Chicano and Black Nationalism

[LiamChe]

Does Chicano and Black National Liberation movements have any significance in the revolutionary socialist movement in the U.S.? I have noticed that predominately Marxist-Leninist-Maoist groups such as the FRSO and Ray O Light tend to support these movements, but do other revolutionaries support it as well? Why or Why not?

[Remus Bleys]

Do most revolutionaries support the call for a new nation? Some do, some don't. Those who don't see creating a new nation as simply dividing the working class.
However, black and chicano liberation is something every revolutionary should support, for the same reason queer and women's liberation is too be support.

These movements should be inherently socialist, as the only thing to truly liberate these extra-oppressed groups is the end of capital's control over society.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Chicano nationalism?


Aren't they those far-right fascistoids that operate in the southern US?

Just got this from a website named 'Aztlan' (name of the supposed urheimat of old Aztec mythology? Already smells fishy).



The Brown Berets have always been and always will be Chicano Nationalists. To claim anything other
than that is not holding true to our historical founding principles. The Brown Berets hold no apologies
for our political ideology, we defend it as being the key unifying force behind our movement and as the
only solution for the problems our Raza are plagued with. Chicano Nationalism is far different than the
fascism and totalitarianism of the Nazi's and Communists. Chicano Nationalism is based on us taking
pride in our culture and heritage and we stand by the ancient Mexica prophecies of us retaking our
lands and re-establishing our nation of Aztlan.

Does it mean that we become so narrow minded that we ignore the plight of others, and adopt a
superiority complex? NO!! We empathize with the struggle of people’s throughout the world in their
quest for freedom but for us our people and our cause is first because if we don't fight for us no one
else will. The Blacks have their cause and agenda; The Whites have their cause and agenda; we have
ours. Why should any Brown Beret fight for a cause that is not our own? Why should we advance an
agenda that is either counter productive or outright subversive and destructive to ours? Though we
should never isolate ourselves from the world around us we must remember the saying "Mi Raza
Primero". Don't change it for "Mi Raza Tambien" or “Mi Raza Algun Dia". If it is not for Chicano
Nationalism then "Mexica Tiahui" means nothing.

"My race first", mm? Communism is apparently fascism, mm? Ancient messianic prophecies of Aztlan, mm? The 'whites' and 'blacks' have their agenda (ooh, mixing up political groups with demographics are we?)?

Some of the sentiment is not without warrant but this just sounds like the ramblings of a racist madman.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Also, in case people are still having second thoughts, here's what Magon - a chicano member of this board - has to say about these racist groups that he has actually met in real life, unlike the majority of people who defend them on here:


Firstly, have you actually ever dealt with Chicano nationalism, yourself? Like have you spoken to any one like that in person, or worked with anyone like that in person?

I don't think so. Know why? Because as a Chicano myself who's been around that kind of thing, I've never come across a Chicano Nationalist or Chicano Nationalist group, I've liked or heard something from them I've liked. They can be some of the most racist bunch of people out there, as any KKK or Neo-Nazi group can. Aztlán is their version of a Neo-Nazi's "Great White Nation", just filled with Latinos instead.


Because I've been all around the Chicano Nationalist movement scene. I've met Chicano Nationalists in and from California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, etc. None of them are people looking for goals that Communist Internationalists are looking at. Have you actually looked into the ideas of Chicano Nationalism? If you did, then you would realize that even if you met some alright Chicano Nationalists, their goals are ultimately nothing more than a Latino version of Neo-Nazism.


Because it's still all Nationalistic bullshit you're giving me. Thinking one group of people have the right to control this or that patch of land over another, doesn't help their cause to Internationalism. Neo-Nazi's are just as fine with letting Latinos, African-Americans, Asians, etc. run their own little cut up nations, as long as the Whites are allowed to control theirs. Chicano Nationalists are no different. The Chicano Nationalist movement isn't internationalist, looking to erase the division we have today between races, it's whole focus racial is on keeping racial divisions. They're just as much for race division and bringing up race wars, as White Nationalists.

The Brown Berets are some of the worst there are in the Chicano Nationalists movement. They're as racist and stringent on race traitors, as White Nationalists. Their whole mentality is, "If you're not with us, you're against us," even if you're Chicano. They'll beat on anyone, Chicano or not, who disagrees that they should be able to have a place for Latinos only, and should take back what was "rightfully theirs".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfyk_a7vEvg

"Back to Europe"; "Back to Germany"; "This is 'Mexican Land'"; "For Mexicans, not Whites." These are just some of the lines that woman in the Brown Berets was spewing, and what most of the Chicano Nationalists movement spews. It's disgusting for anyone who actually considers themselves an Internationalist, and looks beyond the lines of Ethnicity. It's definitely no different than any Neo-Nazi/White Nationalist spewing shit. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc. shouldn't be seen as "Mexican Land" or "European Land" or even "Native American Land", it should be land of the Human Race, not some ethnicity's land.

Interestingly enough, the quote I just linked above this post was from the Brown Berets' website.

[LiamChe]

Chicano nationalism?


Aren't they those far-right fascistoids that operate in the southern US?

Just got this from a website named 'Aztlan' (name of the supposed urheimat of old Aztec mythology? Already smells fishy).


