On Christmas day
1964, Claudia Jones, only forty-nine years old, died alone in her London
apartment. Over three hundred people attended her funeral on January
9, 1965 to commemorate the woman who spent her entire adult life agitating
against oppression. “Visitors who come to London’s Highgate Cemetery
see that next to the grave of Karl Marx there is the tombstone of Claudia
Jones. Many wonder what earned her the honour of being buried beside
the founder of scientific communism.”
[1] On the other side of the globe, Ella Baker, a leading
African-American Civil Rights leader, was defending her theories of
decentralized leadership. Tensions mounted in the movement when grassroots
organizations rejected the ideas of central leadership and non-violence.
One such organization, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee
(SNCC), founded in part, by the efforts of Ella Baker, became dedicated
to Ella’s ideals of decentralized leadership, challenging the authority
of high profile individuals in the Civil Rights Movement. In this paper
I will examine the experiences of these two radicals.
Both Ella Baker
and Claudia Jones spent their entire adult lives writing, speaking and
debating the issues that African-Americans faced. These issues included
racist oppression, class hierarchy and the roles of women. However,
although they both confronted the same issues, they had divergent philosophies
that shaped their political careers. Their individual ideas can be
examined in terms of Winston James’ definition of radicalism and Cedric
Robinson’s theory of the development of the Black Radical tradition.
Although the radicalism of both Ella Baker and Claudia Jones fits within
Robinson and James’ definitions, their unique experiences as women helped
define their ideas and theories, and transform the role of women in
the Black Radical tradition.
In Winston James’,
Holding Aloft the Banner of Ethiopia, he defines radicalism or
radical politics as, “the challenging of the status quo either on the
basis of social class, race (or ethnicity), or a combination of the
two.” [2]
He goes on to articulate, in terms of the above definition, radicals.
According to James radicals, therefore, “are avowed anti-capitalists,
as well as adherents of varieties of Black Nationalism.” [3] Included in this
definition are those who have attempted to unite anti-capitalist and
nationalist thought. Though James examined Black Radicalism in terms
of Caribbean migrants in the United States, his definition could be
applied to native-born African-Americans as well.
However, before
examining this definition in further detail, it is useful to examine
Cedric Robinson’s thoughts on Black Radicalism. In Robinson’s book,
Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition, the
Black Radical tradition “emerged from the West’s suppression of Europe’s
previous knowledge of the African (and its own) past.” [4] According to Robinson, the radical
tradition emerged out of the Atlantic Slave trade, along with a racial
identity. The West, therefore, cannot claim to be the inspiration of
the Black Radical tradition; instead it is the social cauldron.
[5] Robinson claims that Radicalism emerged, not within
European history, but rather on its periphery. It is a result of the
contact between Europeans and Africans, however; it cannot be defined
within European tradition. Rather, “it is a specifically African Response
to an oppression emergent from the immediate determinants of European
development in the modern era and framed by orders of human exploitation
woven into the interstices of European social life from the inception
of Western Civilization.” [6] Simply put, it is the response of Africans, globally,
to the industrial and imperial development of social behavior and thought
of the West. Therefore, James’ definition bodes well within Robinson’s
articulation of the specific historical development of Black Radicalism.
Both anti-capitalism and nationalism emerged from this European development.
However, the weakness
of both James and Robinson is their failure to recognize the unique
impact of women in the Radical tradition. Though James does include
women in his study, it is brief and weak, because it fails to examine
the situation of African- American Women in terms of Western Civilization,
a topic wholly outside the experiences of African-American men.
African-American
women have had an entirely unique experience within the development
of the West. As specific roles for white women developed, African-
American women were relegated to the periphery of both womanhood and
humanity. According to Angela Y. Davis, “as the ideology of femininity-a
byproduct of industrialization-was popularized, white women came to
be seen as inhabitants of a sphere totally severed from the realm of
productive work.” [7]
The role of African- American women was entirely divergent
from the emerging domestic ideology. According to Davis, “the economic
arrangements of slavery contradicted the hierarchical sexual roles incorporated
in the new ideology.” [8] The role of slave women was in
complete contrast to those of white women. This is best articulated
in the responsibility of African-American women to reproduce the free
labor force. Throughout the southern United States, “state legislatures
adopted the principle of partus sequitur ventrem-the child follows
the condition of the mother.” [9] Ironically, this
state imposed matri-lineage was later seen as the point of degradation
for the African-American community. However, what is most significant
is that white Western authority imposed an antithetical role on African-American
women, which has affected their role in both Western society and the
Black Radical Tradition.
