the national question and race

[flyby]

looking over some old threads on now-defunct message boards, i found this post by kasama. I think the issues it addresses (on race, nationality, countries, self-determination, the class structure of nations, etc.) are not nearly well enough understood.

t would be a shame if this post just disappeared:


Here are some comments on issues raised:

1) On a global scale, there are oppressor countries and oppressed countries. The U.S. (as a social formation) is (needless to say) one of the main oppressor countries.

2) Within the U.S. there are different nations and nationalities. Over time, "white people" have generally been forged together as a single dominant and oppressor nationality (which can be scientifically described as "the Euro-American nation" but is popularly just called "white people."

This dominant nation has had a process of development -- it was originally based in protestant English, German and Dutch settlers (so-called WASPs) -- and only gradually (after 1900) came to assimilate Catholic Southern Europeans (Italians) or Irish immigrants or Jewish people.

3) Black people in the U.S. are a historically distinct nation of people. They are not "a race" -- and in fact, if we want to speak scientifically, there is no such thing as "races" of people, either as social or as genetic categories. Communists have always held that the "race issues" of the U.S. are a "national question" -- this is, in fact, one of the important contributions of Marxism to the political understanding of the U.S., its history and its path to socialism.

4) There is a general confusion between "nations" and "countries." Countries are independent formations with a state apparatus. (Venezuela is a country, so is Canada). But nations are historic communities of people -- with a common language, culture, territory and economic life (ie. market and class structure). Countries are often multinational, and nations often don't have states. Kurds (for example) are the largest nation without a state. Black people are a nation without an independent country or their own state. Basque people are a nation, but not an independent country, and so on. Sometimes members of one nation form a national minority within another nation. Mexico is a country with a distinct Mexican nationality (and also distinct Mayan-Indian peoples as well). Mexican people within the U.S. form a national minority in the U.S. -- but are part of a larger Mexican nation that is rooted in mexico. In addition, there is a section of people within the U.S. who are Chicanos -- who are a Latino people in the U.S. Southwest, who have been in the U.S. for a long time (often before the U.S. annexed California etc.) Chicanos say "I didn't jump the border, the border jumped me." In short: Nations are not the same as countries.

5) It is not a law that ALL nations need to become independent in order to become liberated. (Here the experience and theory of the Russian revolution is an important cluster of lessons and analyses.) And this is important because the proletariat needs to liberate as large a territory as possible to build socialist economies within a world still dominated by imperialism. And so, finding the ways for different nationalities and nations to be liberated and united within a single socialist state is always an important goal of serious prol revolutionaries.

6) Nations have class structure. There are proletarians in all nations, and there are proletarians in both the Black (African American) nation, and within the dominant Euro-American nation.

7) What is distinctive about the U.S. (and its INTERNALLY oppressed nationalities) is that the proletariat there is multinational. France oppresses the Ivory Coast as a neocolony -- and the French working class is structurally distinct from the workers of the Ivory Coast. But while the Euro-American nationality in the U.S. has been historically dominant (thanks to a structure of white supremacy) the working class itself is both stratified and multinational.

8) The stratification of the multinational working class is tied up to both the ability of imperialism to forge a labor aristocracy AND to the white supremacy that pushes oppressed nationalities into caste-like existence at the bottom of the working class.

9) But even with that stratification, and with that structural white supremacy, the oppressed sections of the working class include many proletarians who are white (in fact, most of them are white). Most people on welfare are white, most people among the "working poor" are white -- and so on. So the class structure is not a simple set up where "white workers as a whole are privileged or 'bought off,' and black workers are alone at the bottom."

10) There are Black people who are lifted high into the system to serve the structure in various ways (generals, ambassadors, mayors etc.) Such people are agents of the system (imperialism) who are (of course) still members of their nationality (i.e. Powell remains a Jamaican-American black man, even if he is Secretary of State). They are generally not political representatives of the weak, and rather poor Black bourgeoisie -- they are political representatives of the imperialist monopoly capitalist bourgeoisie.

11) Malcolm X called for "Black unity" first, then, on that basis, possible alliance with other nationalities. This nationalist approach is different from the approach of communists. People within the communist movement who uphold Malcolm's approach are called "Bundists" -- and this issue remains an important controversy of the revolution.

12) However the communist approach is for form a single multinational communist party for a multinational state. To lead the struggle for national liberation and national equality as central part of the proletarian socialist revolution. To uphold the right of self-determination (including independence) for oppressed nations within the multinational state -- and the right to autonomy for those oppressed nationalities who don't have the objective basis for considering or establishing a separate country. This is emboded in the theory of the "solid core of the united front" -- which we could discuss in some detail.

