectors of the black middle class (as reported by the many writings in the collection, as well as others translated by and by Noi non abbiamo patria – Idris Robinson, Shemon & Arturo, the young black Californian Kandist Mallet and other more or less anonymous contributions appeared on Ill Will, CrimeThinc, The Brooklyn Rail, It’s Going Down, etc.), comrade Moiso risks ending up in a dual re-edition of the two terms of the relationship between the universal class struggle for communism or the abolitionist and anti-racist identity struggle. Basically from a correct premise, drawing the balance of the experience the Moiso’s comment ends up again in the reaffirmation of the class reductionism of the issue of racial oppression.

While he makes references to Bordiga and an early Camatte (including that of Invariance) that tend against this reductionism by highlighting the radicalism of the struggle of blacks in general, the subsequent reference to Mattick Jr. and his article Happy Days (which appeared on the Brooklyn Rail on November 8, 2020 as an analytical comment on the electoral outcome of the US presidential elections) conclude with the opposite intent. Basically, what could we conclude from Paul Mattick Jr.’s electoral and non-conflict analysis?

That everything revolves around the struggle of the white working class and how it positions itself, that the struggle of blacks when identifying can only be conservative and in the wake of reform and at the tail of the black bourgeois middle classes in search of greater integration or defense of positions conquered. In essence, the class struggle would be other than what produced by the rebellion for the killing of George Floyd, so much so that “… Having seen that the magnificent, strong response produced little more than increased Black representation in advertising, people understandably wearied of daily fights against the forces of law and order, and many hoped that a politician or two would do something significant for us. .. ”(Paul Mattick – Happy Days – November 8, 2020 on the Brooklyn Rail). In short, to follow the young Mattick the uprising has been a little stuff.

It is a truly “original” way to recognize the value of the experience of this anti-racist uprising of the mestizo proletariat, theoretically reconfirming that there is in practice this antithesis between class struggle and anti-racist struggle and that the latter can only make the black bourgeoisie fat. The difference, however, between class struggle and anti-racist struggle indeed exists, but itself is the material determination in the heads and bodies of white workers and in their awe and protection of their white capitalist privilege over blacks.

The thesis that is profoundly wrong then concerns that the unitary struggle of the working class, through its practical action, would nullify the elements of racial division between black and white workers. According to this interpretation, capitalist accumulation does not distinguish between surplus value extorted from white and that extorted from black, and since it is the black proletarian who is most urged to fight in a radical way against exploitation, the communist of the (mis) interpreted Marx he insists on indicating to the black worker that he must abandon his abolitionist and identity struggle which alone can only lead him to the tail of the black bourgeoisie. But when will the revolutionary communist do the same with the same stubbornness towards the white worker with respect to his suprematism and his whiteness regarding his immediate life issues?

Meanwhile, the revolutionaries and communists continually fail to give an answer to this subject, many of them make a rhetorical usage of the Fred Hampton and about the experiences of the Black Panther Party had understood, trying to get rid of the identity clothes and take on the proletarian ones tout court according to the dogma that “the black worker must turn towards the white workers”. But they forget that Fred and others were blacks speaking to blacks!

And they still do not see that in the George Floyd Rebellion the spring that triggered the white proletarians was not only the product of the capitalist crisis that is making creak the material foundations of their whiteness, but precisely it has been the radical identity response against systemic racism of the police (which essentially goes beyond the heads of the proletarian protagonists in the riots, overcoming all the issues of leadership and avant-garde, of formal party and program, of reform and superstructure) to act as a powerful magnet.

Noel Ignatin (Ignatiev) was already reasoning and trying to reason about the complete fallacy of the Leninist declination of the “What is to be done?” common class interest makes all distinctions on color disappear by resolving the question of the division between black and white proletarians and the racism of whites. Because the struggle of blacks against “racist injustice” puts the privilege of the white worker to the test and immediately conflicts practically with the consolidated strategy based on the unity of the class: and here “problems arise“.

Here are some excerpts from his famous Portland’s speech “Black worker, white worker” which is considered a sort of manifesto of the “traitor of the white race” (as Ferruccio Gambino explains Ferruccio in his article commemorating his friend Noel “At the origins of the betrayal of the white race“) by the most radical currents of the black revolution, black liberation and part of the past and contemporary black Marxism tradition.

“A common approach to the problem posed above is that of the white radical who goes into a shop which has a typical pattern of discrimination against Black workers. Instead of directly taking up that issue and attempting to build a struggle for equality, he looks for some issue, like speedup, which affects all workers to one degree or another. He aims to develop a struggle around this issue, to involve all the workers in the struggle. He hopes that in the course of the struggle the white workers, through contact with Blacks, will lose their attitudes of racial superiority. This is the approach to the problem of unifying the working class which prevails within the radical movement today.