Yeah, I thought they were racist too, that's why I was surprised to see these groups (FRSO and Ray O Light) supporting it. I think they more meant National Liberation, rather than Chicano Nationalism (or at least I hope they do). Anyways I don't think its in the interest of Socialism to support Chicano Nationalism. However Ray O Light and FRSO also support National Liberation of the "Black Belt"


1.) Ideologically, we have fought for the materialist conception of history, including vanguard party-building, that focuses on the working class and the toiling masses as the makers of history – a concept at loggerheads with “the U.S. new communist movement” which placed itself at the center of initiative and importance.
2.) Organizationally, the mass line requires that the vanguard and its leaders are ultimately accountable to the class and the masses – hence we have insisted that self-proclaimed vanguard forces, including ourselves, need to practice criticism and self-criticism, follow-up and a general sense of collective responsibility.
3.) Politically, the focal contradiction in the post World War II world has been the contradiction between the billions of oppressed peoples and nations based in Asia, Africa, Arabia, Latin America and Afro-America, on the one hand, and imperialism, headed by U.S. imperialism, on the other.
4.) Our decades-long defense of comrade Stalin has been coupled with our critical support for comrade Mao Tse-tung as a great revolutionary leader on the world stage.
5.) Our early opposition to the so-called Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China was based upon our steadfast struggle against modern revisionism centered in Moscow.
6.) Our timely prediction of the demise of the Socialist Camp was based on upholding of the historical experience of the October Revolution in Russia.
7.) We have fought for recognition of the outstanding positive role of the Communist International and the need for such an organization today.
8.) Within the USA, we have upheld the Afro-American National Question and the right of the Afro-American people to self determination in their Black Belt South homeland and its central importance for victorious proletarian revolution in the USA.
9.) We have consistently exposed the role of the imperialist “bribe” of a large strata of the U.S. working class with its negative impact on the class struggle in the USA and have exposed the parasitic character of U.S. imperialist society in relation to the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples.
10.) Above all else, as a proletarian revolutionary organization based in the USA, we have consistently raised among the ranks of the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples the need for all of us to “keep our eye on the prize” of battling and defeating the main enemy of mankind in our time, imperialism, headed by U.S. imperialism.
http://www.mltranslations.org/Us/ROL/ROLborn.htm

[Ocean Seal]

Chicano nationalism?


Aren't they those far-right fascistoids that operate in the southern US?

Just got this from a website named 'Aztlan' (name of the supposed urheimat of old Aztec mythology? Already smells fishy).


Wow there buddy. Racial nationalism is bad and all, but to call it fascistoid is quite misleading. First off, you cannot be a fascist without being an imperialist. These people are looking to have a way out against an empire, not only that, but they do not have their own land, so naturally a call for their own state is going to sound more racist than it is.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Wow there buddy. Racial nationalism is bad and all, but to call it fascistoid is quite misleading.

I think the only person being misleading here is the person trying to white wash fascists, i.e. you.


First off, you cannot be a fascist without being an imperialist.

Wrong.



Fascism.

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.



Fascist.

an advocate or follower of fascism.

Now, I can understand if you meant that a fascist government could only be sustained via imperialism, but fascist groups? Nonsense. There are a multitude of fascist groups in the past and the modern day, both representing minority ethnic groups and the primary demographic of the countries they have been in.


These people are looking to have a way out against an empire

Oh for pete's sake...

The same can be said for the god-damned Ustashe. Do you consider the Ustashe as not being fascist? Because at the time croats 'had no country to call their own' and were within a larger country, trying to seceed and 'reclaim ethnic land'? No you don't, because it's fucking bullshit and they were blatant racist fascistoids - just like the Chicano nationalists.

I will never understand how some (often pomo) leftists will view right-wing scum as being misunderstood heroes simply because they compose of a minority group within a larger state structure.


not only that, but they do not have their own land, so naturally a call for their own state is going to sound more racist than it is.

I don't see how you can find "This is the land of this particular group of modern humans - no other modern human is allowed to occupy a position of power in this region of the world!" as anything but extremely racist.

Here's a misunderstood poster:

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001396635/la_raza_get_out2_xlarge.gif

"WHITES GET OUT. THIS IS OUR LAND. THE RACE." I guess this is just misunderstood, after all people who are not a part of the white supremacist superstructure of the US magically cannot be xenophobic or fascist.

Also, I find it interesting that you would say this:


Racial nationalism is bad and all

...right before jumping into this weird and obtuse defense of chicano nationalism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

wtf is all this 'waaah anti yt groups' shit?


so hey, national minorities, especially ones that have a common language and territory should have regional self determination. are there reactionary organizations? yes! bundists and labor zionists were the 'evil anti white chicano nationalists' of their day. the thing is tho, does the RCP speak for the entire US left?

i thought so.


so, the thing is 'atzlan' could be its own region, but it probably wont happen the way some want it, and it is not even possible unless the whole system was overturned in the US anyway.



the thing is tho that at least MLs of any stripe should be backing national self-determination. But not doing so in a blind 'all of them are good' type way.

[RedBen]

i'm mexican american, this is offensive and divisionary. anti any race is not something i can get behind.

[Alonso Quijano]

Wow there buddy. Racial nationalism is bad and all, but to call it fascistoid is quite misleading. First off, you cannot be a fascist without being an imperialist. These people are looking to have a way out against an empire, not only that, but they do not have their own land, so naturally a call for their own state is going to sound more racist than it is.
To have a way against an empire? The "indigenous" language they combine there with English is Spanish, wasn't that a colonialistic empire?

And weren't the Aztecs an empire that terrorized and colonised city-states themselves?

I don't buy into this idea that all cultures colonised were somewhat "purer". They weren't utopias. Reminds me of a conversation I had with an Israeli guy born in Ethiopia, about Haile Selassie, hailed as a great leader against imperialism by Jamaicans, Americans and Europeans. He was nothing but a dictator, according to tells me are his parents' claims.

What social heritage and culture do they want to reclaim? The social divisions there? Cultivating maize? Invading other places? Embracing militarism? Also, going back that far ago, and trying to "recover" the culture of the time kinds of ignores of the mere fact that cultures change. Today it is not the same Mexico that the Spaniards conquered, and even if it wasn't conquered by the Spanish army, whose language the Chicanos seem to gladly adopt, it would also not stay the same.

And honestly, we can't tell if it would survive at all. Empires tend to die sometimes. And than there definitely wouldn't be one Chicano culture, would there?

[Red HalfGuard]

Any real, materialist understanding of the class structure of the USA would have to back the self determination rights of the African, [email protected], First Nations and Boricua internal colonies. You can't call yourself a revolutionary Marxist if you're hostile to that form of national liberation. This is really basic shit. Noone's asking anyone to support every non-white organization out there, just don't be social imperialists.

Unless you're the kind of moron who thinks that colonized people fighting back are just as bad as colonizers. In which case: lol.

