By Leon V., Red Phoenix correspondent, Florida.
Published in the 1980’s, J. Sakai’s Settlers has enjoyed a cult following among portions of American revisionists. Sakai pulls no punches in attacking everything he considers an aspect of “settler-colonialism,” some of which are worthy of criticism and others which are nothing but boldly inaccurate. Sakai’s conception and narrative of William Z. Foster falls into the latter. Sakai launches brash claims against the legacy of one of the foremost influential labor organizers of the 20th century by assessing that Foster was chauvinist and sought to inspire a race war between laborers.
“In his 1920 history of the strike, Foster (the supposed ‘communist’) repeated the lie that Afrikan workers had ‘lined up with the bosses.’ In fact, Foster even said that in resolving the differences between Euro-Amerikan and Afrikan labor ‘The negro has the more difficult part’ since the Afrikan worker was becoming ‘a professional strike-breaker.’ And militant white workers knew what they were supposed to do to a ‘professional strike- breaker.'” (J. Sakai, “Settlers”)
If we were to take Sakai’s account of the strike we would be led to assume that Foster is indeed a chauvinist, if not bordering an outright white supremacist. However, if we read Foster’s actual account of the strike, it is apparent that this is an entirely ahistorical retelling of what happened.
“So serious was the race situation in the steel strike that the National Committee for Organizing Iron and Steel Workers requested President Gompers to arrange a conference between prominent negro leaders and trade-union officials, to the end that the proper remedies may be indicated. The need for action looking towards better relations between whites and blacks in the industrial field should be instantly patent; for there can be no doubt but that the employing class, taking advantage of the bitter animosities of the two groups, are deliberately attempting to turn the negroes into a race of strike-breakers, with whom to hold the white workers in check; on much the same principle as the Czars used the Cossacks to keep in subjection the balance of the Russian people. Should they succeed to any degree it would make our industrial disputes take on more and more the character of race wars, a consummation that would be highly injurious to the white workers and eventually ruinous to the blacks.” (William Z. Foster, “The Great Steel Strike and Its Lessons”)
From reading both passages it is abundantly clear what the truth of the situation is: that Foster is not some race war instigator or chauvinist, but was actually warning of worsening race relations in the United States. Foster did not say that African-American workers were “strikebreakers” out of some racial component, but that the “employing class” (the steel mill owners) were actively inciting and stoking racial conflict.
However, this is not the only lie Sakai fabricates.
“Foster’s lynch mob oratory was only restrained by the formality expected of a Euro-Amerikan ‘communist’ leader. His white-supremacist message was identical to but more politely clothed than the crude rants of the Ku Klux Klan. He warned that the capitalists were grooming Afrikans as ‘as race of strike-breakers, with whom to hold the white workers in check; on much the same principle as the Czars used the Cossacks to keep in subjugation the balance of the Russian people.’ It’s easy to see how Foster became such a popular leader among the settler workers.
No longer was it just a question of some Afrikans not following the orders of the white labor. Now Foster was openly saying that the entire Afrikan ‘race’ was the enemy. Could the imperialists have asked for more, than to have the leading ‘communist’ trade-union leader help them whip up the oppressor nation masses to repress the Afrikan nation?” (Sakai)
Again Sakai maliciously, or ignorantly, misquotes and misunderstands Foster and the context in which he was writing. Foster compares the situation of Black workers to that of the Russian Cossacks to show how the ruling class will stoke racial conflicts to distract from class conflict. The Cossacks were used as a paramilitary group to draw the ire of the oppressed groups away from the Tsar and towards this certain group. Foster is warning that this situation was rapidly approaching in America, where Black and white workers would be purposefully made to take up arms against each other instead of uniting against their common enemy.
“For the tense situation existing the unions are themselves in no small part to blame. Many of them sharply draw the color line, thus feeding the flames of race hatred. This discriminatory practice is in direct conflict with the fundamental which demands that all the workers be organized, without regard to sex, race, creed, politics or nationality. It injures Labor’s cause greatly. Company agents harp upon it continually, to prevent negroes from joining even the organizations willing to take them in. This was the case in the steel campaign. Moreover these same company agents cited this discriminatory practice most effectively to induce thousands of outside colored workers to come into the industry as strike-breakers. Such a condition cannot be allowed to persist. But to relieve it the unions will have to meet the issue honestly and broad-mindedly. They must open their ranks to negroes, make an earnest effort to organize them, and then give them a square deal when they do join. Nothing short of this will accomplish the desired result.” (Foster)
Sakai cleverly leaves this out when quoting Foster on saying that Black workers were being introduced as a “race of strike-breakers” or claiming that Foster sought to flame a race war between white and Black workers. Foster directly examines and understands that the situation of racial relations is tense and that Black workers have valid and real grievances with the union leadership at that time, and that this is the fault of the unions. However, instead of attempting to agitate white workers, Foster says that they should join arms with their fellow Black workers against their oppressors.
“In case Afrikans didn’t get Foster’s threat (which was also being delivered in the streets, as we know), Foster made it even more plain. He said that if Afrikans failed to obey the decisions of settler labor: ‘It would make our industrial disputes take on more and more the character of race wars, a consummation that would be highly injurious to the white workers and eventually ruinous to the blacks.’ The threat of a genocidal ‘race war’ against Afrikans unless they followed the orders of settler labor makes it very clear just what kind of ‘unity’ Foster and his associates had in mind. We should say that once Foster started dealing with the problem of how to build the Euro Amerikan ‘Left,’ he discovered that it was much more effective to pose as an anti-racist and use ‘soft-sell’ in promoting a semi-colonial mentality in oppressed nationalities. Foster the ‘communist’ declared himself an expert on Civil Rights, poverty in Puerto Rico, Afrikan history, and so on.” (Sakai)
This is where we get to the crux of the matter. Is Sakai purposefully misinterpreting Foster’s words, or is he too ignorant to understand? Either scenario does not paint Sakai in a good light and shows him to be ignorant of history at best, or downright malicious at worst. In no sentence or word of anything Sakai cites does Foster threaten a “race war” against Black workers. Let us examine Foster’s words again: “Should they succeed to any degree it would make our industrial disputes take on more and more the character of race wars, a consummation that would be highly injurious to the white workers and eventually ruinous to the blacks.” From here it is quite obvious what Foster is referencing. Foster is not saying that he will lead a race war against Black workers “if they do not get in line,” as Sakai claims, but that “they” (the employers) are actively trying to stoke racial agitation amongst the working class because they know it would derail the whole movement. In this passage Foster even acknowledges a difference in conditions of white and Black workers, in that what would be only “highly injurious” to white workers would be “eventually ruinous” to Black workers. Sakai has directly fallen for the trap the steel mill employers set 60 years prior to him writing Settlers.
After examining both works it is clear that Foster’s work speaks for itself in exonerating him from Sakai’s malicious and fabricated ahistorical retelling of the Great Steel Strike. This is not to mention that none of the thousands of Black communists that worked with Foster ever seemed to notice his “chauvinism” or “racist” ideas. It is all a revisionist fabrication. As communists we must look to unite racial struggle into a unified, cohesive class struggle. Let us not incite further racial agitation under the guise of a “new and advanced” theory. Let us embrace the path of genuine Marxist-Leninism.