[redstar2000SE]

kasama wrote: Black people in the U.S. are a historically distinct nation of people.

I'm aware that this has "always" been the communist position...but if it really represents reality, how is it that no significant movement for "national liberation" has ever emerged in this group?

Yes, there have been marginal nationalist groups emerge from time to time -- perhaps the "Republic of New Africa" people might be the best example.

Certainly there is a wide-spread sense of "ethnic solidarity" among black people...especially in particular black communities.

But where is that sense of "nation-hood" (for want of a better word) that one would expect to find if material conditions justified this analysis?

kasama wrote: But nations are historic communities of people -- with a common language, culture, territory and economic life (ie. market and class structure).

In "multi-ethnic" empires, this becomes a problematic definition...because of population mobility. Before the 20th century, this was rarely a problem -- people were born, lived, and died in the same place. Even if they moved to a different country, they would then settle with others from the "old country" and stay there for the rest of their lives.

Now, workers of all ethnic groups are "on the move" both in Europe and in the U.S. -- not to mention that refugees from exploitation in the "third world" are arriving in large numbers in the "west".

The element of "common territory" -- which may be crucial in the psychological formation of "national consciousness" -- seems to be in the process of disintegration.

kasama wrote: However the communist approach is for form[ing] a single multinational communist party for a multinational state. To lead the struggle for national liberation and national equality as central part of the proletarian socialist revolution. To uphold the right of self-determination (including independence) for oppressed nations within the multinational state -- and the right to autonomy for those oppressed nationalities who don't have the objective basis for considering or establishing a separate country.

If "national consciousness" is really a "big deal" to people, then a "multi-national" state is not viable. It might be imposed...but it wouldn't be supported.

From the Maoist standpoint, a "single socialist state" is a very high priority. I've never seen any suggestion from the RCP that the United States "should" be broken up into a mosaic of independent countries based on nationality.

It would therefore seem appropriate to strongly discourage nationalist ideologies.#nosmileys

[Burningman]

Regarding sentiments of nationalism among African-Americans, I think you can do a little better than small sects like the Republic of New Afrika.

Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X were perhaps the two greatest leaders of African American people this country has ever seen. Both believed, as Malcolm put it "I am not an American. I am one of the 22 million victims of Americanism."

The Black Panther Party also held a position demanding an internationally supervised referendum on the national destiny of African-Americans.

And, if we're keeping up to date, there is a massive move back down south by African-Americans around the country. There are reports that hundreds of thousands of African-American's have moved back in the last ten years.

I find the idea of an established black-belt nation beyond the realm of the possible and not desirable even if it were. Aside from the obvious fact that the South is multi-ethnic, there are tens of millions of highly armed (and right-wing) whites who simply won't allow it.

I think we should be critical of nationalism in general, while recognizing that self-determination is necessary for oppressed peoples such to stand on their own feet. This isn't just a matter of changing policies at the top. A people forged in slavery, in a land not of their choosing, need to make a decision about their destiny. And I would hope that the choice would be better than nationalism (particularly a kind that is not viable).

Recognizing self-determination means you may not always agree with the results.

-----

Within the Communist movement, arguments about the Black-Belt nation re-emerged during the New Communist Movement of the 1970s. I think this was largely a way of challenging the racial opportunism of the CPUSA. Instead of developing a new theory in line with not just reality, but the expressed sentiments of African-American people, the very particular theory articulated by Harry Haywood had a brief second life. For a history of this, Haywood's autobiography "Black Bolshevik" is definitely worth a read. It was published by the October League/CPML.

[redstar2000SE]

Burningman wrote: I find the idea of an established black-belt nation beyond the realm of the possible and not desirable even if it were.

I once saw a map of the U.S. divided by counties...and all the counties with at least 25% African-American population were marked in a special color.

The "black-belt" is still there! It starts in east Texas, runs across central and northern Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, northern and central Mississippi and Alabama, northern Georgia, southern Virginia and the Carolinas.

It's "big enough" to be a "nation" and looks slightly like a large hot dog.

If it were "possible" (a big question), I do not see why it would necessarily be "undesirable".

(By the way, the map also showed a "Hispanic Belt" throughout almost all of the American southwest. Another possible "nation"?)

As it happens, I'm inclined to favor the break-up of the imperial homelands that we may inherit from the old ruling class...though nationalism may not be the most desirable basis for doing that.

Swollen multi-ethnic empires do not seem to "do much" for the well-being of their populations. There's always a dominant ethnic-cultural group...to which all others remain subordinate. "Formal equality" says nothing about the social reality of the situation...as I'm sure you know.