In effect, African-American
women are subject to triple oppression. First, from Western white male
authority, second, they are relegated to second-class citizenship within
their own community as a result of western influenced patriarchy. As
a result, of divergent theories of womanhood, they are subject to second-class
womanhood, in contrast to the domestic ideal of white women. Thus,
the experiences of African- American female radicals are a byproduct
of this triple oppression. Claudia Jones and Ella Baker were shaped
in this context.
Claudia Jones was
born in Trinidad on February 21, 1915, in the city of Port of Spain.
Trinidad, at the time, was still a part of the British West Indies.
Claudia’s family name was Cumberbatch, and it has been speculated that
some of her father’s relatives at one time came to Trinidad from the
neighboring island of Barbados. [10] Claudia was born while the
Great War in Europe was raging over colonial rights in Africa and Asia.
On February 9, 1924 Claudia, along with an aunt and three of her sisters,
arrived in New York. Debarking from the S.S. Voltaire under
the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, Claudia came to the United States
to be with her parents who had already arrived. The family settled
in the largely African-American Harlem, where many other Caribbean’s
had already settled. There, her family faced many of the same problems
native-born African-Americans faced, namely Jim Crow.
The Cumberbatch’s
faced harder times, when Claudia was 12, her mother, a garment worker,
“died of poverty and exhaustion as she worked at her machine.”
[11] Mr. Cumberbatch was left to his own devices to raise
Claudia and her three sisters. The Depression of 1929 hit especially
hard in the Black Communities. One of Claudia’s friends recalled that
Claudia:
Was quick and clever at school, but along with 5 million
other young people, had to
Leave school during the depression and go to work. Seeking
jobs, and on the job, she
Came smack up against discrimination at every turn. Instead of futile
complaining, she
Determined, as she said in a birthday speech…’to develop an understanding
of the
Suffering of my people and my class and look for a way forward to
end them…’ [12]
Claudia, like other
black youth during the depression was forced to go to work. She worked,
at times, as a sales girl and a factory worker. Her experiences as
a youth helped to develop her radicalism. However, the 1930’s also
saw mass actions on the part of global black communities that affected
Claudia’s future radical development.
Both the 1936 invasion
of Abyssinia by fascist Italian forces and the movement for the nine
youths involved in the Scottsboro frame-up had an incredible political
impact on Claudia. According to Angela Y. Davis, it was through her
work in the Scottsboro Defense Committee that she became acquainted
with members of the Communist party.
[13]
At the age of 18,
Claudia joined the Young Communist League (YCL). According to Claudia,
it was her experiences as a youth that developed her political ideology:
It was out of Jim Crow experiences as a young Negro
woman, experiences likewise born
Of working class poverty that led me to join the young Communist
league and to choose
The philosophy of my life, the science of Marxism-Leninism-that philosophy
that not
Only rejects racist ideas, but is the antithesis of them. [14]
The Scottsboro
case piqued the interest of many African-Americans in the Communist
Party of the United States (CPUSA). According to Robin D. G. Kelley,
“the Communist led ILD (International Labor Defense) attracted national
attention for its defense of nine young black men accused of raping
two white women near Paint Rock, Alabama.” [15] Claudia began to rise in ranks
within the CPUSA, by the time she was in her twenties, she became responsible
for the party’s Women’s commission.
It was not until
1945 when a controversy within the CPUSA emerged, did Claudia become
a well-known member of the party and an important voice for women.
In 1945, Claudia published an article in Political Affairs entitled,
“On the Right to Self-Determination for the Negro People in the Black
Belt.” Prior to this an ideological struggle emerged within the party
ranks between Earl Browder and William Z. Foster over self-determination.
Browder drew a line between, “the national liberation struggle of an
oppressed nation” and its “nationalist” bourgeoisie, which “invariably
subordinates itself to the interests of the oppressing imperialist power.” [16] He raised the
issue over whether African-Americans could be included in the communist
working class consciousness or as a separate entity within the larger
capitalist struggle. According to Paul Buhle, “the national question,
the status of an oppressed group within a state or empire, tended by
its very nature to raise questions about the entire Marxist Class analysis.” [17]
Claudia’s article
emerged within this debate and had an impact on other black communists.
In Harry Haywood’s autobiography, Black Bolshevik, he claimed,
“I was withdrawn-still reluctant to become involved in the inner-Party
struggle. But I had seen an article by Claudia Jones, a young black
woman communist from the West Indies who had challenged Browder’s line
on the right to self-determination.” [18] Haywood concluded,
“The article had greatly stimulated my interest.” [19] According to Haywood, the article
sparked several issues within the debate and raised the issue of the
interests of the black community. The article also articulated Claudia’s
own theories within radicalism, including the alliance of Black Nationalism
and anti-capitalism.
The article attacked
Browder’s revisionist views on the question of the African- American
community. According to Claudia, “Even the worst enemies of the Communist
Party cannot fail to admit that we have been in the forefront of the
struggle for equality of the Negro People.” [20] The CPUSA had
previously been reputed as an organization concerned with the interests
of African-American people. Since the Bolshevik revolution in Russia,
the Communist International (COMINTERN) took special interests in African-
Americans. In 1928, the sixth World Congress of the COMINTERN, “insisted
that blacks concentrated in the black belt counties of the Deep South
constituted an oppressed nation.”
[21] Browder challenged these by claiming that Marxist ideology
did not recognize special interests, rather, African-Americans were
not a separate oppressed class. Browder wanted to maintain a distinct
class-consciousness, regardless of race and gender identity.
Claudia emerged
as a leading ideologue in the communist community. Her article articulated
her ideas on the rights of self-determination within the black community,
specifically the African-American community. Her nationalist sentiment
emerged within her communist identity. She maintained that, “It was
our understanding of the Negro Question as a national question,
that is, as the question of a nation oppressed by American imperialism,
in the ultimate sense as India is oppressed by British imperialism and
Indonesia by Dutch imperialism.” [22] African Americans
were essentially an oppressed nation; her ideas echoed the 1928 COMINTERN
Pact. “Every aspect of Negro oppression in our country stems from the
existence of an oppressed nation, in the heart of the South, the Black
Belt.” [23] The oppression of African-Americans
was a byproduct of imperialism. In essence, although she claimed that
African-Americans were a separate nation within the larger nation, they
had a specific identity as a result of western imperialism. Her theories
also had a direct impact on the role of women within the communist party.
As a result of
her involvement in the debate over self-determination, according to
Rebecca Hill, “Claudia Jones emerged out of the Popular Front as one
of its more obstreperous critics.” [24] When she attacked Browder’s
position on self-determination, she did not stop at addressing the race
question. She also attacked the party on issues of sexism. “Claudia
used the moment of internal rethinking, to question common Old Left
assumptions about race, class and gender.” [25] Sexism, according to Claudia, was another form
of fascism. Her goal was to, “inspire the growing struggles of American
women and heighten their consciousness of the need for militant united
front campaigns around the burning demands of the day, against monopoly
oppression, against war and fascism.” [26]
A theory emerged
out of women’s wartime (WWII) experiences. The theory, called the Fascist
Triple K-(Kinder, Küche, Kirche-children, kitchen, church), was
a critique of the domestic ideology that emerged in the post-War United
States. Claudia claimed that, “The aim of this and other numerous anti-woman
“theories” is to hamper and curb women’s progressive social participation,
particularly in the struggle for peace.”
[27] Claudia frequently compared the Fascist Triple K of
Nazi Germany to the roles of American Women. Her belief that women’s
assigned roles were a form of domestic fascism helped her to articulate
the global struggle of women, and the specific need for the Communist
Party to address those needs.
The fascist threat
on women was, according to Claudia, “monopoly capitalism.”
[28] The threat was in the form of popular culture. “We
can above all expose the reactionary essence of monopoly capitalism,
which on the one hand clouts the women with rocketing prices, housing
shortages, hysterical threats of war; while, on the other, it woos them
with free movies, speakers, etc., on the glories of American ‘free enterprise.” [29] Capitalism,
according to Claudia, lured American women into poverty and hysteria,
while simultaneously offering them the promises of material wealth.
