chicano nationalism

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

how does it fit in with marxism
some communists fight alongside black nationalists IE. RCP, SWP
now I'm quite proud of being chicano.
but where does the communist/socialist movement stand on that

[Quota 76 denial]

it depends but i think it would agree, because most of the chicano movement is associated with identity and social class.

[ComradeOm]

Nationalism is a tool of the capitalists to divide the working classes and the hinder their ability to work together. Why are you different from a German or Chinese worker? Communism knows no boundries.

[RASH chris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 04:46 PM
Nationalism is a tool of the capitalists to divide the working classes and the hinder their ability to work together. Why are you different from a German or Chinese worker? Communism knows no boundries.
You've never heard of opressed nationalities? Communists usually support such movements. Black Panthers? Irish Republicanism? American Indian Movement? Zapatistas?

I personally support the movements of opressed nationalities, one of my closest comrades is chicano. I also support the concept of the oppressed nationalities to self-government in a post revolutionary society, if they desire it, and to whatever level they desire it.

[workersunity]

communists support self-determination, a kind of nationalism that will help them overcome imperialism, we are against the nationalism that just disunites, each nation from eachother. we just hope that the nationalism will be progressive and help lead into freedom for all peoples from oppression

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

thank you all I was just wondering

[Dimentio]

Chicano nationalism, I would say, could if it is unified with a radical agenda motivate the people to work together for reaching social aims. But nationalism does not offer anything except psychological, identity-based safety, which is of course essential to human mental health, but also dangerous if that perceived identity is threatened.

Moreover, I would imply that Chicano nationalism - like all nationalisms - would have to exclude "something else" in order to define itself. So even though Chicano nationalism is possible sub-national, since it defines the inside as the Latin American minority in the USA and Canada and thus has the potential to transgress all Latin Americans, it would possibly have a fictive need to constantly reinvent "the other" in order to survive, thus narrowing itself before it is exhausted.

Ethicity would undoubtly become an important political issue during this century, as the ethnic framework is more fragmented than ever before due to globalisation, refugee trails and ethnic wars in the Third World, but that does not mean that it is a progressive thing to base a radical idea on ethnicity, no matter if that ethnicity is from an oppressed minority or not.

Moreover, the subdivision of the large American federal states of Canada, USA and Mexico into ethnic groups are exactly what the reactionaries (http://www.nazi.org) wants to create. One precondition for a society which would be able to lift up all it's inhabitants to higher levels of prosperity is that it geographically should be large and basically self-sufficient.

[John Dory]

as a communist, you must approach everything as a proletarian internationalist. only support what stands to benefit the greatest number of people, no matter their culture. keep in mind it's about class, not "race". (see: mass line)

[wet blanket]

how does it fit in with marxism
It doesn't.

some communists fight alongside black nationalists IE. RCP, SWP
I wasn't even aware there was a significant black nationalist movement since the days of Malcom X.

now I'm quite proud of being chicano.
but where does the communist/socialist movement stand on that
Your ethnicity is a pretty stupid thing to be 'proud' of. Your parents were mestizo, and so are you, congratulations... What is it that you are so proud of?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 28 2005, 12:40 AM
Your ethnicity is a pretty stupid thing to be 'proud' of. Your parents were mestizo, and so are you, congratulations... What is it that you are so proud of?
Chicano isn't really an ethnic category. It is a political and cultural category, and it is grounded on philosophy, not nationalism.

Chicanismo is a reaction against racism and oppression. Its about celebrating culture and history and promoting the expression of those things through art, literature and educating one's self and others. Overall, it is a struggle for self-determination.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Viva la Raza!

To the original poster: there are a number of Marxists, communists and other leftists in the Chicano movement. I'd look for a local branch of MEChA. It isn't an inherently communist organization (though it is anti-imperialist), but if you're in Aztlan, you'll probably bump into a couple.

[wet blanket]

Chicano isn't really an ethnic category. It is a political and cultural category, and it is grounded on philosophy, not nationalism.
I know, but the question was about 'chicano nationalism' and he compared it to black nationalism, so I assumed that he was referring to mestizo/hispanic nationalism.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 28 2005, 03:13 AM

Chicano isn't really an ethnic category. It is a political and cultural category, and it is grounded on philosophy, not nationalism.
I know, but the question was about 'chicano nationalism' and he compared it to black nationalism, so I assumed that he was referring to mestizo/hispanic nationalism.
You could be correct, but Chicanismo is commonly called Chicano nationalism. However, "nationalism" is used similar to the way "la Raza" is used: for their political and philosophical meaning, not ethnic. Its nationalism in the anti-imperialist sense.

[Free Palestine]

I strongly disagree with the blanket opposition all nationalism so prevalent among this community. The nationalism of the oppressed is quite acceptable in Marxist parlance. In the words of Lenin: "'The bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression, and it is this
content that we unconditionally support."