[Rugged Collectivist]

These people are looking to have a way out against an empire, not only that, but they do not have their own land, so naturally a call for their own state is going to sound more racist than it is.

While I think this sort of thing is somewhat more understandable among oppressed ethnic minorities it's still misguided and intolerable. What good would an independent Aztlan do in the long run? If our goal is the abolition of national borders and racial identity, wouldn't it make more sense to oppose something like this from the get go? Such a project would displace millions of non Latinos and would ultimately be just as racist as the society it replaced.

This is folly and these people are enemies.

[Red HalfGuard]

Maybe they're your enemies.

Do you honestly think it's possible to achieve socialism without national liberation? Don't get confused, that's exactly what the struggle of oppressed nations in the USA is about.

Or do you deny that the USA is a colonial formation that needs to end for socialism within it to advance? Because that would be contrary to evidence and non-materialist.

[Remus Bleys]

social imperialists.


Never heard that used in this manner.

[Red HalfGuard]

Ah, what a meant was 'imperial leftists', got it crossed in my brain with the revisionism thread in another tab.

[Remus Bleys]

Ah, what a meant was 'imperial leftists', got it crossed in my brain with the revisionism thread in another tab.As compared to what? Nationalist Socialists?
that sounds a lot like...

[Red HalfGuard]

Please expound on the similarities between [email protected] nationalism and "Aryan" nationalism. I'm especially interested in the similarities between the class situations of [email protected] workers in the USian southwest and post WW1 German petty bouergoise, civil servants and junior officers that made up the incipient nazi party.

I'm also interested in your analysis of race relations here. Please, share for me your insights on the similarities between the racial situations of German workers and [email protected] ones.

Or in other words, quit making liberal esque false equivalencies.

[Remus Bleys]

Please expound on the similarities between [email protected] nationalism and "Aryan" nationalism. I'm especially interested in the similarities between the class situations of [email protected] workers in the USian southwest and post WW1 German petty bouergoise, civil servants and junior officers that made up the incipient nazi party.

I'm also interested in your analysis of race relations here. Please, share for me your insights on the similarities between the racial situations of German workers and [email protected] ones.

Or in other words, quit making liberal esque false equivalencies.
I just wanted to fulfill Godwin's law.

Doesn't change the fact that support for "national liberaiton" is by definition nationalist, and thus, inherently class collaborationist and bourgeois.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Any real, materialist understanding of the class structure of the USA would have to back the self determination rights of the African, [email protected], First Nations and Boricua internal colonies. You can't call yourself a revolutionary Marxist if you're hostile to that form of national liberation. This is really basic shit. Noone's asking anyone to support every non-white organization out there, just don't be social imperialists.


Uhm yes you can call yourself a "revolutionary marxist" without supporting those.

Tell me, where did Marx give blanket support for all national liberation struggles?

How are Chicanos an Imperialized segment of society considering that California was a fucking Mexican colony? The Native Americans were violently repressed by Mexico and Spain, so don't give me that bullshit. The US was Imperialistic when it invaded Mexico and it exploits cheap Mexican labor, but don't pretend for a fucking minute that the rich Mexican Mestizo ranchers who moved to California and New Mexico in the 1800s weren't just as bad.



Do you honestly think it's possible to achieve socialism without national liberation? Don't get confused, that's exactly what the struggle of oppressed nations in the USA is about.


Again, yes it is possible. National liberation is a weapon in the toolkit of revolutionaries, but it's often a very ineffective one for a variety of reasons.


Please expound on the similarities between [email protected] nationalism and "Aryan" nationalism. I'm especially interested in the similarities between the class situations of [email protected] workers in the USian southwest and post WW1 German petty bouergoise, civil servants and junior officers that made up the incipient nazi party.

I'm also interested in your analysis of race relations here. Please, share for me your insights on the similarities between the racial situations of German workers and [email protected] ones.


You are right to say that White nationalism and Chicano nationalism are different. I don't think that means that we should overlook some of the fundamental problems with Chicano nationalism though. What the fuck are white workers, Vietnamese workers, Chinese workers and Black workers to do in some weird Mestizo republic called "Aztlan"? How are non-indigenous Chicanos any less Imperialistic when Mexico is basically an empire created by White Spaniards and elite Mestizos imposed on a non-Spanish speaking indigenous population?

[Red HalfGuard]

Doesn't change the fact that support for "national liberaiton" is by definition nationalist, and thus, inherently class collaborationist and bourgeois.

Yes, the Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Cuban wars of liberation were class collaborationist and bouergois. What they should have done was remained under the thumb of empire because some European/American ultra-left told them to.

[khad]

ALKQN Amor de Rey

[Red HalfGuard]

Uhm yes you can call yourself a "revolutionary marxist" without supporting those.

Tell me, where did Marx give blanket support for all national liberation struggles?

Will Lenin work for you? Because:


We demand freedom of self-determination, i.e., independence, i.e., freedom of secession for the oppressed nations, not because we have dreamt of splitting up the country economically, or of the ideal of small states, but, on the contrary, because we want large states and the closer unity and even fusion of nations, only on a truly democratic, truly internationalist basis, which is inconceivable without the freedom to secede..


... To accuse those who support freedom of self-determination, i.e., freedom to secede, of encouraging separatism is as foolish and hypocritical as accusing those who advocate freedom of divorce of encouraging the destruction of family ties. Just as in bourgeois society the defenders of privilege and corruption, on which bourgeois marriage rests, oppose freedom of divorce, so, in the capitalist state, repudiation of the right to self-determination, i.e., the right of nations to secede, means nothing more than defence of the privileges of the dominant nation and police methods of administration, to the detriment of democratic methods...


The proletariat cannot but fight against the forcible retention of the oppressed nations within the boundaries of a given state, and this is exactly what the struggle for the right of self-determination means. The proletariat must demand the right of political secession for the colonies and for the nations that “its own” nation oppresses. Unless it does this, proletarian internationalism will remain a meaningless phrase; mutual confidence and class solidarity between the workers of the oppressing and oppressed nations will be impossible; the hypocrisy of the reformist and Kautskyan advocates of self-determination who maintain silence about the nations which are oppressed by “their” nation and forcibly retained within “their” state will remain unexposed.