This in essence, was a direct threat on the autonomy of women, as well
as their value in a capitalist labor structure. Women, under this system,
essentially had no value outside of the home. Domestic work had no
productive value in the industrial economy; however, its purpose was
to keep women away from the political sphere.
Claudia’s primary
objection to the domestic ideology was that it failed to create class-consciousness
among women. The propaganda following WWII encouraged the compulsory
evacuation of women from industrial jobs. According to Rebecca Hill,
“Communist Feminist writers objected to these representations by arguing
that women had a right to work and to continue working after the war.
This was one of the few ways in which Popular Front supporters tacitly
argued against state agendas and policies during the war.” [30] Much of the
objection to the Fascist Triple K was in response to the War in Europe.
In her article comemorating the leadership of William Foster, Claudia
Jones claimed that, “In formerly Nazi-occupied Europe, women resolved
never again to return to the time when they were merely breeders of
warriors.” [31]
Her statement alludes to both the fascist government of the Nazi’s as
well as the role of women as reproducers of free labor. In the case
of Nazi’s, it is soldiers, however, it is also an allusion to the reproductive
responsibilities of African slaves. She continues her statement that
the women also did not want to be merely, “objects of pleasure, according
to the old motto: Kinder, Kirche, Küche.” [32] The fascist triple K had roots
not only in Nazi occupied Germany, but in African slavery as well.
The fundamental problem was monopoly capitalism’s claim on women. Claudia
claimed that, “The Wall Street monopoly capitalists in their drive to
aggressive world domination, atomic war and domestic fascism are seeking
to align the masses of women with the war camp.” [33] The threat of
monopoly capitalists was a direct challenge to the Communist party.
Claudia’s most
fundamental concern was the role of black women. Her most insightful
theory is on the activities of black women in radicalism. In a 1949
article she claimed that, “The capitalists know, far better than many
progressives seem to know, that once Negro women undertake action, the
militancy of the whole Negro people, and thus of the anti-imperialist
coalition, is greatly enhanced.”
[34] She claimed that their radicalism is rooted in slavery.
Similar to Robinson’s theory of black radicalism, Claudia believed that
the roots of militancy lay in the oppression imposed on Africans during
slavery. Women especially, felt the brunt of these attacks. Claudia
claimed that, “Historically, the Negro woman has been the guardian,
the protector, of the Negro Family,” she continues:
From the days of the slave traders down to the present,
the Negro woman has had the
responsibility of caring for the needs of the family, of militantly
shielding it from
the blows of Jim Crow insults, of rearing children in an atmosphere
of lynch terror,
segregation, and police brutality, and of fighting for an education
for the children.
[35]
African-American
women have been responsible, according to Claudia, for the protection
and rearing of children. More important, they have had to protect their
children from the racism of the white community. This view of African-American
women has a direct link to the fascism of capitalism. Claudia claimed
that, “Nothing so exposes the drive to fascization in the nation as
the callous attitude which the bourgeoisie displays and cultivates toward
Negro women.” [36] African-American women were
not included in the domestic ideology because they were subject to bourgeois
claims on their labor.
This is clear when
one examines the large-scale exclusion of African-American women from
the professions. They have traditionally been relegated to the domestic
arena of bourgeois domestic settings. Monopoly capitalism perpetuates
this idea in propaganda that included the, “mammy who puts the care
of children and families of others above her own.”
[37] This idea is reminiscent of antebellum slave holding
families. African-American women, have since according to Claudia Jones,
been forced back into the homes of whites, thereby forfeiting their
domesticity within the African-American community. Claudia argued that
this image must be combated in order to reject it as a, “device of the
imperialists to perpetuate the white chauvinist ideology that Negro
women are ‘backward,’ ‘inferior,’ and the ‘natural slaves,’ of others.”
[38]
Claudia
adopted the fascist triple K theory to point out to the CPUSA their
failure to address the needs of women, including African-American women.
