Thread: Are American blacks a nation?

Results 1 to 20 of 35

  1. #1
    Join Date Jul 2007
    Posts 83
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    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?
  2. #2
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Location Erie, PA
    Posts 1,280
    Rep Power 13

    Default

    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.
    Look at 'em run, too scared to pull they guns
    Outta shape from them coffees and them cinnamon buns
    This shit is fun, how I feel when the tables is turned


    Dead Prez
  3. #3
    Join Date Jul 2007
    Location Melbourne, Australia
    Posts 2,208
    Organisation
    ex-Leninist sectoid
    Rep Power 33

    Default

    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
    And when Marx says, 'Hitherto the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways', what that 'hitherto' means is not a renunciation of theory and that all we need to do is wade in with our fists and there will be no more need for thought. This idea is in fact fascist, and it would be grossly unjust to Marx to impute such views on him.
    --Theodor Adorno, 'On Theory and Practice'
  4. #4
    Join Date Mar 2006
    Posts 957
    Rep Power 13

    Default

    40 acres and a mule wouldn't be a bad start.
  5. #5
    Join Date Sep 2006
    Posts 939
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    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.
    <span style=\'color:red\'>&quot;Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.&quot;
    -Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852)</span>

    <span style=\'color:blue\'>&quot;When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express the fact that within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created.&quot;
    -Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto</span>

    Industrial Workers of the World | Radio Rebelde!
  6. #6
    Join Date Jul 2007
    Posts 83
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Originally posted by BreadBros@July 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&#39;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&#39;t dare to speak it because the KKK would have lynched them.
  7. #7
    Join Date Oct 2005
    Posts 11,269
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    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)?
  8. #8
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Posts 48
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    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.
    hasta la victoria siempre
  9. #9
    Join Date Jun 2004
    Location Earth
    Posts 8,925
    Organisation
    NEET
    Rep Power 86

    Default

    It depends what you mean by "nation".
    Maybe if you&#39;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

    There is no territorial basis for a black nation; they are incorrect in stating that the South has these prerequisites in this &#39;Black Belt&#39;, 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_200...ack_percent.gif


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_200...ack_density.gif
    "Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar


  10. #10
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Location Erie, PA
    Posts 1,280
    Rep Power 13

    Default

    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&#39;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.
    Look at 'em run, too scared to pull they guns
    Outta shape from them coffees and them cinnamon buns
    This shit is fun, how I feel when the tables is turned


    Dead Prez
  11. #11
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location East Bay
    Posts 3,415
    Organisation
    Workers Solidarity Alliance
    Rep Power 46

    Default

    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/m...rican.american

    the "Great Migration" of black people from the rural south to the north and west began in earnest in the &#39;40s and continued thru the &#39;60s. to some extent this was driven by mechanization in agriculture. the Southern planter class in the &#39;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."
    The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.
  12. #12
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 186
    Rep Power 13

    Default

    Originally posted by Marko@July 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&#39;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&#39; economistic position that the SP had "nothing to offer" to Black people.
    "I learned during [the fight against the colonial war in Algeria] that political conviction is not a question of numbers, of majority. Because at the beginning of the Algerian war, we were really very few against the war. It was a lesson for me; you have to do something when you think it's a necessity, when it's right, without caring about the numbers." - Alain Badiou
  13. #13
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 186
    Rep Power 13

    Default

    I think CDL&#39;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&#39;s why revolutionary Black nationalism (historically and at the present, an enemy of imperialism) and Zionism (a servant of imperialism) can&#39;t be equated or even really compared.
    "I learned during [the fight against the colonial war in Algeria] that political conviction is not a question of numbers, of majority. Because at the beginning of the Algerian war, we were really very few against the war. It was a lesson for me; you have to do something when you think it's a necessity, when it's right, without caring about the numbers." - Alain Badiou
  14. #14
    Join Date Jun 2007
    Location Freedonia
    Posts 208
    Organisation
    supporter of the League for the Fourth International
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Lenin died in 1924. That was a resolution from the Stalinist comintern. For black liberation through socialist revolution&#33;
  15. #15
    Join Date Jul 2007
    Location Zenica BiH
    Posts 1,018
    Organisation
    pokret DOSTA!
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    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???
  16. #16
    Join Date Feb 2005
    Posts 1,769
    Rep Power 17

    Default

    Originally posted by Marko@July 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, &#39;national&#39;, political, etc, and would take the working class of USA far away from its internal class goal: socialism (as if it&#39;s not far as it is, thanks to pretty much same bullshit - division).

    Besides, there is no &#39;second condition&#39; 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&#39;s Latin-Americans.
    ::: Formerly DJ-TC ::: IWA-AIT :::

    Провери обим злонамере непријатеља
    и његову снагу о кремени брид своје.
    — Oskar Davičo
  17. #17
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 186
    Rep Power 13

    Default

    Originally posted by fredbergen@August 05, 2007 02:12 pm
    Lenin died in 1924. That was a resolution from the Stalinist comintern. For black liberation through socialist revolution&#33;
    Lenin considered African Americans an oppressed nation, just like the so-called "Stalinist" Comintern. See Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Questions.
    "I learned during [the fight against the colonial war in Algeria] that political conviction is not a question of numbers, of majority. Because at the beginning of the Algerian war, we were really very few against the war. It was a lesson for me; you have to do something when you think it's a necessity, when it's right, without caring about the numbers." - Alain Badiou
  18. #18
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 186
    Rep Power 13

    Default

    Originally posted by DJ&#045;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&#39;s a language: English. It&#39;s not necessary for two nations to have different languages in order for relations based on oppression to exist.
    DJ&#045;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, &#39;national&#39;, political, etc, and would take the working class of USA far away from its internal class goal: socialism (as if it&#39;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&#39;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.
    "I learned during [the fight against the colonial war in Algeria] that political conviction is not a question of numbers, of majority. Because at the beginning of the Algerian war, we were really very few against the war. It was a lesson for me; you have to do something when you think it's a necessity, when it's right, without caring about the numbers." - Alain Badiou
  19. #19
    Join Date Aug 2005
    Posts 9,222
    Rep Power 93

    Default

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

    Luís Henrique
    The world is not as it is, but as it is constructed.

    Falsely attributed to Lenin
  20. #20
    Freelance revolutionary Committed User
    Join Date Nov 2003
    Location Au$tralia
    Posts 4,334
    Organisation
    ASU
    Rep Power 38

    Default

    Originally posted by BreadBros@August 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&#39;m getting at...), in that sense then there is certainly an argument to be made.
    Maoist idea of the nation comes from Stalin&#39;s aritcle Marxism and the National Question, 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&#39;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&#39;t have their own indepedent language.

    Besides, African-Americans are no longer the biggest minority in the United States - it&#39;s Latin-Americans.
    That is irrelevant
    The spiritual atom bomb which the revolutionary people possess is a far more powerful and useful weapon than the physical atom bomb. - Lin Biao

    Our code of morals is our revolution. What saves our revolution, what helps our revolution, what protects our revolution is right, is very right and very honourable and very noble and very beautiful, because our revolution means justice

    - Dr. George Habash, founder of the PFLP.


Similar Threads

  1. CHE on BLACKS
    By R_P_A_S in forum Ernesto "Che" Guevara
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 21st June 2007, 14:40
  2. S. American Natives Demand New Nation
    By praxis1966 in forum Newswire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8th February 2006, 04:50
  3. Blacks Are Not Humans
    By revolutionindia in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 13th August 2004, 02:01

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread