The eclipse of the white ethnic intellectual

On imperialism, fascism, and leftist mobs

    The 1980 turn by the U.S. corporate elite and political establishment to neoliberal economic aggression and its subsequent post-9/11 turn to imperialist military aggression gave rise to the revitalization of fascism.  These turns constituted an abandonment of the people, above all because they constituted a withdrawal from investment in the national economy, necessary for the sustainability of the working and middle classes. 

     The turns were driven by a short-term interest in greater control of states and economies, as well as the natural recourses, of the peripheralized zones of the world-economy.  They were provoked by the contradictions of the neocolonial world-system, which were caused by the fundamental historical fact that the system had reached and overextended the geographical and ecological limits of the earth, and it was encountering increasing resistance from the neocolonized peoples.  These dynamics took away the classic motor of economic expansion of the world-system, which was the conquest of new lands and peoples.

     The new fascism emerges from the breast of the people, especially the abandoned people of European descent, the so-called whites.  It is characterized by a tribalism that sees only it owns interests.  In more extreme manifestations it calls for armed struggle, especially in the form of local violent gangs.  It envisions greater access to the spoils of American domination of the world.

     The emergence of a more aggressive form of imperialism and a new fascism coincides with the arrival to maturity of Third World people’s revolutions.  Although said revolutions tend toward a new form of socialism, they are in essence anti-colonial. The great Third World revolutionaries, like Fidel Castro, called for anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles against European domination, seeking the sovereignty and equality of all nations.  They formulated their ideologies through the appropriation of concepts and ideas from Western liberalism and Marxism, but interpreting them from the vantage point of a struggle for national liberation.

     Therefore, the present historic moment is defined by new forms of imperialist aggression, rendering liberalism impotent and outdated; and a new fascism emerging among the people, but still weak.  On the international scene, anti-imperialist national liberation struggles have renewed in the neocolonized regions during the last two decades, seeking to put into practice an alternative, post-colonial world order.  But this dynamic, poorly understood by the think tanks of the political establishment, provokes global political conflict between Western imperialist forces and anti-imperialist Third World states.  And the worldwide anti-imperialist dynamic, poorly understood by the peoples of the North, gives rise to further confusion and anxiety among the people.

      It is a situation that has begged for mature and responsible leadership, emerging from the breast of the American peoples in their diversity.  But the stage was usurped by black intellectuals and activists promoting a new form of black radicalism that violated the historic principles of the African-American movement of 1917 to 1989.¹ A new black radicalism that sought to impose a particular interpretation of the black experience as the foundation of a narrative for the entire nation and its diverse peoples.  A new black radicalism that abandoned the unfinished historic project of the socioeconomic development of the black community, putting forth uncivil and illiberal demands for a privileged position for persons of color in education and employment. 

     In this ideological scenario in the United States, there is no clearly mapped dignified road for whites who wish to practice civic responsibility.  A few turn to the new fascism and white nationalism.  A greater number adopt subservience to the new black radicalism, perhaps seeking absolution for the sins of their ancestors.  Most adapt in practice to the demands of the corporate dominated imperialist world order, with a deep, often unexpressed, anxiety for the future, and with very limited understanding of world events.

      The limited ideological options for concerned white citizens is a consequence of the decadence of liberalism, or more precisely, the failure of white public intellectuals to reformulate liberalism by addressing its contradictions and limitations.  The need for the reformulation of liberalism became evident in the late 1960s, when exceptional leaders of Third World anti-colonial movements were exposing the persistence of the economic structures of European colonial domination following the attainment of political independence, which made evident the fact that the world order was not characterized by the sovereign equality of nations, as liberalism would have it and as the UN Charter declared.  At the same time, the heroic people of Vietnam were exposing the distortion and deceptions behind Cold War ideological claims of a worldwide global struggle between liberal democracy and totalitarian communism.  As a result of these dynamics in world affairs, the Cold War frame was ruptured by spontaneous if immature consciousness among the people with respect to U.S. imperialist policies toward the Third World.  Meanwhile, a few white intellectuals, like Columbia University professor C. Wright Mills, were maintaining that the structures of representative democracy in the USA violated liberal principles, in that they left power in the hands of an elite.    

     Thus, the foundation was laid for the reformulation of the American narrative.  In the context of the significant gains of the civil rights movement, the insightful radical formulations of the black power movement, and the emergence of a student anti-war movement, all of which had elements of anti-imperialist global consciousness, the ideological moment was ripe for the reformulation of the American promise of democracy; a reformulation necessarily forged by public intellectuals with social roots in all races, ethnic groups, and classes, regardless of gender. 