Claudia urged communists, like she had during the Browder debate, to
recognize the issues of women and race within Marxist theory. As Lenin
claimed, and Claudia Jones reiterated women, “can be at times the decisive
part of the mass movement.” [39] The conflict
emerged after World War II when the CPUSA echoed the movement of the
larger society and relegated women to domestic roles. The Communist
Party also failed to organize women in industry as well as African-American
domestic workers. Claudia complained that this was a fundamental failure
of the party. In response to a draft resolution of 1948 to build up
anti-monopoly and peace campaigns, she claimed that, “The resolution
does not sufficiently stress the need for the people’s coalition to
fight for the special social, economic and political needs of the masses
of American women.”
[40] She continued to claim that, “Nor does it emphasize
the Party’s vanguard responsibility in organizing and winning working-class
women to the anti-imperialist camp.”
[41] The most vital aspect of Claudia’s theory is the incorporation
of women and issues of gender into the Communist party line. Her theories
are an amalgam of the radical tradition defined by both Winston James
and Cedric Robinson. Claudia Jones recognized the oppression of the
working class, African-Americans and women in the context of the anti-capitalist
movement. She simultaneously combined the concerns of Black Nationalism
within the movement to combat class discrimination. She was also successful
in incorporating the issues of women in the movement to oppose monopoly
capitalism. Unfortunately, Claudia paid dearly for her radical ideologies.
In
1948, Claudia Jones, along with other avowed communists, was arrested
on charges of seeking to, “overthrow the government by force and violence.” [42] She was arrested as a result
of the Smith Act, as well as the McCarran Act, which regulated immigration.
Since Claudia was not a US citizen she was targeted under the McCarran
Act. Eventually Claudia served a year sentence after fighting legal
battles with the US between 1948 and 1955. She was eventually deported
to England where she continued her political agitation as a member of
the Communist Party.
Although
Claudia Jones was younger, she and Ella Baker were contemporaries in
the movements for social agitation. Ella Baker was born on December
13, 1903 in Norfolk, Virginia. In 1911, she moved with her family to
rural Littleton, North Carolina where they worked as farmers. As Ella
would later explain, the church in her community became a base for the
family and herself. She joined the church at nine years old because,
she explains, “In an environment where aggressive leadership existed
largely in the church, I responded to the church.”
[43] Despite the role of the church in her early life,
Ella remained distant from the dogma, dubious of the Church’s role in
the African- American community. “I am always happy to think,” she
said, “that to some extent I was saved from the worst aspects of religiosity
because my family was not emotional in its religion.” [44] At an early age she was critical of the role
of preachers, she believed that their sermons were rich with noise,
but lacked substance. This critique would carry over to her later philosophies
of organization.
Ella’s
early years had a profound influence on her political development.
Her grandparents, Mitchell and Betsy Ross had been slaves. She grew
up listening to their stories; one in particular, however, sparked her
interests. Her grandmother, Betsy Ross, was pressed by her master to
marry someone she had no desire to marry. When Betsy refused, her master
did not whip her, instead he sent her out of the house, to the fields.
As Ella’s grandfather explained, “the master would not let her be whipped.
No, sir. You know why? ‘Cause she was his daughter.” [45] As the story goes, Betsy worked
in the fields and attended social occasions for the slaves to flaunt
her undaunted spirit. Her master intended on her marrying someone who
was light skinned. According to Joanne Grant, in her biography of Ella
Baker, “For Ella Baker this spoke of rebellion, particularly because
it delineated the color lines: The mistress wanted the lighter skin
tones to be perpetuated, but Ella Baker’s forebears said no.” [46] These stories exposed Ella
to the foundations of the Black Radical tradition, the rebelliousness
of slaves against tyrannical masters.
Ella’s
family had a profound influence on her political development. According
to Charles Payne, she remembered the world of her childhood as a kind
of “family socialism,” a world in which food and tools and homes were
shared, where informal adoption of children was taken for granted, a
world with a minimal sense of social hierarchy. [47] This world influenced her later
ideas of economic development and social equality within the African-American
community. Her grandparent’s stories of rebellion, and her mother’s
role in the church influenced her radical development, as she grew older.
Education
was central to Ella’s early years. Her mother insisted that she be
properly educated, teaching her to read before she attended school.
However, education for African-Americans was limited after Grammar school.
Her mother sent her off to Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina.
“She entered Shaw, not as a scholarship student but as one who had to
work her way through the boarding school.”
