This article is profound in explaining that self-determination and class struggle are not in conflict. In fact they complimentary in fight against sustainable repulsion of imperialism. Sbusiso Xaba
2009/8/16 Mawande Jack <[email protected]> > Nationalism, Self-Determination and Socialist Revolution > > *This article appeared in the journal Forward in the 1980s. Forward was > published by the League of Revolutionary Struggle (M-L).* > > ------------------------------ > > *By Amiri Baraka* > > *In the following article Amiri Baraka addresses the topics of > nationalism, national consciousness and internationalism. This essay > originally appeared in the Fall/Winter 1982 issue of The Black Nation. > Forward is reprinting this because these topics are of continuing > importance for the progressive movement in the US. * > > Although the right of Self-Determination is a democratic demand, a > political reform, obviously it must be upheld by people calling themselves > Marxists. Lenin said, social > democrats who refuse to uphold the right of Self-Determination should be > denounced as social imperialists and scoundrels. > > The reason for this is that how can one be fighting for socialism and not > even uphold democracy? But also it is part of the approach of building all > around proletarian unity, upholding democracy for all nations and > nationalities; so that proletarian unity is embodied by the joining together > of workers of all nationalities in order to smash imperialism and monopoly > capitalism, and all the ills these scourges bring with them such as national > oppression, racism, the oppression of women and the like. This is what we > mean by proletarian internationalism. > > Marxists are internationalists. And even if they are Marxists of an > oppressed nationality, they seek to join with workers of other nationalities > in smashing their oppression and all oppression and exploitation even with > workers of the oppressor nation! Ultimately genuine Marxists know that “no > nation can be free if it oppresses another nation.” They also understand > that national oppression cannot be ended until the elimination of class > exploitation and that their own national oppression is just one particular > aspect of the outrages of monopoly capitalism and imperialism. > > Marxist revolutionaries understand that the national oppression of the > African American Nation, for instance, is based economically on the system > of monopoly capitalism (that is its material base), and that the only > beneficiaries of this oppression is that minute percentage of the U.S. > population that makes up the white racist monopoly capitalist class, plus > those relatively small sectors of the working class and petty bourgeoisie > who have been bribed with some of the spoils of imperialism, particularly > the robbery and denial of rights of the African American masses. > > A Marxist is an internationalist, but also as Mao pointed out the Marxist > of an oppressed nation must also be a patriot. The fight against that > nation’s national oppression is “internationalism applied.” Marxists cannot > be so involved with theoretically upholding internationalism that they > dismiss their own nation’s concrete national liberation struggle — that > would be a caricature of Marxism. This is precisely why Mao wrote this > essay, to counter those people disguised as Marxists who wanted to > “liquidate the national question.” Lenin fought the same battle with Rosa > Luxemburg and the Polish and Dutch Social Democrats, among other Marxists in > the early 20th century who wanted to deny the right of Self-Determination as > an exercise in reformism or nationalism. > > But to talk rationally of internationalism, one must understand and fight > for the freedom of all nations! In the U.S., one of the main deterrents in > really multinational communist organizing has been incorrect political > positions on the national question, particularly the Afro-American National > Question. For a long time the liquidationist and chauvinist positions held > sway in the CPUSA, and actually it was Lenin and Stalin and the weight of > the Third International, plus the agitation and struggle of correct comrades > including several Afro-American cadre, that forced the CPUSA to take the > correct position upholding Self-Determination for the Afro-American Nation > in the Black Belt South. > > The question of Self-Determination is a question of the extension of all > around democracy to all nations; it is not Marxists winking at nationalism. > Marxists oppose nationalism, a bourgeois ideology which promotes the > privilege, primacy and exclusiveness of the nation. Nationalism is not the > same thing as patriotism which Mao said was applied internationalism in the > case of oppressed nations, and is not the same as national consciousness > which we will talk more of later. Lenin said that even the bourgeois > nationalism of an oppressed nation has elements of democracy in it, to the > extent to which such nationalists fight against imperialism. So Marxists > support “the nationalists in the sense of a negative support,” that is we > support nationalists to the extent to which they fight imperialism, but > there is no support whatsoever for nationalism, per se! > > It would seem obvious to any advanced observer of a society like the U.S., > for instance, that nationalism has been one of the greatest assets the U.S. > ruling class has possessed. The class struggle inside the oppressor nation > that the imperialist U.S. is, in relationship to the African American or > Chicano Nations, is consistently repressed, diverted, fragmented and held > off by the white racist monopoly capitalist ruling class having infected > sectors of the white working class with the drug of white supremacy. > Chauvinism, Lenin called, opportunism in its most developed and finished > state, where the bourgeoisie could use “its workers” to fight against the > workers of another nation! Such chauvinism has the same economic base as > opportunism, the bribe of a small section of the workers and petty > bourgeoisie with the spoils of imperialism. And in the U.S. those spoils are > literally ripped off the Blacks and other oppressed nationalities. This is > that sector which is paid for collaborating in the superexploitation of > African Americans, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, Native Americans, Asians and so > forth. > > It is nationalism that can divide the workers so that the workers of one > nationality are struggling against the workers of another nationality for a > few illusory crumbs the rulers throw out exactly for that purpose! It is > nationalism that can pit groups of workers against each other with the most > hideous rage, while their mutual oppressors skip off with both their purses > for a little sun and fun. > > Nationalism is a bourgeois ideology which developed with the emergence of > nations and the rise and development of capitalism. Nationalism serves the > bourgeoisie in the sense that they are seeking a market for their goods, and > their national market is always primary as capitalism develops. And > nationalism serves to help that bourgeoisie secure its national market. > Joseph Stalin writes, “The market is the first school in which the > bourgeoisie learns its nationalism.” (page 31, Marxism and the National > Question) > > Black national oppression, based as it is on the slave trade and the > enslaving of African Americans, has created an obvious and even > “justifiable” ground for Black nationalism. The fact that white supremacy > has been the most easily defined instrument in that national oppression > creates a situation where Black nationalism can flourish. But even so, the > majority of African Americans are not nationalists. In fact, part of the > struggle to strengthen the BLM must be in creating a stronger national > consciousness among the African American people, i.e., an awareness of the > Afro-American Nation and of the political necessities of Black survival and > development. > > The BLM, the national liberation struggle of Black people in the U.S., must > include the heightening of national consciousness, identity and > self-respect. But these are not the same as nationalism, an ideology a world > outlook, promoted by the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie that advocates > the primacy; exclusiveness and privilege of “their” nation. > > The masses of the oppressed peoples want national equality, democratic > rights for their nationality equal with all other nations. This is why in > essence the Black struggle, the struggle of the African American Nation for > Self-Determination is a national democratic struggle, the struggle as an > oppressed nation for liberation. > > Nationalism, though, means exclusivism and isolation. Any nationalism > finally implies that those people are better than all others. The Black > struggle is for equality, in essence, not “superiority.” We are the victims > of a nationalism that preaches superiority and inferiority. We have seen its > obscene terror and oppression. We are not fighting so that we can put these > on somebody else. > > And further. Bourgeois nationalism ultimately does not serve the real > interests of the masses of that nationality. As ironic as this sounds, > nationalism does not ultimately serve the nation. This is true and has been > proven correct time and again. Bourgeois nationalism after a certain point > isolates the oppressed masses from their mass allies and delivers them into > the hands of the exploiters and reactionaries of their own nationality. In > today’s world, imperialism must be destroyed to destroy national oppression > and certainly this couldn’t be more true than here in the heartland of the > U.S. superpower. > > Zionism should teach us at this moment more forcibly than anything else, > how even the most “justifiable” nationalism, taken to its logical > conclusion, can end up