How are Chicanos an Imperialized segment of society considering that California was a fucking Mexican colony? The Native Americans were violently repressed by Mexico and Spain, so don't give me that bullshit.

Um sir, I don't think you actually know anything about the situation of the indigenous people of Mexico. First of all, [email protected] are genetically indigenous to northern Mexico. Culturally, colonialism has left its mark, but more importantly, the Spanish left a long time ago. Their colonialism was taken up by the USA. The average Mexican knows this far better than you.

There are many surviving indigenous people in Mexico. I stayed in a Tzotz'il rebel village in Chiapas for a month as a volunteer in 2k2. The people there were both socialist rebels and proud Mexicans. I dare you to tell them that they were being "bouergois class collaborationists".



The US was Imperialistic when it invaded Mexico and it exploits cheap Mexican labor, but don't pretend for a fucking minute that the rich Mexican Mestizo ranchers who moved to California and New Mexico in the 1800s weren't just as bad.

And what movement do these norten~os lend their class character to? [email protected] nationalism is firmly based in the [email protected] proletariat, which are the vast [email protected] majority in the American southwest, as even a cursory look at the numbers wil ltell you.



Again, yes it is possible. National liberation is a weapon in the toolkit of revolutionaries, but it's often a very ineffective one for a variety of reasons.

What is 'very ineffective' about liberating a country from colonialism? What do you, oh enlightened first worlder, think colonized people should be doing instead? We await your wisdom.



How are non-indigenous Chicanos any less Imperialistic when Mexico is basically an empire created by White Spaniards and elite Mestizos imposed on a non-Spanish speaking indigenous population?

God damn, you can't even get your terms right. Tell me, without looking it up, what's the linguistic origin of 'Mexico'? What did it refer to?

[Alonso Quijano]

Will Lenin work for you? Because:









Um sir, I don't think you actually know anything about the situation of the indigenous people of Mexico. First of all, [email protected] are genetically indigenous to northern Mexico. Culturally, colonialism has left its mark, but more importantly, the Spanish left a long time ago. Their colonialism was taken up by the USA. The average Mexican knows this far better than you.

There are many surviving indigenous people in Mexico. I stayed in a Tzotz'il rebel village in Chiapas for a month as a volunteer in 2k2. The people there were both socialist rebels and proud Mexicans. I dare you to tell them that they were being "bouergois class collaborationists".



And what movement do these norten~os lend their class character to? [email protected] nationalism is firmly based in the [email protected] proletariat, which are the vast [email protected] majority in the American southwest, as even a cursory look at the numbers wil ltell you.



What is 'very ineffective' about liberating a country from colonialism? What do you, oh enlightened first worlder, think colonized people should be doing instead? We await your wisdom.



God damn, you can't even get your terms right. Tell me, without looking it up, what's the linguistic origin of 'Mexico'? What did it refer to?

For me Lenin doesn't work. I think they should form a proletariat with the other people there. I say that as a Jew whose family supported Zionism because of the Holocaust and nothing else but its effects. It has done more damage.

Marx was a Jew who detested what what he blamed the ruling classes for, a caricature of a pig. He didn't embrace Jewish nationalism even when his socialist "comrades" attacked him because of his origins.

And Mexico is the name Meshiko plus a Castillian phonetic reform that made it mehiko in Castilla and only there.

Fuck me if their families really embrace authentic Aztec culture. I doubt it. Inventing a common past and myths could be disastrous. I've seen it happen to my people.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I can just see Red Halfguard watching an old videotape of the Ustashe slaughtering Hungarian, Jewish, Serb and Roma villagers while cheering 'fight the power guys! National liberation, woooo! Kill those subhumans!'

When people show up and start fighting the Ustashe, or denouncing it as a repulsive right-wing crackpot xenophobic militant political group, he will immediately invoke the all powerful and vague right to self-determination, and add in a few Marx and Lenin quotes to make this line of logic uncriticisable - no matter what the circumstances.

Separatists in the Congo who are employing child labour, enslaving pygmies, bleeding coltan reserves dry and working for mineral companies for resource control? Right to self-determination, folks!

Fascists in the Balkans who mass murder, terrorize and reign over local inhabitants, wanting to employ apartheids and begin pogroms, who also happen to be separated from the rapidly fragmenting Balkan region? Right to self-determination, folks! Those nasty Serbs never deserved to be on Croat land after all, what with their lack of palatalized consonants in their dialects! You can't argue with me defending fash dogs because Lenin said so apparently!

Chicano nationalism and it's adherents are racist as fuck. Just because your stalinoid hemorrhoids start twitching whenever the taboo subject of real racist movements existing within oppressed demographics rears it's head, does not give the nazi shits any more justice.

And please don't link me anything here. This was something I surmised after going through a large number of political group mission statements, including the Brown Berets.

[Alonso Quijano]

i'm mexican american, this is offensive and divisionary. anti any race is not something i can get behind.
I just wanted to quote that message so that people will see it on this page too.

The greatest danger with nationalist movements is not what they do, but how they are legitimised as true representatives of the people in whose name they claim to speak.

I am honestly terribly bothered by tendencies (not talking about this community, but overall) to deduct nationalist ideologies as simple truths that truly represent a people. That's rarely the case.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Will Lenin work for you?


Lenin does not define the "revolutionary Marxist tradition". Not every revolutionary marxist is a leninist.



Um sir, I don't think you actually know anything about the situation of the indigenous people of Mexico. First of all, [email protected] are genetically indigenous to northern Mexico. Culturally, colonialism has left its mark, but more importantly, the Spanish left a long time ago. Their colonialism was taken up by the USA. The average Mexican knows this far better than you.
No, the Pueblo Indians, Navajo and Mojave Indians are "genetically indigenous" (giving importance to who is "genetically indigenous" of course is a reactionary concept anyways so it shouldn't matter). The Chicanos were Spanish-speaking migrants who moved north to settle that area, and before the US conquered the American southwest it was the CHICANOS who were colonists in the area.