[48] She went to Shaw in the fall of 1918, according to
Barbara Ransby, at a time of political turmoil. It was the tail end
of World War I and during the Wilson administration, the first southerner
to be elected to the presidency since Reconstruction. “Ella also entered
Shaw at a time when both black rights and women’s rights were at important
crossroads.” [49] Woman’s suffrage would be gained
two years later, however; African-Americans, particularly women would
continue to be systematically excluded from the franchise. The environment
of Shaw opened up a new world for Ella. It was a Baptist school run
by white benefactors. It was also the first black institution to enroll
women. “The philosophy of the school’s administrators emphasized humility
and Christian service, but at the same time they reinforced many elitist
assumptions about social class.” [50] Ella finished her high school and college education
at Shaw becoming the Valedictorian of her class. In 1927, she left
the University and headed north to Harlem, New York.
Ella
Baker’s previous experiences as the granddaughter of ex-slaves and her
college education broadened her worldview, however, when she reached
Harlem she was exposed to a community rampant with political debate
and cultural development. Ella immersed herself in the intellectual
community of Harlem, attending lectures, participating in debates, and
learning about theories of economic oppression and nationalism. Here
she became acquainted with many African-American figures, including
A. Phillip Randolph, James Weldon Johnson and George Shuyler. She also
met some radical activists from the Caribbean, including Cyril Briggs.
“Harlem exposed her to heated debates over fundamental ideas such as
the relative merits of communism, socialism, and capitalism.” [51]
The
Great Depression of 1929 exacerbated conditions for the African-American
Community. Ella Baker was no exception; the poor economic conditions
of the community not only affected her financial well being, it also
influenced her politics. “Subsequently, the economic dislocations of
the Depression played an important part in her rejection of ‘the American
illusion that anyone who is determined can get ahead.”
[52] Ella began to formulate her ideas of community based
organizing. She realized that one could organize people around the
grassroots. Baker’s experiences in Harlem provided an organic learning
experience. According to George Shuyler, “By force of circumstances
her ‘post-graduate’ work has included domestic service, factory work
and other freelance labors.” [53]
The
economic dislocations of the African-American community compelled Ella,
along with Marvel Cooke, to investigate the impact on women in labor.
The two went undercover for a day soliciting for domestic work on the
street corners of New York. Their results were published in the November
1935 issue of The Crisis, entitled, “The Bronx Slave Market.”
According to Barbara Ransby, the article. “reflected Ella’s lucid assessment
of the complex reality of race, gender and class in the lives of African-
American women.” [54]
The women were forced to seek work on the street corners
since employment agencies were limited in the area. To both Ella and
Marvel Cooke, the scene resembled a slave auction block. In the article
they claimed, “She who is fortunate (?) enough to please Mrs. Simon
Legree’s scrutinizing eye is led away to perform hours of multifarious
household drudgeries.” [55] Their direct illusion to Uncle
Tom’s Cabin’s most notorious character insinuates the resemblance
of slavery to the conditions of African-American women. The issue was
domestic work, contested terrain for African- American women who had
traditionally been relegated to that arena, and were forced to the streets
to perpetuate their conditions. The depression struck African-American
women especially hard and Ella Baker understood this. One of the solutions
the women drew from their investigation was that domestic workers needed
to be organized. This idea reflected Ella’s socialist sympathies.
Although she never identified her self as a Marxist she was aware that
economic conditions played an enormous role in the lives of African-Americans.
Ella
was not dedicated to one dogma, or philosophy of social change; rather,
she believed that organization could radically affect society. “She
combined the Black Baptist missionary values of charity, humility, and
service with the economic theories of Marxists and Socialists of various
stripes who advocated redistribution of wealth and a transfer of power
from capitalist elites to the poor working classes.” [56] This she believed could be accomplished on the
community level. Ella combined her religious experiences as a youth
and the influence of Harlem intellectuals to formulate a theory of grassroots
organizing. She claimed that, “I think the nearest thing to an answer
is having people understand their position and understand their potential
power and how to use it. This can only be done, as I see it, through
the long route, almost, of actually organizing people in small groups
and parlaying those into larger groups.” [57] Her theories
centered on the idea of de-centralized leadership. Although she appreciated
the role of religion in the African-American Community, she recognized
the roles of preachers as too central. A central figure often placed
more emphasis on their own public development, instead of the development
of the community.
