Are American blacks a nation?

[Marko]

THE 1930 COMINTERN RESOLUTION ON THE NEGRO QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES:


"Is the Southern region, thickly populated by Negroes to be looked upon as a
colony, or as an "integral part of the national economy of the United States,"
where presumably a revolutionary situation cannot arise independent of the
general revolutionary development in the United States?

"In the interest of the utmost clarity of ideas on this question, the Negro
question in the United States must be viewed from the standpoint of its
peculiarity, namely as the question of an oppressed nation, which is in a peculiar
and extraordinary distressing situation of national oppression not only in view
of the prominent racial distinction (marked difference in the color of skin,
etc.) but above all, because of considerable social antagonism (remnants of
slavery). This introduces in the American Negro Question an important, peculiar
trait, which is absent from the national question of other oppressed people.
Furthermore, it is necessary to face clearly the inevitable distinction between
the position of the Negro in the South and in the North, owing to the fact
that at least three-fourths of the entire Negro population in the United States
(12,000,000) live in the compact masses in the South, most of them being
peasants and agricultural laborers in a state of semi-serfdom, settled in the "Black
Belt" and constituting the majority of the population, whereas the Negroes in
the northern states are for the most part industrial workers of the lowest
categories who have recently come to the various industrial centers fro the
South (having often fled from them)."

Do you think the "Black Belt" should be separated from the US to give self-determination to the African-American people?

[Labor Shall Rule]

There is no territorial basis for a black nation; they are incorrect in stating that the South has these prerequisites in this 'Black Belt', considering that most blacks have migrated to industrial centers in search of employment from their semi-slave conditions that they described, which is concentrated mostly in the North. I think black nationalism is a petit-bourgeois influence in the black community that plays on the genuine feeling of isolation and deprivation of black workers in the class struggle; many filled the position of low-skilled workers, were often used as strike breakers since many unions did not tolerate colored workers (which also meant that they did not receive the benefits reaped by this union), and as so, they were more attracted to these influences more.

I would argue for self-determination, but national self-determination is simply out of the question.

I once said that I thought we had to fight racism within the context of capitalism, which is simply impossible. These groups calling for 'community control' are deviated from the facts, considering that it is only through the united and undivided action of the proletariat through their strikes, occupations, and picketing that will truly wipe out racism. Just so its clear; the kind of politics I fight are the kind that proclaim that we can only build a socialist movement after everything else has been dealt with, or the kind of politics that want to water down or push entirely into the background a socialist perspective. I think many organizations, and certain activists, have mistakingly done so. There is no justification for this, other than a "theory" that has never been shown to have a basis in reality. You start with the single issue, such as black liberation, but you always link it back to a broader struggle for socialism. If you aren't fighting to raise socialist consciousness then you are simply placating and patronizing.

[RHIZOMES]

By my definition, yes:


One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. Members of a "nation" share a common identity, and usually a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. A nation extends across generations, and includes the dead as full members. Past events are framed in this context; for example; by referring to "our soldiers" in conflicts which took place hundreds of years ago. More vaguely, nations are assumed to include future generations.

But they shouldn't be given their own country lole

[rouchambeau]

40 acres and a mule wouldn't be a bad start.

[BreadBros]

It depends what you mean by "nation". Geographic/territorial nation? No. Maoists, however, often use "nation" in a different sense...meaning a group that collectively has a different economic situation than the dominant social group ruling the nation (thats probably a pretty shitty explanation, I invite any Maoist to come in here and explain the term "nation" more in-depthly, but I think you understand what I'm getting at...), in that sense then there is certainly an argument to be made.

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:28 pm
It depends what you mean by "nation". Geographic/territorial nation? No. Maoists, however, often use "nation" in a different sense...meaning a group that collectively has a different economic situation than the dominant social group ruling the nation (thats probably a pretty shitty explanation, I invite any Maoist to come in here and explain the term "nation" more in-depthly, but I think you understand what I'm getting at...), in that sense then there is certainly an argument to be made.
The blacks were territorially concentrated to the South and some people even argued that they had their own language (Wolof, I think) but didn't dare to speak it because the KKK would have lynched them.

[Dimentio]

Detroit and Chicago then? Should they be enclaves in the USA, or should the population be transferred to the south (in exchange of Caucasians from the south)?