I don’t think it works. History shows it doesn’t work. The result of this sort of false unity always leaves the Black worker still on the bottom. It always seems to be the demand for racial equality, the last one on the list, that is sacrificed in order to reach a settlement and celebrate the “great victory” of the struggle.

Present-day unions are, to a considerable extent, the end product of this sort of approach. It is Black and white together on the picket line, and after the strike is over the white workers return to the skilled trades, the machining departments and the cleaner assembly areas, and the Black workers return to the labor gang and the open hearth. Every “victory” of this kind feeds the poison of racism and pushes further off the real unity of the working class which must be established if significant progress is to be made.

There is no way to overcome the national and racial divisions within the working class except by directly confronting them. The problem of white supremacy must be fought out openly within the working class… The first point is that, for revolutionary strategists, the key problem is not the racism of the employing class, but the racism of the white worker. (After all, the boss’s racism is natural to him because it serves his class interests.) It is the support by white workers for the employers’ racial policies which represents the chief obstacle to all social progress in this country, including revolution…”

Here in a country that does not include a multi-ethnic citizenship based on jus soli, but it sees a decisive presence of immigrant workers who also organize themselves in self-organized and conflictual unions, the fact that some basic unions are mostly immigrants makes no difference. That union remains essentially white towards immigrants who suffer worst “the injustice of the stay residence permit” denied, while it is not sufficiently white towards indigenous workers of other categories. The predominantly immigrant union will continue to chase the white worker by putting the injustice towards immigrants, immigrant workers without any guarantee and above all not putting the fight against the social slavery regime to which most are subjected at the center of the union struggle. In pursuit of unitary strategies towards white workers, one falls into those continually poisoned baits of which Ignatin clarifies, fueled by the real division that capitalist relations determine between workers, but also among immigrants, between those who have a regular stay permit and the shelter of their own union integration and those who have to invent the life every day through expedients or work as workers employed in forced labor or under the new form of the slave regime in the countryside or in other branches of the production of goods and services, and not as regular wage earners. When they are then thrown into the market of arms in new branches of production (escaped as fugitives from contemporary agribusiness plantations) where there are combative and organized workers, they are viewed with suspicion by the best guaranteed as potential scabs and sometimes by the other immigrant workers as well.

Radical class syndicalism will not mend the distance of the black worker to the white worker, if the black worker who animates the workers’ organizations renounces its identity character and stops to put at the center the system of racist injustice of capitalism. Without this reconnection, the proletariat in general will hit back and remain under capitalist rule. Furthermore, although a group of black workers who organize themselves into a radical union – as in the concrete examples given by Ignatin about the Electric Workers Union – want to try to polish their identity traits in order to win the solidarity of wider layer of white workers, it in the eyes of the white worker it will always remain an all too black union and the fighting energies of the colored ones inevitably end up dispersed in an empty concertative syndicalism. Ignatin adds:

“… Now I must tie together the two lines of argument I have been pursuing so far, and pose the question — where does the Black struggle fit into all this? Please note: by Black struggle I mean the autonomous Black movement…

In the third place, the autonomous movement of Black people poses a constant challenge to white workers to, in the words of C. L. R. James, “take the steps which will enable the working people to fulfill their historic destiny of building a society free of the domination of one class or one race over another.” The Black movement poses a challenge, not merely to white workers in general, but to those white intellectuals, workers or not, who regard themselves as in some sense radical or revolutionary. This is a challenge which, in the past, they have generally not lived up to. This challenge is not something limited to history either; it continually comes up, in new ways as well as old ones… The answer is that the system of white-skin privileges, while it is undeniably real, is not in the interests of white workers as part of a class which aims at transforming society to its roots. The acceptance of a favored status by white workers binds them to wage slavery, makes them subordinate to the capitalist class. The repudiation, that is, the active rejection, through struggle, of this favored status is the precondition for the participation by white workers in the struggle of workers as a distinct social class. A metaphor which has been used in the past, and which I still find appropriate, is that white-skin privileges are poison bait, a worm with a hook in it. To be willing to leap from the water to exert the most determined and violent efforts to throw off the hook and the worm is the only way to avoid landing on the dinner table…“

Thus by pointing to black identitarianism as a problem for class unity (because it would not demarcate blacks between black proletarians and black bourgeois), one is in fact ideologically succumbing to desertion from the struggle of white workers against their own white privilege that the way of capitalist production determines.

But it will be precisely, on the contrary, the radical force of a powerful movement – which cannot be to be identifying as well – of blacks that will act as a magnet for the white proletariat as the George Floyd Rebellion has shown. Who stubbornly tries to cling to the rope of Leninism and “What is to be done?” it’s like the castaway trying to grab a life preserver adrift and in a stormy sea, but the life jacket has an hole in it.

