What makes a nation?

[Andrei_X]

I've read Marxism and the National Question by Stalin along with a few other writings by Lenin and the RCP, but I do have a little trouble understanding exactly makes a nation.

Okay, I understand that the 4 criteria for nations are:

1. common territory
2. common language
3. common economic life
4. common culture

My question really boils down to this: What is the difference between an oppressed nation and a national minority/oppressed nationality?

Okay, for example, the Black people of the U.S. are considered by Marxists to be an oppressed nation. Let's take a look:

1. common territory

The Black Belt South- check.

2. common language

This one I'm just a whee bit shifty on because I don't understand the distinction between dialect and language. Is Ebonics a dialect or a language? What of the different creoles, gullahs, patois, etc. within the Black nation?

However, the general consensus is that the Black nation fits this criterium because they have Ebonics. So... check.

3. common economic life

They developed as slaves with common roots in Africa, and then developed as a people into sharecroppings and farmers in the Black Belt South. Check.

4. common culture

Definitely- the Afro-American people have developed a distinct culture very different from the Euro-American oppressor nation or other Black/African nations.

So obviously they are a nation with the right to independence and self-determination. But what about national minorities/oppressed nationalities? Why can't they have self-determination?

I'm going to use 3 examples: the Chicano people of the Southwestern U.S.A., the Chechens, and the Tibetans.

1. common territory

Chicano: They have the Southwest/occupied Mexico. Thus they have a homeland. Check. And yet I must ask: Is Aztlan a reality or is it a myth?

Chechens: They have Chechnya. Check.

Tibetans: They have Tibet. Check.

2. common language

Chicanos: They have Spanish- mainly the Mexican dialect. Check.

Chechens: They speak Chechen. Check.

Tibetans: They speak Tibetan. Check.

3. common economic life

Now this is what trips me up. What exactly is a "common economic life"?

Chicanos: Don't they have a common economic life as farmers, urban workers, and migrant laborers?

Chechens: They have their own national economy, right? They have specialized ways of living it seems.

Tibetans: They are very much based on herding and livestock. Is that an economic life?

4. common culture

Chechens and Tibetans [note: I believe it was wise for the Tibetans, IF they are a nation, to stay within China] definitely have distinct cultures, but Chicanos are a little more difficult. I can see this being the only thing that would make them an oppressed nationality rather than an oppressed nation. From my observations Chicanos within the U.S. have a culture that have some differences with Mexican culture. Am I correct?


So once again I pose my question: What's a nation and what's an oppressed nationality?

[honky tonk]

Some initial points (more to come):

Okay, I understand that the 4 criteria for nations are:

1. common territory
2. common language
3. common economic life
4. common culture

(yes, but Stalin is a bit more formulaic than we should be -- it is part of his mechanical method we don't apply. So the essense of his arguments and distinctions are worth studying. The mechanicalness and formulaic nature of his argument is not as useful.)

Honky tonk: The main point of a "nation" is that this historically constituted community of people has a material possibility to function as an independent country. If not, they are not a nation.

1. common territory

The Black Belt South- check.

Honkytonk: Black people have a common historical homeland.

2. common language

This one I'm just a whee bit shifty on because I don't understand the distinction between dialect and language. Is Ebonics a dialect or a language? What of the different creoles, gullahs, patois, etc. within the Black nation?

honkytonk: this means a common language, not necessarily a unique one. Mexico's common language is spanish. It doesn't mean they need a *separate* language (some uniquely mexican tongue).

However, the general consensus is that the Black nation fits this criterium because they have Ebonics. So... check.

Honkytonk: the natoinal status of Bl;ack poeple does not rest on whether Black english is a distinct language.

3. common economic life

They developed as slaves with common roots in Africa, and then developed as a people into sharecroppings and farmers in the Black Belt South. Check.

Honky tonk: This is not what it means. It means they have the basis for an economic market. That they have some differentiation into class structure etc. When all black people were slaves, they were not a nation.