Burningman wrote: Recognizing self-determination means you may not always agree with the results.

Indeed. It seems to me that communists (including Marx and Engels) have always had an ambiguous (not to say confused) attitude towards the nationalism of oppressed minorities within the advanced capitalist countries.

"The working class has no country", Marx and Engels declared...and I agree completely.

Unfortunately, a very large number of workers act as if the opposite is true...and demonstrate a remarkable, if unfortunate, attachment to particular nationalisms.

Leaving us with a very nasty problem...

1. Alienate many potential supporters with a no-holds-barred political and ideological struggle against all forms of nationalism...or

2. Court transient popularity by "endorsing" this or that particular nationalism for "strategic" reasons. (One way this is done is by arguing that certain nationalisms are "progressive" while others are "reactionary". That's plausible enough when speaking of a "third world" country versus an imperialist country -- but begins to look contrived when speaking of the "nations" within the imperialist homeland. Is the Arab community in Detroit or the Laotian community in Minnesota entitled to "self-determination" and an independent "nation" if they so desire?)

I should add, in fairness, that when communists who are also members of the dominant ethnic/cultural group attack nationalism...it is rarely the nationalism of their own group that they attack.

Think about it; can you recall a really blistering attack on American patriotism from a white-majority communist group? The old CPUSA used to actually claim that they were patriots -- "Communism is 20th Century Americanism", etc.

I imagine that it's occurred to many people of color to wonder why it is that when white communists attack nationalism, it's "always" the nationalisms expressed by people of color that are the "main targets"?

Perhaps we should let the nationalisms of people of color "off the hook"...and concentrate our fire on the most dangerously reactionary form of nationalism in the world today: American patriotism.

[Deleted]

I am reminded of an article written by Ashanti Alston (a former Black Panther who is now an Anarchist) entitled "Beyond Nationalism, But Not Without It." I don't know that I agree with everything he had to say there, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

a few excerpts:

Beyond Nationalism But Not Without It

Written by Ashanti Alston

Thursday, 16 September 2004

As a postmodernist anarchist, identity politics is important to me. Every time I hear someone talk about my people as if we are just some "working class" or "proletariat" I wanna get as far away from that person or group as possible, anarchist, Marxist, whatever. As a postmodernist anarchist I also find my people's experience the foundation from which we will find our way to liberation and power. That's what I get from being the "insurrection of subjugated knowledges." My nationalism gave me that kind of pride because it was such a rejection of White thinking or at least a decentering of the primacy of white thought, capitalist, socialist, whatever. Folks outside of our experience need to respect that they ain't got no monopoly on revolutionary thinking and damn sure ain't got none on revolutionary practice.

There are all kinds of Nationalisms and there are all kinds of reactions to nationalism. Personally, I have moved through and grown within some of the Black Nationalisms specific to the Black Community.

Black nationalism saved my life, in a sense, as a teenager in the 1960s. It "jarred" my unconscious acceptance of amerikkanism dogging my peoples and helped me see the larger picture. I am a 60's child. There was Malcolm, there was H. Rap Brown and Stokeley Carmichael of the Black Power movement, and then there was the Black Panther Party. All were nationalists, all represent an evolution of nationalism within the black community. Because of the totally racist, genocidal dynamic within this Babylonian Empire, the black nationalist understood that we must primarily look to ourselves to free ourselves. And none of these thinkers felt it was necessary to 'check in' with The White Man - from the ruler to the revolutionary - to see if it was okay. It was about our survival as a people, not as that mythical "working class" or that equally mythical "citizen." For me, as this teenager who had just witnessed the 60's Rebellions in my own thoroughly racist hometown, nationalism was a lifesaver: "WE MUST LOVE EACH OTHER." "BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL." "WE MUST CONTROL OUR OWN COMMUNITIES."

Nationalism and statism are different because nationalism can be anti-state. But they can have commonalities in that nationalism may only be against a particular kind of state, such as a Racist State, or a Fascist State. Anarchism and nationalism are similar in that they are both anti-statist, but what does it mean when the specific anarchist movements within a specific country are racist and dismissive of any and all nationalism, be it reactionary or revolutionary? For me, even the nationalism of a Louis Farrakhan is about saving my people, though it is also thoroughly sexist, capitalist, homophobic and potentially fascist. Yet, it has played an important part in keeping a certain black pride and resistance going. Their "on the ground" work is very important in keeping an anti-racist mentality going. As a black anarchist, that's MY issue to deal with cuz they'se MY FOLKS. But it points to where anarchism and nationalism have differences: most anarchists in the U.S. have NO understanding of what it means to be BLACK in this fucked up society. We do not have the luxury of being so intellectual about this excruciating boot on our collective neck, this modern-day middle-passage into the Prison Industrial Complex and other forms of neo-slavery.