To
answer some of the problems of the Depression, and an experiment in
Ella’s theories of organizing, she along with her friend George Shuyler
formed the Young Negro Cooperative League (YNCL). According to Ella,
the organization’s purpose was to, “accept with zest the opportunity
which is now ours to prove to ourselves and others that the Negro can
and will save himself from economic death.”
[58] Although the organization failed, it was an experiment
in socialist organizing that Ella had experienced in the rural community
she was raised in. It exhibited the ideals that Ella would dedicate
the rest of her life to, namely grassroots organizing.
For
the remainder of Ella’s life she was involved in organizations such
as the NAACP, SCLC and SNCC however, her political ideas could not be
limited to one organization. Her experiences in some of the organizations
radically altered her ideas on leadership and the roles of women. As
one of the founding members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference
(SCLC), Baker witnessed first-hand the rise of charismatic leaders.
However, she also realized that women were often excluded from public
leadership roles. She claimed that, “I had known…that there would never
be any role for me in a leadership capacity with SCLC. Why? First, I’m
a woman. Also, I’m not a minister…The basic attitude of men and especially
ministers, as to…the role of women in their church setups is that of
taking orders, not providing leadership.” [59] This fueled
her criticism of centralized leadership. Ella believed that under the
leadership of the SCLC, the voices of young people as well as women
were being drowned out.
One
advantage of her position in the SCLC allowed her to organize others.
She utilized her role to organize students; the result was the formation
of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Unlike the
SCLC, the students were not entirely satisfied with integration, which
many had come to see as accommodationist. Rather, they wanted to force
radical change. Dubbed, “Ella’s Children,”
[60] the students of SNCC penetrated rural areas, organizing
the young and women. According to Charles Payne, it became the organization
Ella had longed to create.
[61] SNCC, during the formative years, rejected centralized
leadership and adopted Ella’s ideas of group led organization. Ella
claimed in 1960 that, “This inclination toward group-centered leadership,
rather than toward leader-centered group pattern of organization
was refreshing indeed to those of the older group who bear the scars
of the battle.” Ella went on to claim that, “the disillusionment that
come when the prophetic leader turns out to have heavy feet of clay.” [62] This was a biting
attack of the leadership of other organizations including NAACP and
SCLC. She claimed that SNCC was a refreshing alternative to older organizations
simply because they were overshadowed by leaders who were invested in
the approval of the white community.
In
a 1966 interview, Ella Baker claimed that, “The NAACP, Urban League,
etc., do not change society, they want to get in. It’s a combination
of concern with the black goal for itself and, beyond that, with the
whole society, because this is the acid test of whether the outs can
get in and share in equality and worth.” [63] Her attacks of mainstream Civil
Rights organizations reflected her goals of socialist organizing. The
community was the base, according to Ella, and that base was the foundation
for change in society. One reason Ella Baker’s role in Civil Rights
has often been overshadowed is due to her inconspicuous position. She
refused to take over leadership of organizations, including SNCC, because
it refuted her ideals of community organization. She was dedicated
to the rural communalism she was raised in, and suspicious of leaders
who sought the limelight instead of community development. In her own
words, “I hoped that inside of me there has always been the concept
that the whole is greater than the part-that is the concept of developing
a movement that involves people to the extent that they become knowledgeable
about their own condition and were activated to do something about it.”
[64] Ella brought her ideas to the community and subsequently
radically altered the organization of the Civil Rights movement.
Ella’s
influences were outside of traditional Western ideals. As Robinson
claims, slavery and its cultural development on the periphery of Western
thought influenced the Black Radical tradition. Ella drew her ideas
from her family and its tradition rooted in slavery and resistance.
She utilized these ideas to formulate a theory of community organizing
that resembled her rural upbringing.
She
was not, however; devoted to one theory of oppression. Although she
was sympathetic to socialist ideals, she did not adopt their solutions.