     But this necessary historic task was not undertaken.  Perhaps it was too much to comprehend from the vantage point of the center of the empire.  Perhaps the persistent accusations from the supposedly oppressed wore at the spirit.  Perhaps the rewards for accepting things as they are were too great to ignore, and a career dedicated to social change too insecure.  But for whatever reasons, the white public intellectual made his peace with the reaction that set in beginning in 1979, provoked by the dramatic taking of American hostages at the U.S. embassy in Iran, where an anti-imperialist movement had sent the American puppet packing and an anti-imperialist government had come to power.

      Thus, the white public intellectual is not present today, except as accommodationist to power, which itself violates the role of the intellectual.  Even critics of the powerful and of Western imperialism fail to escape Western assumptions, which render invisible the Third World construction of an alternative world order in concrete practice, step by step, led by exceptional leaders from China, Latin America, East Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. 

     Thus, we may speak of the crisis of the white intellectual, a phrase that is a play on Harold Cruse’s 1967 book, The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual,² an important book that was central to the rise of black nationalism in the late 1960s.  Cruse rejected both liberalism and Marxism.  He called for the political, economic, and cultural autonomy of the black community, with cultural autonomy being the most important. 

     This is the hour for a similar, creative formulation by white public intellectuals, a creative reformulation born from the contradictions and confusions of the moment.  White public intellectuals who demand their right to speak, in spite of the incivility and illiberalism of the woke, and the racial prejudice of the new black radicalism.  White public intellectuals who explain to the people the failure of liberal democracy, in both the nation and the world.  Who propose structural reforms that would end elite control of the political, economic, and educational institutions and media organizations of the nation. Who in their discourse make visible the dignified efforts of Third World governments, leaders, and movements to transform the structures of the neocolonial world-system, seeking a more just and politically stable world order.  Who frame the quest for the renewal of American democracy in the context of the founding principles and documents of the American Republic.  Who defend the American Revolution as a historical yet ongoing project for the fulfillment of the promise of democracy.

Whither the white ethnic

     The migrants that arrived to American shores from Ireland and southern and eastern Europe during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries did not arrive in chains and in slave ships, but neither did they arrive in a condition of privilege.  Their decision to migrate was not entirely voluntary, driven as it was by economic superexploitation and political oppression.  They found on American shores economic opportunity, but they also found discrimination and exclusion.  In the cities of America, they constructed urban villages, cultural reproductions of their rural peasant villages in Europe.  As they attained intergenerational upward mobility, they lost their ethnic identities and found themselves categized as whites, which for them was not a categorization embraced with enthusiasm, but something imposed by events. 

      Their love for their new country and their contributions to it have been without bounds.  They built the infrastructure of the nation, and they were the base of American manufacturing in its heyday.  They were leaders and loyal members of the labor union movement, thereby expanding in practice the meaning of democracy to include social and economic rights with respect to income, retirement security, and health care.  They brought with them radical ideas from their native lands, including various forms of Marxism, seeking to enrich the American public discourse.  They were on the front line of the movement to stop the barbaric imperialist war in Vietnam, a movement today remembered and hailed by the peoples of the world.  They sacrificed their lives in all the nation’s numerous wars, a sacrifice remembered and honored by them through the generations.

     There can be no authentic narrative of the American nation that excludes them.  Their experience of America is of exclusion mostly overcome, benefits not given but earned, and promises not completely delivered, culminating in the current moment of confusion, anxiety, and insecurity.  They accepted and appreciated the philosophical and political foundation of the nation that ambiguously received them, as they contributed to its further philosophical, political, economic, and cultural development.    

     Today, the white ethnic groups have become invisible, yet they may hold the key to the resolution of the nation’s current confusion and despair, if they can find their authentic voice.  To them I say, do not be seduced by the powerful, intimated by the woke, or misled by the fascists.  It is time to tell our own story of what America was, is, and can become.  It is a story that compels us to seek acceptance, understanding, and purpose in our adopted land, which unavoidably brings us to encounter with the great revolutions and revolutionaries of our era.

On the viability and necessity of revolutionary socialism

      The American public intellectual today must embrace a form a socialism that is tied to political, economic, and cultural decolonization.  A socialism inspired by the socialism of the Third World, as formulated by Fidel and other exceptional Third World revolutionary leaders, who discovered socialism in the texts of Marx and Lenin but who developed it in revolutionary practice. 