justifying the slaughter of almost anybody else > outside the nation. Certainly, the slaughter of six million Jews by Nazi > fascism (rule by the most nationalistic sector of finance capital) made > Zionism seem attractive and reasonable to many people who had never taken it > seriously before. Now we see the Israelis, themselves turned into fascists, > slaughtering the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples, justifying it with > Israeli nationalism. > > Within the BLM, the nationalist sector is small, but admittedly very vocal > and active. There has also emerged from out of that sector some of the > fiercest fighters against Black national oppression. (The fact of white > supremacy and chauvinism even on the Left, made multinational organizing > difficult and kept Black fighters in organizations isolated, contributes to > this fact.) However, in the mid-70s a great many of the younger generation > of erstwhile Black nationalists and Pan-Africanists took up Marxism-Leninism > in a stunning development created perhaps by more exposure of their > generation to an atmosphere of international struggle against imperialism > made more familiar by modern communications media and the fact that some of > the leading African revolutionaries like Kwame Nkrumah, Amilcar Cabral, > Samora Machel, Mangaliso Sobukwe, Augostino Neto Nelson Mandela and > liberation organizations like the PAIGC, MPLA, PAC, ANC, ZANU, SWAPO did not > take bourgeois nationalist lines and were often heavily influenced by > Marxism. > > Plus struggles in Black communities had in quite a few cases risen to a > level where some aspect of partial political democracy was won and the > electing or appointing of Black politicians to office quickly revealed that > nationality is not the same as political correctness. This was made clear in > places like Newark, Detroit, Los Angeles and Atlanta, where Black activists > had to go up against Black political infrastructures with many of the same > characteristics of neo-colonialism in the third world. > > Unfortunately, since that incendiary crossover of many of the most active > and informed members of the BLM into the M-L movement, that movement > generally has bogged down and been victimized by a general move to the right > of U.S. society. The anti-revisionist M-L movement is a young movement, but > it has had to survive the shallow, often idealistic enthusiasm of the > mid-70s and its virulent “left” and right opportunism, just as it has to > survive the wave of disillusion and right opportunism that now beset it. The > large number of petty bourgeois cadres in the U.S. Marxist- Leninist > movement help account for some part of these extremes and political > vacillation. > > But what is obvious is that the M-L movement has not given leadership to > the mass movement in the U.S. as it must if a genuine M-L communist party is > to be built. Certainly this is true in the BLM. Too often, not only is the > M-L movement not giving the overall guidance and leadership that the mass > movement needs, it is tailing the various sectors of the mass movement > whether it is the Black Democrat sector or the Black nationalist sector or > the Black Christian sector. > > In the same way that the old RU (Revolutionary Union, now RCP) tailed the > most reactionary sectors of the white working class movement, screaming > “smash busing” along with the racists, we also have would-be M-Ls tailing > cultural nationalists or Christian nationalists, or elected officials or > union leaders or “community leaders” or “reverends” and legitimizing it by > saying that this is their mass work. The role of communists is to represent > the working class and to ensure working class leadership in the mass > movements. A communist organization must lead by its stance, viewpoint and > action. > > One example of what I would call “a militant tail” is when the so-called > M-Ls like the RCP and CWP (Communist Workers Party, now called the New > Democratic Movement –ed) showed up at an NBUF (National Black United Front) > rally in Brooklyn called to protest the murder of Luis Baez by police. These > two “super” revolutionary groups then staged separate little demonstrations > off the side of the main body of people, because they said the leadership of > the NBUF was reformist. So the NBUF calls the rally, organizes the people, > and then the RCP and CWP show up being super revolutionary off to the side > with their small coteries of cultists denouncing the mass movement — not the > police, but the mass movement. The Black nationalists had a field day > denouncing “white folks” obstructing a Black rally and the masses thought > both these groups were some kind of hippies. > > But this tailing from the right or “left” is one of the reasons that the > mass movement is often led by nationalists or social democrats or > revisionists. Another reason is the failure to mount consistent and > principled struggle with the various non-Marxist