[Barry]

They should have the right to create their own nation with their own culture and system of government.
Lenin beleived in the right of every group of peoples to have their own nation and that they would join the USSR only if the majority of the population wished this. This is a good idea for a socialist state/Federation were a minority are allowed to create their own community.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It depends what you mean by "nation".

Maybe if you're some kind of liberal or ultra-leftist that rejects the long established definition of a nation among communists..


Originally posted by Marxist Internet Archive Encyclopedia
While at first sight it would appear that a nation is a large body of people sharing common genealogy, language, culture, etc., sharing a common territory with a government recognised by other nations and common legal code, it would be more true to say that this is exactly what a nation is not.

A large body of people sharing a common language and culture can be a tribe, with everyone relating to others in extended family relationships which exclude others living within or outside the territory. In order to become a nation as such, it is necessary to transcend the narrow bounds of tribal law and encompass multiple languages, cultures and genealogy, to be multicultural. A nation based on race, like Israel for example, is not yet fully a nation. When Palestinians and Israelis live in the territory of Israel/Palestine with the same rights, then the Israelis will be less of a tribe and more of a nation.

A people may have their common laws, culture and language and yet have not found their homeland, like the Kurds for example, or may live in their homeland under the domination of another, settler nation, like the Australian Aborigines. Surely these are nations nonetheless? But they are not yet fully nations, because a nation does need to have its territory in order to be able to develop. So the Kurds and the Australian Aborigines are nascent or embryonic nations, nations who have not yet actualised.

But a nation that loses connection with its citizens when they leave the borders of the national territory are not yet fully nations either, but simply a territorial administration. A nation must also be a community, that offers protection to its members wherever they are.

Even the national state is a symptom of the incompleteness of the development of the nation, for the state is an indicator of the existence of unresolvable conflicts, usually class conflicts within the community, and the nation is only fully mature when such antagonisms have disappeared and the state withers away. But this is conceivable only when the obsolescence of classes occurs on a world scale. Consequently, the fully mature nation ceases to be a nation at all, dissolving itself in the world community of peoples.

Thus a nation is a process, not an entity.

Nations come into being either:

* by the coming together of disparate tribes or peoples, as was the case in the British Isles which still constitutes itself as a multi-national state, or the United States, which Thomas Paine described as an “alliance of independent republics” in 1782, or in Germany or Italy which arose by the coming together of a large number of principalities;
* or by the conquest of a number of peoples by one dominant people, as was the case with Russia;
* This type of process has only been open to a few nations that achieved statehood early enough to avoid colonisation. The majority of nations have come about by the forceful imposition of a colonial government by a foreign power, national consciousness and organisation then being achieved in the struggle for national liberation;
* In a very few cases prior to 1989, nations came into being by peaceful secession.

Communists support the right of nations to self-determination and oppose all forms of colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism or “benevolent interference”. Every people needs to achieve modernity by their own route at their own pace.

The current process of globalisation raises a number of problems for national self-determination. Globalisation has posited an ethical universalism wherein it is held that ethical values, such as “human rights” transcend national and cultural distinctions, and this has led to the legitimation of the carpet bombing of other nations by imperialist states. The road to a world-wide free association of peoples can only pass through the national self-determination of all peoples – whether they have achieved statehood and national autonomy or not.

The fundamental values of the working class are internationalism and solidarity and the ethical problems posed by the suffering of people of other nations is determined by these values.

Globalisation is indeed already undermining national government but nations will wither away only gradually over a long period of time through maturation, not abolition. “Globalisation from below” must respect national differences while transcending national borders.

Marxism and the National Question (http://marx.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm)


There is no territorial basis for a black nation; they are incorrect in stating that the South has these prerequisites in this 'Black Belt', considering that most blacks have migrated to industrial centers in search of employment from their semi-slave conditions that they described, which is concentrated mostly in the North.

Wrong.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d0/New_2000_black_percent.gif/800px-New_2000_black_percent.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_200...ack_percent.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_2000_black_percent.gif)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/08/New_2000_black_density.gif/800px-New_2000_black_density.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_200...ack_density.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_2000_black_density.gif)

[Labor Shall Rule]

I stand corrected.

However, the consciousness of blacks is not a national one, but of an oppressed people-caste.