The whole problem with the type of anti-colonialism you suggest is that it is grounded in reactionary notions of who deserves to be where based on genetics. The whole point is that doesn't matter - what matters is uniting the workers as a class, not as individual ethnic groups, to overthrow the state. The American southwest isn't Algeria in 1950.



There are many surviving indigenous people in Mexico. I stayed in a Tzotz'il rebel village in Chiapas for a month as a volunteer in 2k2. The people there were both socialist rebels and proud Mexicans. I dare you to tell them that they were being "bouergois class collaborationists".
Yeah bro I've spent plenty of time in indigenous Mexican communities too I don't see what that has to do with anything. The point is that the indigenous people of Mexico do not run the country, nor do workers and peasants more broadly speaking, and their nationalism is in a sense a state of false consciousness. You know Mexico has only had ONE indigenous President in its whole history, right?



And what movement do these norten~os lend their class character to? [email protected] nationalism is firmly based in the [email protected] proletariat, which are the vast [email protected] majority in the American southwest, as even a cursory look at the numbers wil ltell you.
Yeah the Chicanos are mostly workers, which is why we should try to organize them as workers - not as a nationality. If they are organized as workers, we can build a mass movement with chicanos, blacks, whites, native americans and Asians.



What is 'very ineffective' about liberating a country from colonialism? What do you, oh enlightened first worlder, think colonized people should be doing instead? We await your wisdom.
The fact that it does nothing to overcome the Capitalist relations that lead to colonialism in the first place? Because in the case of the American southwest, it was a colony of Mexico? The fact that liberating the Chicano population via national secession does NOTHING to fix things for the workers of all the other races? Look at the people who RAN Mexico and owned most of the resources at the time of America's invasion - it wasn't poor indigenous workers and farmers it was a landed Mestizo rancher elite which TOOK that land from California's natives by force. Santa Ana was a rich Imperialist asshole, and FYI it is really his corrupt rule and terrible military command that allowed the US to win its war anyways. Mexico was as much an Imperialist nation in the 1800s as the US, and still is. In fact I would argue that the conflict in Chiapas only proves that Mexico is an Imperialist state, as do the Yaqui wars, the Caste war in the Yucatan and numerous other indigenous uprisings.



God damn, you can't even get your terms right. Tell me, without looking it up, what's the linguistic origin of 'Mexico'? What did it refer to?Again, something's name has nothing to do with its nature. Mexico has historically and is still run by a mostly white and mestizo elite while its indigenous and african origin population remain destitute, no matter what origin its name has. And I'm MORE than familiar with the origin of the name. I know my Mesoamerican history.


Edit - let's give a sketch of Mexican history to highlight these facts. In 1520 the Aztecs had an empire covering what makes up central Mexico, with the Chichimecs ruling northern Mexico, the Mayans ruling southern Mexico, and a host of tribes inhabiting what is now California, New Mexico, Texas. Spain conquered all of this in a matter of about two centuries, starting with that core Aztec area. The Aztec religious and military leadership was largely wiped out, and what was left bought into Spanish rule. Thus white Castilians and mixed race Mestizo people became the dominant class over the indigenous peasant majority. In the 1700s, under Spanish rule, the Catholic church to set up missions in California and New Mexico to convert the local indigenous people into docile, agricultural, Catholic peasants. Later, the wealthy Castilian and Mestizo elite began to move north and settle California and New Mexico, gobbling up that Mission land and becoming incredibly wealthy.

In the early 1800s, mobs of Indigenous peasants in Mexico under the leadership of a Catholic priest rebelled against Spain. Ultimately this rebellion failed, but with Spain being conquered by France and the rest of the Spanish empire in flames, the landed aristocrats in Mexico saw that they could throw in their lot with the rebels and keep their wealth, power and status. This they did, and they became the rulers of Mexico.

It was not the indigenous peasants who ruled Mexico, but the rich assholes who lived in haciendas and exploited those peasants. The early rulers of Mexico largely came from this class, including the on-again and off-again dictator Santa Ana. These rich assholes settled California, New Mexico and Texas, splitting the state up into large ranches and basically ignoring the indigenous people. They also let white Americans settle Texas, which ended up being a mistake when those white settlers rebelled so they could become a slave state in the union. America annexed Texas, and seeking opportunity invaded Mexico to conquer what would become the American southwest.

Note that at the point of conquest, most of the indigenous people of the area did not identify as Mexican. On the contrary, the Apache and Yaqui tribes hated the Mexican government. They didn't identify with it at ALL. Few Native Americans from the area stuck up to defend Mexico (a handful did, but these seemed to be the exception not the rule), because they did not identify at all with that State. The Mexican army at the time was trying to defend the class rule of Mestizo aristocrats in the area, not the class interests of Native American pueblo indians, mission indians and nomads.

Later on, Mexico got its indigenous President in Benito Juarez, but it remained a Capitalist and Colonialist state in nature up until the Mexican Revolution, when that was brought into question. The PRI took over after the revolution, but they were mostly corrupt nationalists who were not much better for the interests of indigenous and working class Mexicans. Over the decades the socially backwards policies of the state continued to drive working class Mestizo and indigenous Mexicans north to find work in the United States. Class antagonism continued, Communists were violently repressed, and the party sold out its last remaining Social Democratic roots by the time the 80s rolled around. This is why the EZLN rebelled against the Mexican state in the 1990s.

The Mexican state remains a large, abusive institution with deeply ingrained economic exploitation. The desire of brown shirts and Mexican nationalists to rejoin the American southwest to Mexico is a pipe dream, because nobody in their right mind would want to live under the current Mexican government. The fact that Mexican nationalism remains such a compelling force politically has more to do with false consciousness than anything else.

[Remus Bleys]

If I may quote Takayuki

We all know that the replacement of one ruling class with a more local one is a tremendous step forwards for the working class- if only those Irish workers were repressed by Irish state instead of the British state--Independent Scotland, oh the revolution is at hand! Feel the tension rising? Oh, no, it's all the same, fuck!