Ignatin still insists:

“…Today the Black movement represents an alternative to the dominant mode of life in our country, in the same way the CIO represented an alternative to the old way of life in the factory. The relations which Black people, especially Black workers, have established among themselves, and the culture which has arisen out of their struggle, represent a model for a new society. The Black movement exercises a powerful attraction on all those who come into contact with it…

The rise in general working-class militancy, observed by everyone in the last few years, is directly traceable to the influence of Black workers, who are generally recognized by all, including white workers, as the most militant and combative group of workers when it comes to taking on the company. The Black workers are drawing on the experience they have gained in their struggle for national freedom, and are beginning to transmit the lessons of that struggle to the white workers with whom they come in contact…

Beginning in 1955 with the Montgomery bus boycott, when an entire city organized its own system of transportation as well as of public discussion and decision-making through the direct participation of thousands of people, the Black movement has created a new concept of citizenship and community. Continuing through the sitins, freedom rides, mass marches and urban rebellions, the Black movement has given new meaning to politics, and helped the American people in general to rediscover their tradition of self-organization and revolt. Many examples of this phenomenon could be cited from the only community in this country whose members greet each other as brother and sister. But the point is made: in spite of all the obstacles placed in its way, the Black movement, expressed in the patterns of life arising from struggle, represents a powerful magnetic pole to vast numbers of workers looking for a way out of the mess which is modern life… Everybody in the movement is opposed to racism, everybody chants the litany that racism is the greatest barrier to class unity. Every group puts out propaganda against racism and sincerely strives to win the workers to the struggle against it. But what about those cases where the struggle of Black workers and Black people against racial discrimination appears to conflict with the desire to unify the largest possible number of workers behind what are called “general class demands”? For example, as sometimes happens, when the aggressiveness of Black workers in pursuing their fight for equality tends to alienate white workers who might be willing to join with them in common efforts to achieve some reform of immediate and direct benefit to both groups? Then the trouble begins. And we must admit that some left-wing groups, especially those dominated by whites, are all too willing to set aside the special demands of the Black struggle…”

In the whole speech Noel gives concrete and precise examples of how the revolutionary groups that relate to the struggle of black workers lead them to disperse their energies towards the white worker in those unifying issues, where, in search of the highest common denominator, the identity question, racism (or stay residence permit document) remains in the background or disappears altogether, and with it the fight against the new slavery disappears as well.

In this sense, the written Black worker, white worker is a theoretical condensation of practical experiences about the needs for criticism of the poisoned bait insisting on the real and material relationship between white worker and his privilege and black worker to which it is the first to be nailed and its consequence is the political nullity of its struggle and that of the general mestizo proletariat as a whole. In essence, the negative contradiction according to the binary synthesis Universal Class or Nationalistic Identity movement should be reformulated into Universal Class or White Worker supremacism, highlighting the open struggle against worker racism as a capitalist element, a necessary struggle to which the radical and independent historical movement of blacks and of black workers, it may be able – under certain conditions – to insert itself as a magnetic lever in the crunch of whiteness of the white worker.

Leaving aside the critique that could vulgarly be addressed to this frank and notable contribution by Noel Ignatin, as a re-edition of a certain subjectivism of the centrality of the black proletariat over the white one, Noel’s speech offers more than a reflection on the recent past, which we can verify with hand in contemporary today up to alternative and conflictual class syndicalism, which confirms what Marx and Engels said they were completely wrong about Ireland and about the Irish proletariat and the fact that the English working class would not have done nothing and would have remained at the tail of the liberal bourgeoisie despite its organizations (including international ones): we would have to leverage from Ireland!

So it is still today with regard to the question of the identity struggle of exploited blacks and black workers, immigrants and immigrant workers, it does not place an opposing choice between the terrain of the “unifying class” struggle and the anti-racist, identity struggle, etc. The historical workers’ movement that set itself in this way by opting for the first terrain only inevitably (by capital force) went straight to the wreck (and it still repeats today in its attempts to reaffirm it), instead of bringing out the revolutionary necessity of the alternative between capitalism and communism.

Noel does not hide the fact that the path he proposes is really longer and more difficult.

Fortunately, the spring and summer 2020 showed us that it is possible. In the background there is the main screenwriter and the primary agent factor (beyond any avant-garde and program effort or will) which is precisely the course of the capitalist crisis that determines those premises of the crunch of white supremacism of the white worker; albeit in a complex and tortuous way around the black identity movement an increasing number of young whites took the same courage as the many black Jamil or Keisha. The pieces of the puzzle are falling out of order on the table. The powerful precipitation is this new and unprecedented black insurgency without leadership other than the insurgency itself, that will surpass the paucity of the revolutionaries of the given moment. As the class rebels, abolitionists and identitarians of the new composing proletarian monster say in the streets of the States: Be Water!


Questo sito usa Akismet per ridurre lo spam. Scopri come i tuoi dati vengono elaborati.