Re: Re: Clueless 2
Clueless 2 CB: Briefly, the CPUSA from the 1920's to about 1950 orso held that Black people in the US had the right to self-determination in theLeninist sense. They had the right to secede from the U.S. if they sochose. If you are familiar with the Leninistapproach to this, it implies not that the people in question are a nation, but that they have the right to choose to be one. Black people in the U.S. neverdecided to exercise that right to a separate nation. Then in the 50's the CPUSAchanged its assessment, because a large part of the Black population hadmigrated out of the South, and there was no longer the territorial/populationcompactness for a quot;landquot;. Here Melvin P. criticizes the CPUSA for the changedassessment. I don't know whether thatmeans he thinks that Black Americans still constitute a nation for purposes ofthe self-determination question. Most Marxists in the U.S. today do not hold that Blackpeople constitute a separate nation today, in direct answer to your question. CB Reply Any Marxist in history who has held that “Black people constitute a separate nation,” misunderstands what a nation is. What Comrade Charles alludes to is a bourgeois separatist conception of the Negro National Colonial Question, that is alive and well within the tiny radical black intelligencia. He states the position of the CPUSA as “a large part of the Black population had migrated out of the South, and there was no longer the territorial/population compactness for a "land.” In other words: 1. The Black population migrated from the South; and 2. Because the black skin people are the nation, 3. Their dispersal dissolved the nation. As a result, “Most Marxists in the US today do not hold that Black people constitute a separate nation today, in direct answer to your question.” In other words the Black people once constituted a separate nation but migration destroyed the nation, which was colonized as the result of its defeat during the Civil War in America. The other meaning of what Comrade Charles state is: the black people of the slaveholding area developed as a nation separate from the white people who lived across the tracks, and the black people once had the right to self determination but not the white people who live adjacent to them. It is not correct to call this proposition a bourgeois separatist tendency or theory. What is the nation that developed in the south and was colonized by Wall Street imperialism as the result of its defeat during the Civil War in America? The nation or national formation that evolved in the South of the United States of North America, is a historically evolved stable community of Colored people – black slaves, along with the historically developed Anglo-American people, who lived in the old slave holding area of the South – the Black Belt, and the economically dependent area of the Southern USNA – border regions. This nation, which evolved from the specifics of slavery, is a historically evolved stable community of black skin and white skin people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological makeup manifested in a common culture. This is the classical Marxist definition of a nation written by Stalin, edited by Lenin and propagated by the Third Communist International. In place of a Marxist disclose of the meaning of a “common land” Comrade Charles smuggle I the historical CPUSA conception called “theterritorial/population compactness for a quot;landquot;. Our Comrade faces an impossible situation and places land in quotes (“land”), because of the absurdity of the proposition. He has no way of this absurd situation without resorting to the Marxist presentation of the national colonial question and this means consulting the classic, “Marxism and the National Question” and reading the section on the meaning of a “common land” as the basis for a development from pre-capitalist to capitalist production relations. Let us return to the Comintern document again. “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
Re: Re: Text File Re: Clueless 2
Clueless 2
CB: Briefly, the CPUSA from the 1920's to about 1950 or so held that Black people in the US had the right to self-determination in the Leninist sense. They had the right to secede from the U.S. if they so chose. If you are familiar with the Leninist approach to this, it implies not that the people in question are a nation, but that they have the right to choose to be one. Black people in the U.S. never decided to exercise that right to a separate nation. Then in the 50's the CPUSA changed its assessment, because a large part of the Black population had migrated out of the South, and there was no longer the territorial/population compactness for a "land".
Here Melvin P. criticizes the CPUSA for the changed assessment. I don't know whether that means he thinks that Black Americans still constitute a nation for purposes of the self-determination question.
Most Marxists in the U.S. today do not hold that Black people constitute a separate nation today, in direct answer to your question.
CB
Reply
Any Marxist in history who has held that "Black people constitute a separate nation," misunderstands what a nation is. What Comrade Charles alludes to is a bourgeois separatist conception of the Negro National Colonial Question, that is alive and well within the tiny radical black intelligencia.
He states the position of the CPUSA as "a large part of the Black population had migrated out of the South, and there was no longer the territorial/population compactness for a "land"."
In other words: 1. The Black population migrated from the South; and 2. Because the black skin people are the nation, 3. Their dispersal dissolved the nation. As a result, "Most Marxists in the U.S. today do not hold that Black people constitute a separate nation today, in direct answer to your question."
In other words the Black people once constituted a separate nation but migration destroyed the nation, which was colonized as the result of its defeat during the Civil War in America. The other meaning of what Comrade Charles state is: the black people of the slaveholding area developed as a nation separate from the white people who lived across the tracks, and the black people once had the right to self determination but not the white people who live adjacent to them.
Is it not correct to call this proposition a bourgeois separatist tendency or theory. What is the nation that developed in the south and was colonized by Wall Street imperialism as the result of its defeat during the Civil War in America?
The nation or national formation that evolved in the South of the United States of North America, is a historically evolved stable community of Colored people - black slaves, along with the historically developed Anglo-American people, who lived in the old slave holding area of the South - the Black Belt, and the economically dependent area of the Southern USNA - border regions.
This nation, which evolved from the specifics of slavery, is a historically evolved stable community of black skin and white skin people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological makeup manifested in a common culture. This is the classical Marxist definition of a nation written by Stalin, edited by Lenin and propagated by the Third Communist International.
In place of a Marxist disclose of the meaning of a "common land" Comrade Charles smuggles in the historical CPUSA conception called "the territorial/population compactness for a "land". Our Comrade faces an impossible situation and places land in quotes ("land"), because of the absurdity of the proposition. He has no way out of this absurd situation without resorting to the Marxist presentation of the national colonial question and this means consulting the classic, "Marxism and the National Question" and reading the section on the meaning of a "common land" as the basis for a development from pre-capitalist to capitalist production relations.
Let us return to the Comintern document again.
"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