[Slavic]

I hereby invoke my genetic Hungarian ethnicity and propose the creation of a new Hungarian republic in the Raritan Bay of New Jersey, which land had been our peoples for over a hundred years. We shall throw out the large White and Hispanic communities who have no doubt conquered this land and claimed our capital city of New Brunswick as their own.

It is obvious that matters of self rule and autonomy can only be based on ones genetic makeup and where your ancestors temporary lived. :rolleyes:

Since when did ethnicity become a legitimate reason for creating a new state, especially since ethnicity in the age of globalization is becoming increasingly blurred. Ethnic nationalism is a throw back to the past were states were based around homogenous groups of people. Such a thing only leads to lumping all "non-whateverethnicityyouare" into a single "other" that you are free to dehumanize and exploit to your hearts content.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Do you honestly think it's possible to achieve socialism without national liberation?

Yes. Why wouldn't it be? I genuinely want to know how an independent Aztlan would be any closer to socialism than the US currently is.


Don't get confused, that's exactly what the struggle of oppressed nations in the USA is about. I don't think so. Did you not read quoted section in a previous post where the brown beret explicitly says that their primary goal is an independent Aztlan, and that this needs to be accomplished regardless of how it affects "the whites and blacks"? I know you said that we shouldn't support all of these groups, but then you got upset when I called them enemies.


Or do you deny that the USA is a colonial formation that needs to end for socialism within it to advance? Because that would be contrary to evidence and non-materialist.Please show me the evidence.

[LiamChe]

I think I have concluded that while communists should support the Self-Determination of any oppressed peoples, the Chicano Movement, thus far seems to be missing the point, especially with regards to making it an issue solely about race. It is true that the Aztlan region was once victim to U.S. imperialism and it would be possible (at least theoretically) for there to be a truly anti-imperialist National Liberation movement in that region, However it would be quite impractical. To the current Chicano Nationalist movement it seems that Aztlan won't be liberated until a whole racial group is forced out of that region. This is something communists should not support. I have found this (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm) to be a great guide to looking at issues like this. If we just look at what defines a nation we can begin to see some of the obvious issues within the movement.


What is a nation?
A nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people.
This community is not racial, nor is it tribal. The modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, and so forth. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Teutons, and so on. The same must be said of the British, the Germans and others, who were formed into nations from people of diverse races and tribes.
Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people.

[AmilcarCabral]

Hi, I don't only support revolutionary liberation to liberate blacks and spanish people. Because of the hatred that exists in USA against black people, against spanish people.

But because of the ultra-individualist philosophy of life, and of the family-narcissism philosophy of life (people loving only their own family members) that exists in America. There is also hatred against other sub-cultures and other groups in America. There is hatred against asian immigrants from Japan, China, and other asian nations, hatred against middle east immigrants, and even against white russians and against white canadians (That's right there is a hatred of american whites against white canadians). Hatred of Southern Americans against americans from Boston and North states of USA.

There is hatred of young americans against elderly americans, hatred of people who are fit and in shape against people who have disabilities, hatred of fit athletic people against americans who are overweight. There is hatred of people who drive cars of recent years (2008-2012) against americans who drive older cars (1975-2005 years)

The whole USA is a mental hospital of paranoia, and personality disorders because of the whole country is so sub-divided into many groups, tribes and clans, of groups hating, and bashing each other. And americans are so dumb, that most people do not even realize that the capitalist class is benefitting from the 320 million people of USA divided into clans fighting against each other. Because they apply the Machiavelli tactic of "Divided and Conquer"

But having said all this about how there is so much hatred among the general american population. I think that these 3 groups (spanish, blacks and American Native Indians) need liberation, and economic equality which would take place in the *dictatorship of the working class and peasants*.

And I think that we can kill all the birds at the same time (cure most oppressive problems with the same medicine which is the realization of the workers-dictatorship in the near future, after the US economic crash)

But the problem I see is that the marxist left of the USA is too weak, too poor and the only powerful left that we have in America is the social-democratic parties left (The Green Party, Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Luis Gutierrez, Mike Gravel etc). Because we have to be realist, money is very important not only for electoralist leftist parties (The Green Party), but also for non-election, pro armed struggles leftist parties (The marxist parties of USA), because you won't be able to arm the members of a super large communist marxist party in America of 100 million US poor citizens if you don't have the economic resources for that, in the coming *revolutionary objective conditions* that will take place in the near future, when gasoline would rise to 20 dollars per gallon, the price of chicken will rise to 15 dollers per lb, the gallon of milk will rise to 25 dollars, a loaf of bread will rise to 12 dollars in the coming hyper-inflation predicted by Thom Hartmann of The Big Picture Show for around 2016 (http://www.amazon.com/Crash-2016-Plot-Destroy-America--/dp/0446584835/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384136476&sr=1-1&keywords=thom+hartmann+crash+of+2016)

Here is more information about the coming ecomomic crash which would lead to a Leninist communist objective revolutionary situation: http://www.amazon.com/Crash-2016-Plot-Destroy-America--/dp/0446584835/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384136476&sr=1-1&keywords=thom+hartmann+crash+of+2016


.




Do most revolutionaries support the call for a new nation? Some do, some don't. Those who don't see creating a new nation as simply dividing the working class.
However, black and chicano liberation is something every revolutionary should support, for the same reason queer and women's liberation is too be support.

These movements should be inherently socialist, as the only thing to truly liberate these extra-oppressed groups is the end of capital's control over society.

[AmilcarCabral]

Remus: you are right, blacks, and other non-white races in America are super-oppressed. You don't have to be a psycho-analyist, a reader of facial expressions, a psychologist, a sociologist, an observe of human behavior, to see with your own eyes, how oppressed and sad black people in America feel. Around where I live, which is a lower middle class neighborhood (The lower low-wage and middle-wage layer of the working class), there are many blacks that I think have higher wages than fast-food low-wage and low-wage Wal Mart workers. But I can sense and feel how rejected they feel. Many of them are forced and driven into buying super expensive 25,000 dollars Toyota Camrys, Honda Accords, Nissan Altima, Chevrolet Impala of recent years just to fit in, to be accepted.