The complete article is available on the Anarchist People of Color website here: www.illegalvoices.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11&Itemid=29

[RedWinter]

I agree with what RedStar2000 said about attacking American (white) nationalism/patriotism as the main enemy rather than focusing on black/brown/yellow nationalism as evil. We communists can work with revolutionary nationalists in an alliance as long as we find the progressive elements of such organizations and promote their ideological development. Plenty of white people in the USA are patriotic as well, we also have to find ways to direct these people away from right-wing politics and into revolutionary communism. In many other countries, communists are able to use popular love of the country ("la patria") as another way to get the people involved in the struggle against capitalism.

While I do find the postmodernist anarchist black nationalism idea pretty ineffectual and Bundist, I'm not going to go and attack it; I'd rather denounce all American nationalism and patriotism as reactionary.

[flyby]

Part of what is confusing for many people is that there are some distinctions to make.

Saying Black people are a nation does not mean that their struggle must be for independence. Many nations do not have nation states (i.e. independent countries and governments) -- and it is not necessary for each nation to be independent in order to end its oppression (as a nation).

But oppressed nations do need national liberation (even if that does notnecessarily require independence).

In the u.s., the struggle of Black people against their oppression as a people is (and will be) one of the most powerful currents of the revolutionary movement.

The movement for proletarian revolution -- i.e. the united front under leadership of the proletariat (i.e. ufulp) -- has as its solid core two streams -- the national liberation struggles of oppressed nationalities within the u.s., and the struggle of the multinational proletariat for socialism.

so the national liberation struggle of Black people is a powerful revolutionary force.

But that is a different question from the question of "nationalism" as an ideology.

For victory, the national liberation struggle of Black people has to be led by a proletarian revolutionary line (which means internationalist ideology, not nationalist ideology).

So they are levels and layers -- distinctions between national liberation and independence, between national liberation as a political movement and nationalism as an ideology, etc.

[1949]

In response to Burningman referring to Marcus Garvey as one of "the two greatest leaders of African American people this country has ever seen", I would like to cross-post another superb post by kasama from the same forums as the one that started this topic (What Is To Be Done), which deals with Garvey's line a bit.

It sort of started with Andrei writing:

"I think it would be interesting to see a united Africa under a Soviet-style system of "republics". A Union of African Socialist Republics, maybe? It'd be interesting to see, at least. "

To which kasama followed with:

"I agree, Andrei, that revolution in some parts of the world may require the fusioin of current countries into federations. For example the Maoists in Nepal support the idea of a larger South Asian federation. (And there are some fascinating documents online discussing this!)

However, Pan-Africanism as an ideology is something different. It is a form of nationalism that says all African-descended people anywhere in the world are first and foremost Africans -- and that is where their idenity, unity and alliances should be sought.

Now, it is one thing to say that the people of Africa should build unity on their continent against imperialism (and various local warlords etc.)

But it is quite another thing to say that African descended people in Jamaica, or Puerto Rico, or Harlem should look to their ties in Africa as their basis for revolutionary strategy.

Pan-Africanism in Africa has some interesting strategic insights. but Pan-Africanism in the U.S., for example is not nearly so radical or progressive.

Pan Africanism in the U.S. has often argued that Black people need to return to Africa to get liberation (that was the line of the original Pan-Africanist in the U.S., marcus Garvey). It was a movement that opposed waging political struggle (including revolution) in the U.S.

More modern Pan-Africanists emerged from the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. They were obviously more radical, and less opposed to struggle than the Garveyites (or the Elijah Muhammed's Nation of Islam). But still, in rather narrow and hostile ways, they opposed any real strategic unity between Black people in the u.s. and other nationalities. They strongly opposed working closely with any white people, but also in some cases opposed forming strategic alliances with OTHER OPPRESSED PEOPLE (like Latinos, Native peoples, immigrants etc.).

The slogan "liberation will come from a Black thing" is a narrow nationalist approach raised by former SNCC artivist James Foreman. While he was not himself a Pan-Africanist, he captured the essential approach that all such narrow nationalists have in common.

And if you think through this view -- it is a very defeatist thing that points away from revolution. There is no "black only" thing that can destroy u.s. imperialism from the inside. so this liberation they talk about sooner or later becomes something other than revolution."