🧵: Race is commonly used to soothe the angst caused by the void of positive determination, but it can never fill it because Race is just as much a negation of concrete humanity as the bourgeois formalism of universal equality.
The modern concept of Race has its origins in the Atlantic slave trade, with Blackness developing as a retroactive justification for the profitable act of ripping people from their homelands and turning them into cattle.
The utility of dehumanization gave rise to its ideology.
The diverse nations and tribes of West Africa, with their many languages, religions, and traditions, were severed from their history and reduced to a universal abstraction derived from the passive trait of skin color.
When an Igbo or Fula was enslaved, they became Black.
In contrast to the active abstraction of Blackness, Whiteness developed as a passive abstraction of European settler communities in response to Blackness and its material antecedent in slavery.
Whiteness has always been more nebulous because it lacks a definite class basis.
In general, and before Northern states started abolishing slavery, Black = slave and White = not slave. Whites could be planters, merchants, yeomen, or indentured servants. The overwhelming majority of Blacks were slaves.
This is why Blacks have more "racial unity" than Whites.
Whiteness became a universal but passive abstraction of US society as a whole, and Blackness became a particular and active abstraction of a concrete community in US society.
This history of America post-1776 is in part defined by the integration of that community with society.
Race persists as an ideological form to this day, but it no longer corresponds to a real class contradiction. The Civil Rights movement resulted in the unification of the ex-slave ("Black") class alliance with bourgeois ("White") society, the vestiges of racism notwithstanding.
In a broad sense, Whites and Blacks are on the same American boat now. The poor have been ravaged by deindustrialization and drug epidemics, the PMC is yapping about airy bullshit, and the rich are pedophile degenerates.
Civil Rights - Communism = Intersectional Diddy Parties.
This brings us back to the necessity of discovering a positive determination for the American Republic's universal abstraction (i.e. "We the People...") of its concrete citizens.
Race can not negate the negation of 1776 because both are negations of the same communal being.
Revolutionary Black Nationalism might have been able to do that in the past, but its concrete basis in the popular front between Black Americans of all classes and the Left was dissolved by the fruits of the Civil Rights movement—moderate (bourgeois) integration and PMC DEI.
Black Nationalism today either takes the form of cosmopolitan LARP by Black Trotskyites or FBA nativism, which are reflections of White cosmopolitanism and nativism.
Race politics reinforce the unipolar status quo, or they turn the US into a giant Syria.
The positive determination of America will be uncovered in the concrete unity of Americans.
Race politics are driven by the bourgeois impulse to divide and destroy all that is real through the abstract rationalization (Cogito, ergo sum) of everything into commodities.
Identity politics under American hegemony are the commodification of individuality at the expense of social being.
Proletarian politics, Communism, is the real movement to uncover the material unity of social being with its particular forms at the site of their (re)production.
Negation of the negation, or positive determination, transforms an abstract universal at odds with its real particulars into a *concrete universal* in unity with its particulars.
The "Great American Republic" of 1776 can only be made concrete as a Communist American Republic.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵: Modern bourgeois consciousness is essentially a product of the runaway feedback loop of PolEcon development kickstarted by the Triangle Trade.
The Enlightenment just gave expression to the changes wrought by voracious merchants and the collapse of pre-modern state authority.
In form, the Thirty Years' War was yet another German religious war.
In content, it was a proxy war led by the early modern English/French/Dutch states against the medieval Habsburg Empire, so they could force the Iberian/Italian merchants out of the colonial slave trade.
Locke, Spinoza, and Hobbes didn't conjure the bourgeois state from air; it was the soldiers who fought the Thirty Years' War and the English Civil War, the statesmen who drafted the Peace of Westphalia and the Commonwealth of England, who built the bourgeois state.
You understand my threads if you understand their relation to this pic.
The unique feature of our species-being is the ability to express/transform our social being and objective premise consciously. That novelty, however, arises from the qualities all social animals share.
Wolf packs don't consciously delimit borders on maps, but they unconsciously demarcate them according to natural laws of development.
Objective contradictions—between particular wolf packs and between wolves in general and their environment—produce shifting pack "fiefdoms."
Wolves are unconscious social beings. Their relationship with the world is reactive and instinctual. Wolf "societies" are objective and reproduced cyclically unless externally disrupted.
Humanity's great ape cousins and (most) ancestors are also unconscious social beings.
That's the fractal contradiction of the US political form (the Duopoly). Class struggle is its material hypostasis, the essential content of both the whole and its constituent parts.
This formal political contradiction, like the bourgeois republic it corresponds with, is a universal abstraction of a concrete society and its particular contradictions. It's a heuristic, a starting point for practical investigation and work rather than a definite conclusion.
You can reasonably apply this contradiction to all of US history since the Constitution was established in 1789.
Federalists or Anti-Federalists, protectionism or free trade, North or South, Wilsonian idealism or isolationism, Bernie or Trump, FBA or Pan-African, and so on.
🧵: Nothing proves the Americanness of Black Americans more than their division on the national question between two extremes—parochial "fuck you I got mine" nativists and cosmopolitan "USAID Pan-African" radlibs, which mirrors (in essence) the division between White Americans.
The Black radlib view of Pan-Africanism, like the White radlib view of SocDem Pan-Europeanism, is an empty universal that denies its particulars. Both groups deny their Americanness.
This contrasts with Sahelian Pan-Africanism—a concrete universal unified with its particulars.
FBA nationalism is a lot like the old Know Nothing Party's nativism—a narrow particularism, a parochial view of Americanness that defines itself in opposition to a universalized Other (Whites, Black immigrant "tethers"). This opposition is transactional at best, bigoted at worst.
🧵: The basis of my support for the ACP is that it is the first organized break from the tyranny of 1968 and the moribund legacy of the academic "New Left."
It represents a *new beginning* for left-wing politics in America, the first step on a long-abandoned and unfamiliar path.
It challenges the ideological subjectivity of the Left, yes, but more fundamentally, it questions the subconscious assumptions about objective reality that subtly influence the ideological subjectivity and activism of the Left—assumptions that have led it to its current nadir.
I can't see the future—the ACP might eventually lead the Left, or it could dissolve—what I'm certain of though is that the Left MUST redefine itself in response to the qualitative rupture formally identified by the ACP, or get left in the dust of the real movement of history.
Symbolism 🧵:
I understand why the consensus "Heads of Communism" ends with Mao, but ending it there feels incomplete. Five is an ugly and undialectical number.
Either remove Stalin and Mao to make it three heads (which I hate) or add Deng to make it six heads (what I prefer).
Five is an undialectical number because the Hegelian dialectic has a triune structure (sublated unity of opposites, three in one).
Limiting the Heads to Marx/Engels/Lenin makes sense because Lenin "sublated" the revolutionary science of Marx/Engels into a revolutionary state.
I prefer the idea of adding Deng to the Heads though, because it creates three dialectical pairs (somewhat visualized below) that better signify the fractal unity and development of DiaMat and HistMat.