I've noticed that trend in America of oppressed blacks using either new luxury big pompous cars or older cars like Cadillads, and Caprice Classics with powerful mufflers, and sports wheels, loud agressive music as a tool of personal empowerment. And I don't critisize them for how they rely on sports cars, luxury cars to boost their egos, because I am pro-oppressed people, because all oppressed, hungry, weak and poor people need special love, understanding and care. And any thing that can boost the moral and egoes of blacks, latinos, american indians, gays, people with weight gain problems, the elderly, prisoners, the sick, unemployed, the homeless is good



Do most revolutionaries support the call for a new nation? Some do, some don't. Those who don't see creating a new nation as simply dividing the working class.
However, black and chicano liberation is something every revolutionary should support, for the same reason queer and women's liberation is too be support.

These movements should be inherently socialist, as the only thing to truly liberate these extra-oppressed groups is the end of capital's control over society.

[Red HalfGuard]

And the first Rush Limbaugh talking points are trotted out. Now i'm remembering why I left revleft in the first place.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And the first Rush Limbaugh talking points are trotted out. Now i'm remembering why I left revleft in the first place.

I don't see anyone dissing "liberal feminazis" and hating on black football players for getting all the fame.

Face it, people have given coherent criticisms of a certain type of Chicano nationalism that haven't been addressed.

[AmilcarCabral]

Liam: yeah you are right, it seems to me that humans haven't learned their lessons. Look at the israelis, how a large percentage of the Israeli population supports the Israeli's government oppression against Palestines. It seems to me that many oppressed sub-cultures, oppressed ethnicities and oppressed races instead of resorting to a system that would lead to equality, love and unity among all humans and among all living species. It seems to me that there is a sort of *vengeance* attitude in many humans. Many people blame all whites, even poor whites that are born in this century, for what the white european imperialist conquerors did to american indians and to south american indians 500 years ago. That is so dumb.

Humans are so emotional that there was a black guy, supporter of President Obama who said that the US government should kill Edward Snowden for his treason against Obama.

The whole USA black liberation movement is doomed, it sucks, many in the black liberation movement instead of joining marxist political parties, they have supported Obama. And many great intellectuals such as Cornel West are even getting into Libertarian Parties.

I know that marxist parties of USA are too weak and there is not much motivation to join them at all as a quick solution for blacks, latinos and poor people. But as weak and as poor as marxist parties are they are the only medicine to cure racism and to cure the neurotic crazy hatred that exists in America of straight people hating gays, thin people hating overweight people. Americans hating non-americans, rich hating poor, whites hating blacks, many blacks hating whites, spanish chicanos hating whites and blacks, young hating old etc. etc.

A society like this cannot move forward, it is literally a mental hospital of paranoia and stupid hatred. And a workers-dictatorship is the best psychiatrist for that



I think I have concluded that while communists should support the Self-Determination of any oppressed peoples, the Chicano Movement, thus far seems to be missing the point, especially with regards to making it an issue solely about race. It is true that the Aztlan region was once victim to U.S. imperialism and it would be possible (at least theoretically) for there to be a truly anti-imperialist National Liberation movement in that region, However it would be quite impractical. To the current Chicano Nationalist movement it seems that Aztlan won't be liberated until a whole racial group is forced out of that region. This is something communists should not support. I have found this (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm) to be a great guide to looking at issues like this. If we just look at what defines a nation we can begin to see some of the obvious issues within the movement.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Nationalism is one hell of a drug...it has some pain-relieving properties but at higher doses makes one lose touch with reality completely.

[AmilcarCabral]

Yeah humans are not a piece of cake, and specially in USA, which is a mental hospital of hatred, bashing and trashing. Even within the left of the USA exists an ultra-sectarian inane hatred of Trotskists who hate other leftists. There was a trotskist from the socialist party of USA http://www.wsws.org who told me that he was happy when Hugo Chavez died of cancer.

Maybe the existential vacuum, and personal failures in the life of people can be a motivator, a promoter of blaming others, of finding or creating any enemy where people can blame and hate for the existential vacuum, low self esteem, sadness and failures in their own personal lives that are really caused by capitalism.

Meanwhile the wealthy billionaires of this world are very happy to see how the left fights among each other and how the oppressed is divided into sectarian groups hating each other, attacking each other

.



Nationalism is one hell of a drug...it has some pain-relieving properties but at higher doses makes one lose touch with reality completely.

[LiamChe]

It seems to me that it is really difficult if this "Aztlan" can be classified as a nation or not. But I do however support the liberation and the right of self-determination for all oppressed Mexican-Americans and African-Americans in the U.S. I think instead the focus should be on U.S. National Liberation struggles (well I don't think any exist, but in a purely hypothetical perspective). I read an interesting article by the CPGB(ML), I'm not really sure how I feel about them, but I think they do have a Pro-Albania stance. But anyways the article is on the question of Scottish National Liberation. I don't think this situation has much in common with what we are talking about now, but it might be a good reference point for looking at this issue from a communist perspective. http://blog.cpgb-ml.org/scotland-a-part-of-the-british-nation/

[Slavic]

Brown Berets
"Liberation and self determination must always be our guiding principle. Only through Chicano Nationalism will this goal be fulfilled. Nationalism in its basic sense is merely unity and formation of a nation under the banner of the commonality of ethnic, cultural, and linguistic ties."

M.E.Ch.A
"As Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán, we are a nationalist movement of Indigenous Gente that lay claim to the land that is ours by birthright. As a nationalist movement we seek to free our people from the exploitation of an oppressive society that occupies our land. Thus, the principle of nationalism serves to preserve the cultural traditions of La Familia de La Raza and promotes our identity as a Chicana/Chicano Gente."

If you support national liberation based on these grounds, then you can not deny the formation of other nations base on ethnicity, or some "ancestral home land". What makes the plight of the Aztlan nationalist any different than my Hungarian nationalist fiction? Both stories contain a a common ethnic group, and a historic land that was conquered by another ethnic group. All of my Hungarian family are proletariat similar to as I would amuse the Aztlan nationalists are.