I also retain my comments on the sentiments presented by Black Nationalism; it's rise and popularity amongst black workers is understandable, considering that the history of class struggle in the United States has often excluded blacks, which deluded and isolated them, and sent them packing into the hands of the petit-bourgeois. It is not anti-capitalist, it aims to create its own community, where the people who argue for it now, would be the ruling class, a comprador ruling class subsevient to imperialism, but a ruling class none the less that oppresses the majority of the black masses for their profit. This is what is meant by "community control", a true expression of the petit-bourgeois influences in the black community. Black nationalism is very analagous to Zionism, they both have no material basis for a state. If a Black state was created, it would be in the middle of its enemies (America) as Israel is in the Middle East. But Israel polices the region so our country subsidizes them. If the Black state does not serve U.S interests significantly, they well receive the same shit the Palestinians are subject to.

[syndicat]

As of 1990, only a slight majority (53%) of African-Americans live in the south. back in 1900, 90% of all black Americans lived in the south.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/maloney.african.american

the "Great Migration" of black people from the rural south to the north and west began in earnest in the '40s and continued thru the '60s. to some extent this was driven by mechanization in agriculture. the Southern planter class in the '30s realized that exlcluding black people from voting was not going to be sustainable, given the beginnings of the civil rights movement and the liberal New Deal government. so they began mechanization as a conscious policy of forcing local blacks to leave in search of work. This reduced the black population in former black majority areas. This is discussed by Nicholas Lehman in "Promised Land."

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 08:45 am
THE 1930 COMINTERN RESOLUTION ON THE NEGRO QUESTION IN THE UNITED STATES:

...

Do you think the "Black Belt" should be separated from the US to give self-determination to the African-American people?
It was never the Comintern position that the Black Belt should be separated from the US. The position was that African Americans themselves, as an oppressed nation, had the right to decide whether or not to separate. The Comintern was not deciding the question for them. The purpose of the position was to promote the unity of black and white workers, because real unity can be forged only when the right to separation exists, just as real marriages can take place only with the right to divorce.

The position, at that time at least, had a very positive impact in that it pushed the CPUSA into taking more militant stances against the oppression of Black people, forming the Southern Sharecroppers Union and leading the campaign to free the Scottsboro 9 (which transformed the CP in the South into a party with mass Black membership, see Robin Kelley's book Hammer and Hoe). It also helped the CP break with the white supremacist past of the socialist movement in the US, which included open white supremacists in the SP leadership, segregated SP branches, and at best Debs' economistic position that the SP had "nothing to offer" to Black people.

[RedJacobin]

I think CDL's post showed that the Black Belt continues to exist objectively as an oppressed nation and Black people as an oppressed nationality, especially if you also look at disparities in incarceration rates, income, debt, health-care, school conditions, housing conditions, and so on.

But, self-determination is not unconditional. Communists support self-determination and fight national oppression only as a means to promote the unity of the international proletariat. To the extent that national movements weaken capitalism-imperialism, they are deserving of support. That's why revolutionary Black nationalism (historically and at the present, an enemy of imperialism) and Zionism (a servant of imperialism) can't be equated or even really compared.

[fredbergen]

Lenin died in 1924. That was a resolution from the Stalinist comintern. For black liberation through socialist revolution!

[hajduk]

afro-americans are the slave nation of America everything else is just make up for the concesnes of the white americans who try to be pollite with question of how to understand them....for example South African white people say that South Africa bellong to the white people who are born there???

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 08:45 am
Do you think the "Black Belt" should be separated from the US to give self-determination to the African-American people?

Of course not. What kind of a proposal is that?

"Blacks" are not a nation, because they have no basis to be one: language. Besides, by separating one territorial unit where "Blacks" are a majority you segragate the rest of African-American population that lives outside that territory, and that would have some fucked up political concequences, from both sides. In both the remains of now existing state there would be increased tension, 'national', political, etc, and would take the working class of USA far away from its internal class goal: socialism (as if it's not far as it is, thanks to pretty much same bullshit - division).

Besides, there is no 'second condition' for national identity: culture. "Blacks" of the South share same cultural bindings as the "Whites", even if so (cultural composition of New Orleans, for instance, is very much different from that of Memphis), while "Blacks" who live in, big cities, East, West, North, share those conditions, even if more or less segragated.