organizations and leaders. > Certainly, in the BLM there has been no consistent criticism of the various > Black organizations by M-L organizations. They have usually treated these > organizations, certainly the nationalist ones, as if they didn’t exist, only > to tail them in real life. Going to their rallies, programs, conventions, > and not taking the lead in organizing these events themselves. > > Too many so-called M-Ls even think the mass movement is the nationalist > sector of the BLM. Certainly RWH revealed this in their recent pamphlet on > the Afro-American national question. But go to any large program or event > given by nationalists and so forth and you’ll find all kinds of M-Ls there, > but where are the forums and the rallies and the marches and the mass > movement organized and led by the M-Ls? > > Tailing the mass movement, “everything through a united front” as Mao put > it, falling to struggle principledly with various trends within the BLM only > supports the less advanced sectors of the movement, such as nationalism. > These are clear right deviations and instead of “winning the advanced to > communism” too often the M-L movement, through its own present right errors > and some “left” errors as well, leave the leadership of the mass movement to > the nationalists and make them stronger than they would be if we waged > consistent and principled ideological struggle against them. The > relationship of Marxists to the mass movement is unity and struggle, not > just unity! > > The BLM for democracy and Self- Determination exists in the U.S. not only > alongside other National Liberation struggles, e.g., the Chicano and Native > American movements for Self- Determination, there are other oppressed > nationalities (not necessarily nations in the U.S.) fighting for equality > and against racism, such as the Puerto Ricans and Asian Americans. Yet, at > the same time the masses of African Americans and these other oppressed > nationalities are also, along with white workers, members of the > multinational U.S. working class. > > The working class recognizes and supports all the various struggles against > National Oppression, but the struggle that unifies that class completely > must be the struggle to smash monopoly capitalism forever. Therefore the > class-conscious African American workers must fight consciously not only for > Self-Determination for the Afro-American Nation but for the victory of the > whole working class. Such a class-conscious worker must support all the just > struggles of the various oppressed nationalities, but also see a primary the > collective struggle of the multinational working class. > > Actually, the Afro-American struggle for Self- Determination is fought > against the same enemy that the multinational working class fights against, > that is, the white racist monopoly capitalist class which rules the U.S. and > is the chief beneficiary of U.S. imperialism. So that a well-organized and > fighting multinational workers movement must attack the same chief enemy of > the Black Nation — the white racist monopoly capitalist class — the U.S. > imperialist class. > > This is why the strategic alliance between the multinational working class > and oppressed nationalities is so critical. It is the creation of a > conscious fighting unity, a revolutionary unity, that monopoly capitalism > cannot withstand. This is also why nationalism is so divisive and > destructive and ultimately only serves the bourgeoisie. > > The successful national liberation movement, unless it is led by the > working class, only defeats foreign domination, it does not eliminate class > exploitation within that nation. We’ve seen liberation movements defeat > foreign domination only to become neo-colonial states governed by a domestic > bourgeoisie who are absolutely in collaboration with the ex-rulers (see M. > Babu, African Socialism or Socialist Africa, Zed Press). > > A national liberation movement led by the working class not only will take > the revolution through to the end, it then continues without pause into the > phase of eliminating class exploitation and building socialism. > > The struggle for Black Self-Determination, objectively, is a struggle > against the U.S. imperialist class — its monopoly capitalist state has > always been based on Black slavery; It would be a caricature of Black > concerns to say, “All right, the multinational working class is fighting the > monopoly capitalist class for a socialist society but we Black people are > fighting for a Black capitalist society.” The Black bourgeoisie and the less > advanced sectors of the petty bourgeoisie might co-sign such a statement, > but Black workers would not willingly remain the doormats for yet another > exploitive regime. Our struggle is to end exploitation — ours as well as > everyone else’s. > > Even such a fantasy Black capitalist state would see civil war as item > number one on the workers’ agenda (or have you read the news from