So I ask, why is the Aztlan and other ethnic nationalist movements seen as legitimate and mine is not?

[LiamChe]

Brown Berets
"Liberation and self determination must always be our guiding principle. Only through Chicano Nationalism will this goal be fulfilled. Nationalism in its basic sense is merely unity and formation of a nation under the banner of the commonality of ethnic, cultural, and linguistic ties."

M.E.Ch.A
"As Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán, we are a nationalist movement of Indigenous Gente that lay claim to the land that is ours by birthright. As a nationalist movement we seek to free our people from the exploitation of an oppressive society that occupies our land. Thus, the principle of nationalism serves to preserve the cultural traditions of La Familia de La Raza and promotes our identity as a Chicana/Chicano Gente."

If you support national liberation based on these grounds, then you can not deny the formation of other nations base on ethnicity, or some "ancestral home land". What makes the plight of the Aztlan nationalist any different than my Hungarian nationalist fiction? Both stories contain a a common ethnic group, and a historic land that was conquered by another ethnic group. All of my Hungarian family are proletariat similar to as I would amuse the Aztlan nationalists are.

So I ask, why is the Aztlan and other ethnic nationalist movements seen as legitimate and mine is not?


I never said Aztlan, actually constituted a nation, it does however carry some characteristics of one. As I have already pointed out the area of 'Aztlan' was taken over by American imperialists in the 1800s. However, the current Chicano Movement could be described as 'Progressive' in some views, but far from Socialist. In my view while Chicanos are oppressed so, their claim is valid, but the current movement seems to be controlled by a lot of reactionary elements. I do believe as Communists we should support any progressive and/or anti-imperialist National Liberation struggles. The Hungarian Nationalism you compare this to is much different, in that it would National-Chauvinist instead you could support Hungarian National Liberation from the local Bourgeoisie and focus on building a strong Socialist Hungarian Republic.


At these difficult moments, when capitalism in crisis is seeking to establish its savage dictatorship, sacrifices on the part of Marxist-Leninists, the working class and progressive elements are indispensable, but every revolutionary action requires courage, intelligence and vigorous actions. There must be no retreat in the face of this situation.

The just and heroic struggle of the Palestinian people for the liberation of their territories seized and occupied by Israel is a fine example. Despite the fact that it is not led by Marxist-Leninists we support it. We support it since it is a national liberation, anti-imperialist struggle. In assessing their struggle we must appreciate their bravery in coping with countless difficulties against extremely strong powers, armed to the teeth, such as the American imperialists and the Israeli Zionists. We must also bear in mind the fact that, at the same time, the Palestinians have to fight the reactionary Arab forces, too. They are left without a homeland, but they have the strength of their spirit and the strength of their arms, their courage and honest aims to have their homeland liberated, which keep them alive. They are fighting tooth and nail against the Israeli Zionists, fighting for their existence as a people and for their right to have their own homeland. It is useful for the Marxist-Leninist parties of the capitalist countries to bear in mind this wonderful experience for the organization of their struggle, to draw inspiration from the example of the resistance of this small people who, although displaced and scattered, have been able to rally their energies for a great purpose. They are fighting in the ways which the conditions of bourgeois domination have allowed them for the creation of a Palestinian state in opposition to the great forces of capitalism and imperialism.

Despite some activities of a terrorist character by some groups, an activity which we Marxist-Leninists do not support, the struggle of the Palestinian people, in general, is a liberation struggle and should be assisted.
The Marxist-Leninist Movement and the World Crisis of Capitalism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/marxist-leninist.htm)

[Ocean Seal]

I can just see Red Halfguard watching an old videotape of the Ustashe slaughtering Hungarian, Jewish, Serb and Roma villagers while cheering 'fight the power guys! National liberation, woooo! Kill those subhumans!'

When people show up and start fighting the Ustashe, or denouncing it as a repulsive right-wing crackpot xenophobic militant political group, he will immediately invoke the all powerful and vague right to self-determination, and add in a few Marx and Lenin quotes to make this line of logic uncriticisable - no matter what the circumstances.

Separatists in the Congo who are employing child labour, enslaving pygmies, bleeding coltan reserves dry and working for mineral companies for resource control? Right to self-determination, folks!

Fascists in the Balkans who mass murder, terrorize and reign over local inhabitants, wanting to employ apartheids and begin pogroms, who also happen to be separated from the rapidly fragmenting Balkan region? Right to self-determination, folks! Those nasty Serbs never deserved to be on Croat land after all, what with their lack of palatalized consonants in their dialects! You can't argue with me defending fash dogs because Lenin said so apparently!

Chicano nationalism and it's adherents are racist as fuck. Just because your stalinoid hemorrhoids start twitching whenever the taboo subject of real racist movements existing within oppressed demographics rears it's head, does not give the nazi shits any more justice.

And please don't link me anything here. This was something I surmised after going through a large number of political group mission statements, including the Brown Berets.

No shit they are to be criticized, but you are painting a picture here that doesn't exist. The Ustashe was a militant racial purist group backed-up by the Nazi government responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Aztlan and the Nation of Islam have beliefs which are undoubtedly reprehensible, but there is some basis to the way in which they react to their oppression. My god, do you care to take a look at the way that Latinos are treated in the South-West US or the way in almost every aspect of capitalism treats blacks and latinos worse? Do you not take into account their material reality when you compare them with fascists? The privileged groups that sought to further oppress alienated groups and blame them for their problems.

Moreover, fascists were an actual threat okay. These guys are not. If they ever resembled anything militant they would be quelled by the US government ASAP. Quite unlike the Klan, the Nazi Party, etc.

When was the last time that you heard about these guys organizing anything like what the klan was organizing? Any murders, arsons, intimidation? Are white people afraid to leave their homes because they think Aztlan will attack them?

This is what I am trying to illustrate. The terror against the oppressed has a reason to be called fascistoid. An assortment of Latinos joined together in a coffee room talking about how much they hate white people is not the Ustashe.