Besides, African-Americans are no longer the biggest minority in the United States - it's Latin-Americans.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:12 pm
Lenin died in 1924. That was a resolution from the Stalinist comintern. For black liberation through socialist revolution!
Lenin considered African Americans an oppressed nation, just like the so-called "Stalinist" Comintern. See Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Questions.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+August 05, 2007 02:33 pm--> (DJ-TC @ August 05, 2007 02:33 pm) "Blacks" are not a nation, because they have no basis to be one: language. [/b]
Yes, there's a language: English. It's not necessary for two nations to have different languages in order for relations based on oppression to exist.

DJ-TC
Besides, by separating one territorial unit where "Blacks" are a majority you segragate the rest of African-American population that lives outside that territory, and that would have some fucked up political concequences, from both sides. In both the remains of now existing state there would be increased tension, 'national', political, etc, and would take the working class of USA far away from its internal class goal: socialism (as if it's not far as it is, thanks to pretty much same bullshit - division).
Black people outside of the Black Belt already live in segregated conditions. In NYC, one of out every seven Black students attends a non-segregated high school. See Jonathan Kozol's work for similar stats in school systems around the country. Look also at residential segregation and the history of post-WW2 "white flight" out of the cities. Recognizing the existence of segregated conditions, and the national oppression on which they are based, is the first step towards getting rid of those conditions and making a united working-class and socialism possible.

[Luís Henrique]

An independent "black country" would quite probably be nothing more than a bantustan.

Luís Henrique

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:28 am
It depends what you mean by "nation". Geographic/territorial nation? No. Maoists, however, often use "nation" in a different sense...meaning a group that collectively has a different economic situation than the dominant social group ruling the nation (thats probably a pretty shitty explanation, I invite any Maoist to come in here and explain the term "nation" more in-depthly, but I think you understand what I'm getting at...), in that sense then there is certainly an argument to be made.
Maoist idea of the nation comes from Stalin's aritcle Marxism and the National Question (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm), which was writen in 1913 and is a old Leninist position.

The only Maoist improvement to the idea on the nation was put forward by the Black Panthers, who talked about internal and semi-colonies in the USA. Such as the Black communities in large cities that are outside the Black Belt, and the Hispanic communities in the southern areas.


"Blacks" are not a nation, because they have no basis to be one: language.

As RedJacobin said you don't need a different language to be a seperate nation. It is important but not defining. For instance Australia and settler USA speak English, with slight variation, however we are not the same.

You also miss the fact that most Black Americans speak a different ethnic variation of English, called Black English. Any modern American linguist and sociologist will have information about the differences in language. It can in some cases be considered racist to claim they don't have their own indepedent language.


Besides, African-Americans are no longer the biggest minority in the United States - it's Latin-Americans.

That is irrelevant

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:40 pm
The only Maoist improvement to the idea on the nation was put forward by the Black Panthers, who talked about internal and semi-colonies in the USA. Such as the Black communities in large cities that are outside the Black Belt, and the Hispanic communities in the southern areas.
As much as I respect the Panthers and think that they were perhaps the most revolutionary organization in the US during the sixties, I'm not sure the whole idea of "ghettos as internal colonies" is an improvement on MLM. It's political implications are certainly non-revolutionary, leading oppressed people to fight for various forms of "community control" instead of communist revolution.

(Cool pic by the way.)

[Lamanov]

So, Hiero, besides addressing the most unimportant issue coming out of my post (language), and besides chewing up ancient documents (drafted by Stalin and co.), what are your actual suggestions?


Originally posted by RedJacobin
Recognizing the existence of segregated conditions, and the national oppression on which they are based, is the first step towards getting rid of those conditions and making a united working-class and socialism possible.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that people allready recognise segragation as a fact... or, at least, they recognise the consequences of slavery, migration, segragation as it was in fact, etc.

The problem is this: what do you do with such recognition? Do you take bourgeois concept of "national liberation" and call for "Black Power!", or do you take revolutionary concept of "social liberation" and call for "Working Class Power!" - at the same time recognising the fact that all races composting the working class ought to be united, and rejecting all national principles?