Kenya, > Zaire, etc., recently?) Black people are not fighting white imperialism so > they can find themselves under the brutish rule of domestic Arap Moi’s, > Mobutu’s and Amin’s, and believe me, brothers and sisters, we have quite a > few of them telling us how bad white folks are — but ask them do they want > to smash class society and capitalism forever? Some of these nationalists > already exist in organizations whose narrow, oppressive structures and > ideologies are chilling projections of what they have in store for all of > us. > > The BLM is not directly a struggle for socialism, it is a struggle for > democracy; But it’s just these struggles for democracy, in all areas of U.S. > life that will bring the masses of all nationalities to revolutionary > positions. In the ‘20s, Lenin pointed out that after the Soviet socialist > revolution the national liberation struggles should no longer be termed > “bourgeois democratic” struggles but “national democratic” or “national > revolutionary.” As these struggles aided the proletariat’s struggle against > imperialism and led by the working class, these struggles did not have to > create a capitalist state controlled by a domestic bourgeoisie but could > move uninterruptedly to socialism. The first socialist revolution had > pointed the way past capitalism! The victory of the People’s Republic of > China proved this thesis brilliantly. > > In a multinational state, such as the U.S., to isolate the African American > people or their liberation movement is to do the imperialist bourgeoisie’s > work for them. Segregation has, in the main, been the way that the rulers > have kept people outside the mainstream of democratic struggles in this > country; Segregation has enabled us fewer allies, fewer links with the > collective workers movement and other oppressed nationalities. To push > nationalism in the 1980s is to narrow our struggle rather than to broaden > it. Genuine revolutionaries need allies, and they must have allies to > strengthen their fight. The Israeli fascists prefer to fight the > Palestinians with as few allies as possible – keep the struggle narrow with > all information hard to come by – with only the modern U.S-supplied Israeli > war machine in state power versus the less well-armed and stateless > Palestinians. The fact that the Palestinians are fighting a national > liberation struggle is unquestionable, to suggest that they become narrow > nationalists pushing some metaphysical and exclusivist Palestinian > “superiority” would not only be bizarre, but Israeli foreign policy. The > Israelis would love it. So too, any movement to give the BLM fewer ties with > other advanced and fighting forces would be made in Ronnie Reagan’s heaven. > > The movement for Black Self-Determination must be supported by > class-conscious workers of every nationality. That must be the strategic > line in the BLM. Nationalism is opposed to this. The BLM is part of an > unbreakable fabric of anti-imperialist struggle. Black liberation can only > genuinely exist with the destruction of monopoly capitalism. The destroyer > of monopoly capitalism is the collective workers struggle, the victory of > the multinational working class in alliance with the oppressed peoples and > socialism! > > The principal task for advanced forces, revolutionaries and class conscious > workers in the U.S. is the creation of a multinational revolutionary M-L > communist party. A party that can tie the various national, democratic and > workers movements together and give them collective leadership. In many > cases, nationalist movements among the various nationalities will oppose the > creation of such a party. Communists working in the various mass movements > must fight for such a party and they cannot do this without consistent > criticism of and struggle against nationalist forces within the mass > movement. Not only struggle against nationalism but against every deviation > from revolutionary theory and practice – not in the spirit of Pharisees, > critical but abstract, but with the spirit of living Marxism-Leninism-Mao > Tse-Tung Thought, criticism and struggle for the sake of creating a higher > level, of unity. It is just this kind of class struggle that makes the > movement go forward! > > ------------------------------ > > *Amiri Baraka is the well-known revolutionary playwright, poet and > cultural worker. He is the editor of The Black Nation Magazine and a member > of the Central Committee of the League of Revolutionary Struggle (M-L). * > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > -- “I want people to remember me as someone whose life has been helpful to humanity.” Sankara --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Sending your posting to [email protected] Unsubscribe by sending an email to [email protected] You can also visit http://groups.google.com/group/payco Visit our website at www.mayihlome.wordpress.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