4. common culture

Definitely- the Afro-American people have developed a distinct culture very different from the Euro-American oppressor nation or other Black/African nations.

So obviously they are a nation with the right to independence and self-determination.

Honkytonk: this is not obvious at all. Especially since Black poeple have been dispersed from the black belt over the last hundred years.

[JC]

Language : Ebonics is a dialect
Territory :Non Existent , The black belt has had less and less black since the comintern in 30's . They occupie ghettos but these are not countinoues
Culture : They have a sub culture , not a full fleged culture.
Economic : There is no black mode of production or a black bourgoise .

However does this mean marxists shouldnt suppourt AA MOVEMENT OF COUNSINCE BY BLACK WORKERS . INFACT
IF THERE IS SUCH A MOVMENT OF COUNSINCE , WE SHOULD , MUST , AND WILL SUPPOURT it

[jj]

Andrei_X said:

4. common culture

Chechens and Tibetans [note: I believe it was wise for the Tibetans, IF they are a nation, to stay within China] definitely have distinct cultures, but Chicanos are a little more difficult. I can see this being the only thing that would make them an oppressed nationality rather than an oppressed nation. From my observations Chicanos within the U.S. have a culture that have some differences with Mexican culture. Am I correct?

**********

How much do you know about Mexican culture? Chicano culture? Mexico itself is very diverse. I am wondering what kind of research you did on this question.

In my experience there is more common culture between Mexico and the chicano South West, than there is between the US and Canada. There are sometimes more similiarities between the culture of Chicanos in Texas and Mexicans in Northern Mexico than between even Mexicans in the North and Mexicans in the South. I think that in most places Chicanos have more in common with Mexico than the white nation. I also think that as more Mexicans cross the border-- this will be more and more the case.


I think that upholding imperialist borders is racist. That is all i have to say.

[redstar2000]

jj wrote: I think that upholding imperialist borders is racist.

And I would extend that even further. Why is it the task of communists to even concern themselves with the "question" of what is a "real" nation? As opposed to a "semi-real" nation or a "fake" nation?

What difference would the "answers" to such a question make to us?

The principle of "national self-determination" is an acid that dissolves all previous arrangements whenever it's applied. If the United States (or any "big" nation) is dissolved by plebisicite into a multitude of smaller "nations", why should we care?

And, for that matter, if a multitude of small "nations" agree to unify themselves into a "big nation" (the EU), how does that impact our perspective positively or negatively?

The question for us is which class rules?

From a communist viewpoint, borders are irrelevant.

[kasama]

JC wrote:
"Language : Ebonics is a dialect
Territory :Non Existent , The black belt has had less and less black since the comintern in 30's . They occupie ghettos but these are not countinoues
Culture : They have a sub culture , not a full fleged culture.
Economic : There is no black mode of production or a black bourgoise .
However does this mean marxists shouldnt suppourt AA MOVEMENT OF COUNSINCE BY BLACK WORKERS . INFACT
IF THERE IS SUCH A MOVMENT OF COUNSINCE , WE SHOULD , MUST , AND WILL SUPPOURT it"

This is confused at best.

The difference between a "nation" (in a marxist sense) and other historic groupings of peoples -- is that a nation has the objective basis for forming an independent state. (That is the meaning of Stalin's "criteria" for nationhood -- which are a bit formulatic, but basically confey some of the key defining points of nationhood -- i.e. the material basis for indepdendence.)

Black people have the basis for independent existance -- they were a distinct natoin, forged in post-reconstruction days, and holding a historic homeland (in the black belt) until at leasst World War 2.

The possibility of reconstructing an independent state there is real, if unlikely. And so it is important to uphold the "right of self-determination" including up to and including independence.

Black people have a common language -- English (in various forms, both Black english and standard english)

They have a historic territory, even if more recently dispersed.

There is a black bourgeoisie, and a historically evolved class structure among black people.