Lorenzo Komboa Ervin’s Errors On Political Line, Skin Color, And Material
Conditions

By a RAIL Comrade

In an essay titled “Authoritarian Leftists: KILL THE COP IN YOUR HEAD! The
Struggle against Fascism begins with the Struggle Against Left-wing White
Supremacy!,” anarchist Lorenzo Komboa Ervin attempts to lay down an
explanation of what he calls “left-wing white supremacy.” Though often
muddled, some of the general thrust of this concept is something we can
agree with wholeheartedly. For example, Ervin makes it clear that white
paternalism is a chauvinistic practice that effectively denies
self-determination of an oppressed nation. Here we have no argument.

Ervin also points out that the Black Revolution “will be finished
successfully when we as a people, as working-class Blacks on the North
American continent, decide that we have achieved full freedom…” Here again
we agree--self-determination of oppressed people is non-negotiable. For some
reason however, though Ervin correctly points out the necessity of oppressed
nations to lay out the terms for their struggle without white so-called
“leftists” dictating to them, he draws the wholly incorrect conclusion that
“our struggle is parallel to yours, but at the same time very specific…”
Here we find that though Lorenzo Ervin can see the non-, and often
anti-revolutionary politics of white “leftists,” he draws no conclusion
about the material basis for white chauvinism; effectively giving in to the
“false consciousness” argument we hear every time we turn around.

One of the most bizarre and completely un-scientific aspects of this
essay/tirade, is that Ervin makes blanket statements about white “leftists”
while hardly mentioning that skin color is not what determines political
line. Interestingly enough, he gives credit to some white anarchists and
“anti-authoritarians,” while lumping all Marxists who happen to be white
into one category. Of course generalizations are necessary, and we
constantly use generalizations- it’s a must to analyze classes and nations
instead of individuals. Perhaps that is why this essay ends up so backwards.
That is, because of the fact that Ervin puts more emphasis on individual
white “Marxists” or even individual white “leftist” organizations than he
does on a class analysis of the white nation, he ends up criticizing these
people and parties entrenched in the far reaches of labor aristocracy
politics without explaining the material conditions that determine their
line.

So which way forward? If the Black Nation’s struggle is essentially the same
as the white so-called working class's, than it would make sense that by now
the chauvinism of white “lefts” would be eroding, or at least showing some
signs of lessening. If the “false consciousness” argument were all there was
to it, white people could be convinced through exchanging ideas.
Unfortunately this isn’t the case because the material basis for this
antagonism is not at all eroding. The white nation is a giant parasite,
living off the labor of the oppressed nations of the world via Amerikan
imperialism. While it is correct to attempt to organize white
revolutionaries against imperialism, that doesn’t mean we should tell them
fairytales about “their struggle,” because their struggle is for more
super-profit pie. And unless we understand that, we will continue to yell at
white so-called “leftists” to change without at the same time yelling at
them to give up putting forward the demands of their nation. Only through a
correct analysis of class and nation within Amerikan borders can we really
win anti-imperialist whites over to the side of the oppressed nations.

Lorenzo Ervin has some unkind words for white pseudo-revolutionaries, but
his essay essentially boils down to advocating the same thing it would seem
he is against--a false unity based on a mythical “common struggle.” The
unity he seeks will never materialize as long as people like Lorenzo yell at
labor aristocracy revisionists one minute and coddle them and tell them
bedtime stories about their own oppression the next.

Because Ervin assumes that which he does not and cannot prove, he comes to
the often-heard criticism that MIM must be “an all white/all student” group
–-or cult as he prefers. What can we call this but unprincipled slander?
Aside from the obvious fact that MIM does not make public the nationality
and age of its comrades, we are back to the same question of political line
over the color of skin of comrades. We know that Lorenzo does not advocate
racial hatred for whites, nor does he tell whites not to be revolutionaries.
But this begs the question, why should it matter what color MIM comrades
are? If MIM were two 12 year-old white males this would in no way make MIM’s
political line incorrect. As MIM is forced to point out from time to time,
2+2=4 no matter who says it.

Finally, on the last point of criticism of MIM, we see that Ervin just has
not done his homework. He claims that MIM advocates whites' leading
non-whites. In fact it is MIM who consistently puts forward the correct
position that self-determination is the right of all oppressed nations. The
logical outcome of this line is the right for oppressed nation comrades to
organize their own separate vanguard parties. MIM does in fact support
oppressed nation single-nationality vanguard parties and realizes their
necessity in different periods of struggle. See for example The National
Question and Separate Vanguard Parties
(http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mt/mt7separ.html).

Does this mean we should defer to any all Black or all Puerto Rican etc
grouping because it tells us it is the vanguard? A vanguard is simply the
most scientifically advanced force of the proletariat in a given nation or
country. As scientific communists we cannot just take a self-proclaimed
vanguard at face value. A vanguard must show that it is the most
scientifically advanced: otherwise all Lorenzo is left with is an all Black
group that because of the fact that it is all Black must for some reason be
more advanced than MIM.