[Vargha Poralli]

So, Hiero, besides addressing the most unimportant issue coming out of my post (language), and besides chewing up ancient documents (drafted by Stalin and co.), what are your actual suggestions?


Well if you are not aware the Stalin article Hiero linked does have significance in Lenin's line of Self determination to nationalities. Stalin was the key man in developing it.

And you did use language to say that African Americans are not a nationality. So he addressed that point too.


The problem is this: what do you do with such recognition? Do you take bourgeois concept of "national liberation" and call for "Black Power!", or do you take revolutionary concept of "social liberation" and call for "Working Class Power!" - at the same time recognising the fact that all races composting the working class ought to be united, and rejecting all national principles?


Typical colour blinded propaganda. Neither RedJacobin or any others said Black Power or some thing like that. Saying all are same is not going to bring up equality.

And Leninist conception of National-Self deternmination is much different from Bourgeoisie concept.

[Dominicana_1965]

That would only build up a social construct, a very reactionary move.

I feel we need to recognize what society has labeled us (male, heterosexual, hispanic, etc) and once we find out (or know) we should critique it in such a way that the social differences will not exist by comparing the social constructs. It calls for a in-depth analysis of the universal culture we as a society adhere to.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by g.ram+August 05, 2007 04:08 pm--> (g.ram @ August 05, 2007 04:08 pm) Well if you are not aware the Stalin article Hiero linked does have significance in Lenin's line of Self determination to nationalities. Stalin was the key man in developing it. [/b]

Okay, now let's forget about Stalin and Lenin for a second and move 80 years forward, all the way to the present. What are actual suggestions made by Hiero, in what way are forces of future change supposed to address the issue, finally, out of reach of dead Sino-Soviet-style bureaucratic interests?


Originally posted by g.ram+--> (g.ram)And you did use language to say that African Americans are not a nationality. So he addressed that point too.[/b]

Exactly. They are an ethnic group based on their interconnected racial and social background. Only when actual class decomposition of African-American minority began, the "Black Nation" concept came into existence.

I live in a country where a similar process gave birth to new "nation", but it wasn't race which gave it new print - it was religion. We learn every day that if we are to fight for egalitarian society, such separating concepts ought to be superseded, and replaced by all-out internationalist viewpoint.

(Of course, in previous post, I was talking about southern "Black" population, when I was addressing the suggestion on "Black Belt".)


Originally posted by g.ram
Typical colour blinded propaganda.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?


[email protected]
Neither RedJacobin or any others said Black Power or some thing like that. Saying all are same is not going to bring up equality.

Neither me or anyone else is saying "All are same". It's a bit more complicated.


g.ram
And Leninist conception of National-Self deternmination is much different from Bourgeoisie concept.

Spare us. Conditions for an implementation of such doctrine do not exist, therefore, all talk in that direction is useless.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+--> (DJ-TC)

Originally posted by g.ram+--> (g.ram)
Typical colour blinded propaganda.[/b]
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?[/b]

Don't mind that .I misunderstood your position when I typed that. It was cleared after your latest post.


DJ-[email protected]

Okay, now let's forget about Stalin and Lenin for a second and move 80 years forward, all the way to the present. What are actual suggestions made by Hiero, in what way are forces of future change supposed to address the issue, finally, out of reach of dead Sino-Soviet-style bureaucratic interests?


Well Stalin was just another ordinary Bolshevik at that time and Sino-Soviet bureaucracy didn't exist when Stalin wrote that.



DJ-TC
Spare us. Conditions for an implementation of such doctrine does not exist, therefore, all talk in that direction is useless.

Well conditions do exist.

Take a look at India,Sri Lanka,Pakistan and Nepal. Numerous groups are denied self determination and are fighting for it against the governments dominated by the majority groups in the respective countries.

Those questions must be properly addressed by the Communist movements if at all they are serious about liberation of working class. Unfortunately none of the major communist parties addressed that question in 80 years of their existence -especially in India and Pakistan and the result is victory of major sectarian groups which had not helped in uniting the working class but dividing it more.

And Lenin's policy of self-determination of nationalities did work well in Soviet Union - which basically is an accumulated group of various nationalities. The situation today especially in this regard is no different from days of Lenin and Stalin.