      Third World revolutionaries formulated not a revolution of workers or of oppressed races but a revolution of the people, the people of the nation united in common commitment and purpose.  A revolution that sought first and foremost the taking of political power from the hands of politicians who were flunkies of the powerful. 

      Those Third World revolutions that triumphed evolved for decades after the taking of political power through a synthesis of theory and practice, arriving to key fundamental concepts.  (1) The need for political structures different from representative democracy, alternative structures designed to ensure that power is in the hands of the delegates of the people.  (2) An economy directed but not strangled by the people’s state; a national economy driven to enhance its productivity and oriented to providing for the needs of the people.  (3) Equality of opportunity for all, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, including relevant structural transformations in education. (4) Emphasis on personal and community development, rather than equity in results.  (5) Liberation from the imperialist impulse, with orientation to the development of cooperation and mutually beneficial trade among nations.  (6) Attention to the constitutional foundation of the nation, without which there can be neither consensus nor legitimacy. 

      The road to power necessarily involves the delegitimation of those who are the holders of power.  In the case of the United States, the process of delegitimation would involve explanations demonstrating that the corporate elite and political establishment have shown their moral and intellectual incapacity to govern.  This does not require the disclosing of their secrets, because they have committed crimes against humanity and have betrayed the nation in plain sight, visible for all who have eyes to see.

      Here is precisely where true and committed leadership enters, patiently explaining to the people the crimes and betrayals of the elite.  There is no need to exaggerate, because their crimes and betrayals are serious enough reasons for their removal from power.  And the point is to remove them from power, not to punish them, which would not improve things, and would detract from the necessary task of alternative political, economic, and cultural construction.

     The delegitimation process is integral to the taking of power by the people.  In the process of transition that delegitimation provokes, care must be taken to ensure that power is not usurped by a mob that wants to exploit the situation for its own gains.  Power must not be put in the hands of activists for whom exaggerated moral indignation is the essence of their “revolutionary” program.  Power in the new order must be exercised by carefully selected delegates and deputies of the people, who represent the best qualities of the people and who above all are committed to defending the nation and the wellbeing of the people. 

    Once the revolution triumphs, and power is in the hands of the people—or more precisely, the elected delegates and deputies of the people—the revolution begins a new stage.  The revolution in power must above all focus on construction.  On the construction of a more democratic society, in which the people have continuous voice, and the needs of the people are given continuous expression.  The construction of a productive economy, which is the necessary foundation for prosperity.  The construction of a system for the just and fair distribution of goods and services, so that prosperity can be universally enjoyed.  The socialization of essential civic virtues, through the educational system, the media of communication, and the family.  The development of cooperative relations among nations, based on mutual respect and mutually beneficial trade.

     True revolutionary leaders are able to put forth such a vision before the people, and to call the people to the taking of power and the subsequent social construction.

      Revolution was shouted in the streets in the late 1960s by the youth of America, shocked and angered by their discovery of the lies that had been told to them in various institutions that were under the control of the powerful.  Although they were on target in proclaiming “Power to the people!”, they were naïve and idealistic, in that they did not understand the essence of revolution, nor did they appreciate the life-long commitment and sacrifice that a revolution requires.

      True revolution, however, is not a naïve or idealistic dream.  It has been accomplished and sustained in other lands, in places like Vietnam, China, Korea, Laos, and Cuba; and more recently, Iran, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Bolivia.  These important examples are studied by true revolutionaries, not for the purpose of copying them, but for the purpose of appropriating their insights, as the Third World revolutions did with respect to the bourgeois revolutions and the first worker-peasant revolutions.  Above all, they must be studied so that the people will know that “power to the people” is not an impossible dream, and that it can be attained through the lifting of politically intelligent, historically informed, scientifically knowledgeable, and morally committed leaders.

     Through such journey of encounter with the revolutions of the world, we can arrive to understand the ultimate meaning and destiny of the American Revolution, to which we are duty bound to our ancestors to bring to culmination.

A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system.  Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Philosophical Society.

1. Charles McKelvey, The African American Movement: From Pan-Africanism to the Rainbow Coalition (Dix Hills, NY: General Hall, 1994).

2. Harold Cruse, The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual (New York: Quill, 1984; originally published by William Morrow in 1967).