Further proof of Ervin’s inability to link the material conditions of the
labor aristocracy to white chauvinism can be seen in his near verbatim
recitation of the infamous “racism hurts white workers” theory--a theory
which is understandable at the beginning of the 20th century, but completely
unacceptable now. Says Lorenzo, “the primary contradiction within the
working class is that of racial stratification as a class weapon of the
bourgeoisie and capitalists against the working class as a whole.”

Several points must be addressed to fully comprehend the erroneous ideas
just stated. For starters we are hearing about “the working class” and “the
working class as a whole,” as if nation just disappeared. This is hardly
distinguishable from the most paternalistic white “lefts” such as the
Trotskyists and Neo-Trotskyists who also tell us fables about one working
class. Further, just as the Trots do, Lorenzo informs us that in fact the
“stratification” of “the working class” hurts the white workers… It cannot
be hurting them that much seeing as they are paid more than the value of
their labor power! (mim3@mim.org for MIM adds: Of course there are negative aspects of national
oppression that will backfire on oppressor nations. Oppressing Palestinians
and Arabs generally leads to counter-attacks for example, but such counter-attacks
which expose the whole world to self-annihilation apply to the rest of the white bourgeoisie
as well as the white "workers." As "workers," whites are not being hurt by
their racism/chauvinism. They are being hurt as people, a species trying to survive.)

Interestingly enough Lorenzo Komboa Ervin completely contradicts himself in
the same essay in saying: “Some of the more backward sections of the white
left still push that old tired line 'gay, straight, Black, white, same
struggle-same fight!' Nothing can be further from the truth.” We now find
Ervin in a situation Houdini could not escape from. If we are not talking
about the same struggle for white workers and non-white workers (and other
classes in the oppressed nations) then how could these struggles be
parallel? The only thing the present author can come up with is that
possibly Lorenzo means a common struggle against “authoritarianism” and the
state? If he does however, nowhere does he say so, and his recital of the
“racism hurts white workers” thesis would suggest he is simply in
contradiction with his own positions. For purposes of clarification, we look
forward to Ervin's putting forth in a concise manner whether or not he thinks
whites are exploited.

“You people have yet to show me the qualitative difference(s) between a
Klan/Nazi- style white supremacist dictatorship and your concept of a
'dictatorship of the proletariat' in the context of this particular country
and its notorious history.” In some ways this statement finds us in
agreement. That is it correctly recognizes that rule by the white working
class will not be socialism nor a dictatorship of the proletariat. Also,
that a dictatorship of the white labor aristocracy would possibly be more
brutal to the internal semi-colonies than the current regime is.

However, we have a serious problem with this passage in its context because
not only do we know for sure that Lorenzo is aware of MIM, but he actually
mentions MIM in the same essay! Thus if Lorenzo wanted to be honest, he
would have to admit that MIM has a position in direct contradiction to the
line he is against. It is MIM who calls for a dictatorship of the
international proletariat to rule the white nation. It is MIM who says
clearly and unequivocally that the white nation will need a period of
re-civilization before it can be part of a productive international society.
And it is MIM who supports self-determination for the Black nation and other
internal oppressed nations.

Thus there is no question of MIM coming to power and being the dictatorship
of the white so-called working class. If the Black nation chooses a separate
state, it must have a separate state--one of the most obvious principles of
the right to self-determination of nations. If Ervin bothered to put forward
an analysis of the material conditions of the white nation he would know
that “a Klan/Nazi- style white supremacist dictatorship” is the farthest
thing from the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is a matter of clearly
defining what is and what is not a proletariat in the first place.

Finally, Lorenzo Komboa Ervin tells white leftists to “Reject the traditions
of your ancestors and learn from their mistakes; or reject your potential
allies in communities of color. The choice is yours...”

This is partially correct. We at MIM and RAIL call on whites to commit
class, nation and gender suicide and join the ranks of the revolutionaries
supporting oppressed people. But on the other hand, we don’t tell white
people that unless they “play nicer” and end their paternalism they will
lose “potential allies.” This is because we do not want to create a
situation where white revisionists can use oppressed nation people for their
own interests.

More, we cannot talk about traditions and the “mistakes” of whites unless it
is in the context of a thorough and scientific class analysis. Even more, we
wonder what is classified as mistakes? Unless Ervin has not heard of Sakai’s
Settler’s: The Mythology of the White Proletariat, we can see no reason to
think the white nation’s historical reactionary behavior in general and the
white so-called worker’s historical reactionary behavior in particular was
mistake. Marx pointed out that being determines consciousness, and not the
other way around.





Notes:

To read Lorenzo Komboa Ervin’s essay see
http://www.infoshop.org/texts/auth_leftists.html

1. We should point out that Ervin makes no concrete criticism of our article
on the Million Man March
(http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mn/mn.php?issue=106). He simply engages
in slander tactics. Further, our citation of the Washington Post was in
reference to a poll, which was used to illustrate the fact that a large
portion of the crowd was petty bourgeois. Ervin writes angrily about any
comment that a lot of marchers were petty bourgeois, but nowhere shows proof
that we were incorrect in our assessment of the class of  some marchers.

(mim3@mim.org add for MIM: removing the cops inside our heads means not indulging in 
"who is this, who is that" individualism on questions of line. It is cops who
want the age, race, names etc. of people in organizations they are spying on
in order to divide them. It is the proletariat that benefits from focussing on 
advancing its thinking.)