Don't ask me exactly how this question should be addressed - I myself don't know but a question that any serious communist movement could not avoid.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by g.ram+August 05, 2007 05:36 pm--> (g.ram @ August 05, 2007 05:36 pm) Well Stalin was just another ordinary Bolshevik at that time and Sino-Soviet bureaucracy didn't exist when Stalin wrote that. [/b]

I stand corrected. I did not pay attention to which article it actually is.

I'd even like to adress the opening sentences to Stalin's pamphlet, who was, at that time, indeed, one of rare personalities in the whole Social-Democratic movement of Russia who gave so much time in contempating on the question of nationalities. (That was, besides his 'komitetchik' behaviour which appealed to Lenin, one skill which put him inside Soviet leadership.)

Now...


Originally posted by [email protected]
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.

Does not this mean that "Blacks" are no nation, but a racial entity, brought to America through specific social relations and practice?


g.ram
Well conditions do exist.

In the case of African-Americans?

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+August 05, 2007 03:59 pm--> (DJ-TC @ August 05, 2007 03:59 pm)
RedJacobin
Recognizing the existence of segregated conditions, and the national oppression on which they are based, is the first step towards getting rid of those conditions and making a united working-class and socialism possible.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that people allready recognise segragation as a fact... or, at least, they recognise the consequences of slavery, migration, segragation as it was in fact, etc.

The problem is this: what do you do with such recognition? Do you take bourgeois concept of "national liberation" and call for "Black Power!", or do you take revolutionary concept of "social liberation" and call for "Working Class Power!" - at the same time recognising the fact that all races composting the working class ought to be united, and rejecting all national principles? [/b]
I think some distinctions need to be made. I don't think national liberation is a bourgeois concept. National liberation, when it weakens capitalist imperialism and aids the unity of the proletariat, is something that communists must fight for, under a communist line. And social liberation, especially for women, is an inseparable part of national liberation (something that the leftist supporters of Islamic fundamentalist movements like Hamas and Hezbollah don't get).

On the other hand, the call for "Black Power," and nationalist ideology in general, is bourgeois. Still, there is a difference between the nationalism of the oppressed (progressive to an extent) and the nationalism of the oppressor (always reactionary). Black nationalism isn't going to lead to all-the-way liberation for Black people, which requires communist ideology, consciousness, and organization. But, historically and at the present, movements that have militantly and righteously resisted particular injustices of the capitalist system have been led by Black nationalist ideology and that must be acknowledged.

I think calling simply for "working class power," without putting an emphasis on the need to fight against the special oppression of Black people and the need to rally white workers to do so, is not going to lead to socialism. It is actually a failure to recognize the extent of segregation today and the importance of white supremacy to U.S. capitalism. At best, it's just going to build a economistic bread-and-butter labor movement, not a communist movement aiming for the emancipation of humanity. The Debs line (which was the best to come out of the U.S. socialist movement before the intervention of the Comintern) was a betrayal, when many hundreds of Blacks were being lynched and Black people as a whole subject to other forms of terror and discrimination.

Another issue, the word race refers to biology. The idea that there are different races is unscientific and bourgeois. There's only one human race. The people who put forward the Black Nation concept were very adamant in arguing against the existence of separate races.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+August 05, 2007 07:36 pm--> (DJ-TC @ August 05, 2007 07:36 pm)
Stalin
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.
Does not this mean that "Blacks" are no nation, but a racial entity, brought to America through specific social relations and practice? [/b]
Definitely not, in my opinion. It should be clear that Black people in the U.S. are a "historically constituted community of people" with a very different history from white people. The Black nation was forged out of the historical experience of slavery, Reconstruction (when the possibility of full integration into U.S. society was raised but defeated), and Post-Reconstruction.

[Hiero]

I live in a country where a similar process gave birth to new "nation", but it wasn't race which gave it new print - it was religion.

No, it was imperialism. NATO and the Western powers wanted to destroy Yugaslavia, so they backed petty bourgeois nationalist. In reaction to that other nationalist who wanted to stay in the Yugoslavia fought against the other NATO and CIA backed nationalists. Then somewhere in the middle you have Milosevic who was some form of socialist who wanted to keep Yugoslavia out of imperialist hands. Religion was the method by which these "ethnic" groups declared they were different to other groups, and this justified attrocities commited against each other.