She was, according to Winston James’ definition of radicalism, anti-capitalist;
however, she did not espouse radical communist insurrection. She also
did not define herself in terms of Black Nationalism. Ella had contact
with West Indians and was sympathetic to the plight of Abyssinians,
however; she remained skeptical of nationalism. According to Barbara
Ransby, “Ella Baker never espoused narrow nationalist ideas in the way
that some contemporary movements did.” [65] She had an international outlook that was critical
of colonialism, however, her ideals were far too eclectic to invest
in Black Nationalist ideas. Ella Baker remained dedicated to organization
on the community level, even among poor whites, to combat the evils
of capitalism and oppression.
Both
Ella Baker and Claudia Jones spent their adult lives organizing for
social justice, a justice that included African-Americans, women and
the poor. Their theories, however eclectic, reflect Winston James’
definition of radicalism. Both women recognized the evils of capitalism,
specifically its affect on African-Americans. They both experienced
the worst economic crisis of the early twentieth century, witnessing
the impact of poverty and destitution on the working class and African-Americans.
This contributed to their attacks on capitalism. However, the fundamental
difference is that Claudia Jones adopted Marxist theories to combat
class oppression and Ella Baker formulated community-based ideals of
organization that reflect socialism, but adopted no specific dogma.
Claudia
Jones remained a devout communist her entire adult life. Her dedication
is evident when one visits the grave of Karl Marx. Right next to the
founder of communism is Claudia Jones’ gravesite, the inscription on
her headstone reads, “Valiant fighter against racism and Imperialism
who dedicated her life to the progress of socialism and the liberation
of her own Black people.” [66] Early in her
life, Claudia developed a class and race consciousness that allowed
her at an early age to adhere to Marxist philosophies. Her solution
was a socialist uprising, this only, she believed, would liberate the
masses of the oppressed from class, race and gender oppression.
Although
Ella Baker too had a distinct class and race consciousness, rooted in
her upbringing, Ella did not believe in Marxist theory, she was in fact
often a critic of the CPUSA. She admired their de-centralized committees
that allowed for effective organizing, however, she did not believe
in Marxist ideology. Instead, she created her own ideals of organizing
that would forever impact the grassroots movement. Although she was
already over fifty when she helped organize SNCC, she recognized the
importance of young people and women in the movement for social justice.
Her ideas of de-centralized leadership created a schism in the movement
between organizations dedicated to non-violence, led by individuals
and organizations committed to community organizing that became disillusioned
by the violence of whites and the often ineffectiveness of non-violence.
Although
Claudia Jones was also devoted to Black Nationalism, Ella Baker was
suspicious of nationalist sentiments. Staying within the borders of
the United States her entire life, Ella recognized the oppression of
Blacks globally and often rallied to their support, however, she was
not interested in nationalism. Claudia Jones was born in the West
Indies and remained concerned about the state of Blacks in the international
arena. During her exile in London she became the editor of the West
Indian Gazette and traveled often in support of equal rights, including
a demonstration in South Africa against Apartheid.
Both
of these women were also influenced by the role of Blacks and women
as a result of the development of the Black Radical Tradition. Her
grandparents who had lived their early lives in bondage more directly
influenced Ella Baker. She heard their stories of resistance and struggle
and developed her own ideals of radicalism based on their influence.
Both women were also concerned with African-American women as domestics,
reminiscent of slavery. They agitated for the recognition of women
and their liberation from the homes of whites. Their ideas were rooted
in the oppression of slavery, and the poor economic development of Blacks
on both a global and a local level.
They
were also both targeted by US officials as threats to the well being
of the country. Some have argued that Claudia Jones imprisonment exacerbated
her already failing health and contributed to her early demise. Although
Ella Baker was older, she lived another twenty-two years after Claudia
Jones. During her life, federal officials also investigated her. These
investigations legitimize the impact of both Ella Baker and Claudia
Jones. They were a threat not merely because they vocalized their objections
to oppression, they also agitated others and influenced younger generations
of activists. The most enduring impact of both women is that they forged
a new role for women in social justice movements. Claudia Jones forced
the CPUSA to recognize the influence of women and their role in the
working class community and Ella Baker forged a new role for women and
youths in the Civil Rights movement. Although they were dedicated to
different and often divergent ideologies, Claudia Jones and Ella Baker
helped to forge an important role for women within the Black Radical
tradition. They became the voice for those who were often silenced
and agitated not only for the recognition of women in the radical tradition,
but for the recognition of the unique role women have played both in
the development of the radical tradition and the development of ideologies
within it.