We must differentiate between bourgeois nationalism, the nationalism of the oppressed nation and the nationalism of the oppressor nation. We must abandon this idiotic blanket opposition to all nationalism and instead give a concrete examination of when it is progressive and when it is regressive in it's different manifestations in different circumstances.

[JC1]

Chicanismo is ethnic nationalism. Just as Irish Republicanism, Nasserism, Black Liberationism, et cet era are ethnic nationalism's. But so what ? This is the nationalism of oppressed people! And Aztlan is a occupied peice of land belonging to a nation. Not to a "political and philosophical meaning". I find it disgusting BBBG
is apoligizing for the nationalism of the oppressed, and tries to prentend the legitmate Chicano Liberation movement is anything but nationalist.


Let me just clarify what I mean by "Nation", becuase american's think it has to do with race and european's think it's determined by citizenship. A Nation is a group of people with a common physcological make up expressed as culture, who share a language and a common economic history.

[Andy Bowden]

I'm unsure with Marxists working with some organisations like MeCHA. MeCHA has been alleged to have some anti-semitic viewpoints, and accusations of racism.

Are organisations like Raza Unida and MeCHA anti-semitic and racist, or is it just propaganda?

[Carlos Fonseca acolyte]

Unfortunately, Chicano nationalism is geared towards being accepted as an equal in white America. Chicano nationalism, and any other form of minority movement for that matter, is only geared towards entering the main stream of society and being accepted by the bourgeois status quo. None of these groups want real revolutionary change. They only want a fair playing field in the Capitalist system in order to have the ability to enter into the upper echelon of society. Persons of color in the US (I being one of them) need to try to identify with the working class around the country, and fight for a new system where ethnicity and the color of one’s skin does not matter.

[flyby]

The Chicano Struggle and Proletarian Revolution in the U.S.-- A Paper for Discussion (http://rwor.org/margorp/chicano.htm)

A revolutionary communist analysis of the struggle to end the oppression of Chicano people. I think it throws a lot of light on the heart of these issues.

[wet blanket]

We must abandon this idiotic blanket opposition to all nationalism and instead give a concrete examination of when it is progressive and when it is regressive in it's different manifestations in different circumstances.
:lol: We're not falling for that one again.... hopefully.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 07:58 AM
how does it fit in with marxism
some communists fight alongside black nationalists IE. RCP, SWP
now I'm quite proud of being chicano.
but where does the communist/socialist movement stand on that
Since you've mentioned the SWP, its stand on the Chicano movement is the same as its stand on Black nationalism: support for the self-determination of the oppressed, as a means of uniting the working class. The working class won't be united just by abstractly appealing for that. It's necessary to fight for the needs of the most oppressed, and to fight against every form of exploitation and oppression, including racism and sexism.

It's necessary for working people of the dominant nationality to show that we have no allegiance to the bosses or the "unity" of their state, and no intention of perpetuating the legacy of oppression. This becomes more important than ever after the revolution takes power!

The SWP supported the Raza Unida Party in the 70s as a step towards independent working-class political action. Given the heavily working-class composition of the Chicano nationality, it's likely that any new major rise in Chicano nationalist struggle will also have a basically working-class character.

What we've seen in practice recently is many Chicanos, including groups like MEChA, joining protests for immigrants' rights, which we should all support and join. A lot of Chicano (and Mexicano) workers have also been at the forefront of strikes and other labor battles.

I also agree with what Free Palestine's said here.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:01 PM
I find it disgusting BBBG
is apoligizing for the nationalism of the oppressed, and tries to prentend the legitmate Chicano Liberation movement is anything but nationalist.
Are we reading the same posts? At no point am I apologizing for their nationalism, I openly support it (I'm in MEChA for crying out loud). I'm just attempting to put it in historical context, and the current philosophy surrounding Chicanismo is not one of ethnic nationalism, but cultural and political. Chicano was/is a political term used by the youth of the 60's, right up until today, to identify themselves as radicals to each other. Also, I openly stated their liberation movement was valid and that I have no problem with it.


None of these groups want real revolutionary change.

Arguable. The founding philsophy of MEChA stresses unification as members of the working-class, and fighting US imperialism for self-determination.


Are organisations like Raza Unida and MeCHA anti-semitic and racist, or is it just propaganda?

A little of both. I haven't seen any anti-semitic stuff from MEChA, though I haven't read all the founding documents. La Raza Unida does put out some stuff that's pretty questionable.

[flyby]

we have to make a distinction between nationalism (as an ideology, as a world view) and national liberation movements (which are political movements against a particular form of oppression).

Communists (ideologically) are internationalists (not nationalists)., but politically support, build and lead movements for national liberation (and work to lead the revolutionary struggle against all oppression.)