I can imagine growing up there you would have a very negative idea of nationalist movements. I would too, but you have to put that baggage aside and learn to understand the difference between real struggles of the oppressed nation (Vietnam, Algeria, China, South Africa, the Black Belt) and national struggles backed by the imperialist (Yugaslavia, Tibet).

The bottom line with the Black national question in the USA is that clearly there is nothing beneficial with staying in a union with the white settler nation. The white settler nation oppresses and expliots the smaller Black nation, and fighting for self-determation (this does not mean a indepedent country) is going to be beneficial for the Black Belt.

Your original complaint was that it will create tension between the White people and Black people. For starters there already is tension, LA doesn't just burn down for no good reason. It's also defeatist not to try and piss the Whites off. In Australia when Aboriginal communities began to win land for native tittle (which is usually out of the way of White society, off possible mining sites, off pastoral land and usually in rural areas) alot of White people actually thought that the CBD and their own backyard were in danger of being confiscated. No matter what it is, any movement that involves colour wether it be the Vietnamese liberation or indigenous gains for autonomy alot of white people are going to be pissed off. Now the world can't wait for white people to be happy.

Also your arguement is self contradictory. If we look at how racism works, in the case of America, Australia and other settler nations racism is often directed towards the poorest ethnic community. The usually racist complaints are, they don't work, they get arrested alot, they are criminals, they use and sell drugs etc. Now all these pathologies are a product of capitalism, which uses racism to oppressed smaller communities. White communities have these problems, but it isn't as severe. Culturally the system is set up in a way that is beneficial for white, this is described as structural racism. Now either the Black nation can fight for it's own employment system, educational system and political system or they can wait around for the USA to have a revolution and hope the White revolutionary working class is much more conscious on the national question.

What is really going to win the White nation over to being progressive on this question? Keeping the status quo because White people feel safe when with a White hegonomy, or the Black nation proving how oppressive the system through action, by improving conditions through self-determination. Only when two people are on the same level they can see eye to eye.

[Tower of Bebel]

If there would be a black nation, should it federate with the USA?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:54 am
No, it was imperialism.

Ah! I say religion gave it a new print (instead of race) but you say it was "imperialism". A point: try to understand sentences you are responding to.

Besides, long history of national development at the Balcans is much longer than "imperialism" of any sort... This is a bit older question than we like to imagine - precisely the reason why too many people fail to understand it.

(One more thing: this is not a question of "baggage", but reality.)


Then somewhere in the middle you have Milosevic who was some form of socialist...

No, he was "some form of" a capitalist.


Your original complaint was that it will create tension between the White people and Black people. For starters there already is tension, LA doesn't just burn down for no good reason.

It will create more tension, distrust, etc.

The whole "Black Belt" has social issues twice as heavy as the rest of the country, not only for Black people.


...or they can wait around for the USA to have a revolution and hope the White revolutionary working class is much more conscious on the national question.

Didn't that happen allready, at least in the sphere of counsciousness?

It seems to me that Black nation struggles would not have been so relatively sucessfull in the 60's if there weren't for all out mass movement of both Black and White people, youth, "New Left", civil action groups, liberal influence, etc.


To be quite honest, as far as last two responces go, I'm not so sure, obviously. I live outside of both Black Belt and the USA alltogether, but I would really like to hear other opinions of people who actually live there.

I wish Red was here, he lives in New Orleans. His experiences would be priceless.

[RedAnarchist]

Would you consider Liberia an African-American nation? (although not all liberains are African-American).

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:13 am
If there would be a black nation, should it federate with the USA?
The question isn't "if there would be a Black nation," there is a Black nation. It exists objectively. The US isn't one nation under God. It is a prison-house of nations under white supremacy.

Whether or not it should remain a part of the US depends on the development of the revolutionary consciousness of Black people and the multinational proletariat more broadly. Under certain conditions, communists would argue for independence, under other conditions, not.

Nevertheless, the right to make such a decision belongs to Black people themselves and no one else.

[Vargha Poralli]

The Negro Question (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1940/negro1.htm)

Trotsky's opinion on this matter. Of course this discussion took place some 75 years before. Trotsky was really cautious and mainly advices American comrades to study the issue in detail before making any decisions about it.

I would request the American comrades to read it and explain its relevancy in the context of the 2007. Thanks in advance for that.