It is a material fact that people are not just oppressed "by class" in capitalist society.

Capitalist society, which is rooted in the exploitaiton of working people, produces manysided and global oppression -- the oppression of women by men, the opression of the vast majority of humanity by a handful of oppressor nations, the often murderous oppression and discriminaiton against Black poeple (and other oppresses nationalities within the U.s.)

So, again: It is because communists are internationalists that they oppose all national oppression -- and they work to build the struggle against that oppression of nations, as part of the worldwide revolutionary movement for communism.

The elimination of the domination of one nation over another is one of the goals of communist revolutin.

[flyby]

i noticed this quote in your sig:

"It is not by studying Marxism-Leninism that one becomes a revolutionary, but by uniting with the people, by living among the poor and demanding no privileges for oneself."
-- Lucio Cabañas Barrientos

And i just thught i'd reply that this seems exactly wrong -- and a view that revolutionary is a personal moral stand and lifestyle. In fact you become a revolutionary by working to understand the world, and on that basis changing the world through the overthrow of oppression -- and on that basis uniting with and LEADING the oppressed (not just "living among the poor").

And for all that you need to study, apply and help develop the most advanced expresion of revolutionary understanding, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.)

In other words, Barrientos is putting forward a priest-like lifestyle as the sign of revolution... "walking with the poor" is a christian view that takes the revolution out of the whole vision.

To put a sharp question: In a revolutionary struggle, is it true that the leaders of the revolution simply live as the people and among the peole?

In the Long March during the Chinese revoltion, the leaders would sit up all night and plan the next days battle. So was it wrong that they rode during the day, while the others walked? No. You could not win without that.

Now some people may call such differences "privileges" -- but that is becuase they are not focused on actually changinng the world -- but on "walking with the poor" while accepting their poverty as a fact of life.

This view was sharply criticized by Bob Avakian in his book "preachingn from a pulpit of bones -- we need morality but not traditional morality" where he lays bare the reformist essense of liberation theology and its view of poverty.

Complete Liberation and Letting Go of Religion (http://rwor.org/a/v20/990-99/991/moral7.htm)

Putting an end to inequality (http://rwor.org/a/v20/980-89/985/moral4.htm)

Revolution will end inequality -- but not by having individuals adopt some lifestyle of leveling. It is about a class struggle in which one class overthrows another. And being a revolutionary is about taking active conscious part in that process, dedicating yourself to the people and fighting for their HIGHEST and historic interests -- concentrated in the goal of classless communist society!

[bcbm]

In fact you become a revolutionary by working to understand the world, and on that basis changing the world through the overthrow of oppression -- and on that basis uniting with and LEADING the oppressed (not just "living among the poor").

Did you read the quote? Before he says "living among the poor" he says: "uniting with the people."


And for all that you need to study, apply and help develop the most advanced expresion of revolutionary understanding, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.)


He didn't say "don't study." His point is that studying M-L alone is not enough, one needs to unite and live with the people and bring their experiences in. I trust lived experience more than words on a page.


In other words, Barrientos is putting forward a priest-like lifestyle as the sign of revolution... "walking with the poor" is a christian view that takes the revolution out of the whole vision.

Taking revolution out of the whole vision? Lucio Cabañas helped lead the Army of the Poor and Peasant's Brigade Against Injustice, an armed guerrilla organization in Mexico that certainly was trying to make revolution.


This view was sharply criticized by Bob Avakian

And here's where you lose my interest.


It is about a class struggle in which one class overthrows another. And being a revolutionary is about taking active conscious part in that process, dedicating yourself to the people and fighting for their HIGHEST and historic interests -- concentrated in the goal of classless communist society!

Running away to France when things get hot and having a small band of followers push your newspaper and DVDs certainly is taking an active conscious part.

[urben]

Originally posted by Tim [email protected] 27 2005, 05:22 PM
as a communist, you must approach everything as a proletarian internationalist. only support what stands to benefit the greatest number of people, no matter their culture. keep in mind it's about class, not "race". (see: mass line)
What about when a section of the working class benefits from the special oppression of others? This was what Lenin described in his analysis of the trade union movement in the developed European countries. What about the skilled craft unions that kept Black people out of their professions in order to protect their own wages? In that case, how do you keep in mind "the greatest number of people" and keep out "race." Would we not fight for their equal integration, if it hurts the bargaining power of the privileged workers? And even if it's helping numerically less people, don't we call on the U.S. government to reverse centuries of inequality by pouring additional money into schools and hospitals in the Black community?

This naive color-blindness - the position of the American Socialist Party at the time of the Russian Revolution - ignores the special oppression of national minorities.

"Proletarian internationalist" is an empty term unless it begins with the recognition of oppressed nations. There's a reason it's not called "proletarian universalism": not all workers are facing exactly the same struggle.