[A-List] Moderator's note

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Wed Oct 27 16:54:39 MDT 2004


In a message dated 10/27/2004 9:45:05 AM Central Standard Time, 
lnp3 at panix.com writes: 

>For the same reason white workers identified with it. It was a symbol if 
immense power. However, blacks began leaving the CP in droves after the party put 
the Kremlin's interests over that of black liberation. You can read about 
this in Harold Cruse's "Crisis of the Black Intellectual". Richard Wright was one 
of the more famous blacks who abandoned the CP, but there are thousands of 
others.<

Comment

The National Factor is complex and the various "National movements" in the 
Soviet Union need to be assessed for what they are. Some believe these are 
revolutionary movements and I believe they are horribly reactionary and lead by 
elements of international and domestic capital, that becomes increasing difficult 
to separate from political fascism. 

All evolving fascists movements cloak themselves in the mantle of saving the 
Nation and a complex of jingoists ideology, chauvinism and reactionary 
nationalists ideology. All nationalists ideology is foreign to and can never be 
reconciled with proletarian ideology and internationalism no matter how refined and 
"justifiable."  

What actually lead the flight of African Americans from the CPUSA was the 
abolition of the Leninist Conception of the Negro Question, which changed the 
orientation of the party. This Leninist conception of the Negro Question as a 
national-colonial question was basically handwritten by the Comintern or the 
Kremlin. If anything it was turning away from the Kremlin, that led to the flight 
for blacks and whites from the party. Not to mention a very real wave of 
political reaction in America. 

Far to often in discussing the African American National Factor and the 
CPUSA, there is a tendency to identify the black intellectual with the masses of 
Negro - African American workers and sharecroppers drawn into the CPUSA when its 
orientation changed after the 1928 Comintern document. This is not a question 
of "dropping names" but the political logic and policy of a most progressive 
and revolutionary section of the National Negro bourgeoisie from the turn of 
the last century up until the Watts Rebellion of 1965. This policy was known as 
the "Talented Tenth" which menat the intellectual sector and cpaitlaist 
sector of the African American people that could presumably lead them to power and 
the destruction of their colonial status in America. 

All of us are strong willed individuals. I simply object to the concept that 
the history of American Communism is reducible Kremlin Control when this is 
not true. In fact every attempt in our history to further clarify and really 
unravel this National Question is always met by a barrage of anti-Stalinism as a 
cloak for an inability to really examine the economic, social and political 
essence of this important question. 

Hence, I disagree again and state that the black masses left the CPUSA in 
mass, when it abandoned the Comintern position on the Negro Question, which 
caused a change in orientation and political approach to the black masses. I am 
speaking of the period after 1943, although deeper political problems emerged 
much earlier in the CPUSA during the war against German led European fascism. A 
section of the CPUSA or rather its leaders really thought and believed that 
American Imperialism had changed its class essence due to a momentary identity of 
interest between the Soviet Union and America facing the direct colonial 
policy of Hitlerite fascism. 

I of course have repeatedly made my opinion about China known and have spoken 
directly to the growth of the bourgeois property relations in China. In fact 
writing for Marxline I criticized allowing capitalists into the CPC, only 
later to criticize myself for overstepping what I consider to be my political 
bounds. Nor do I write material in support of, on any level the Putin government, 
because he is a representative of domestic and international capital. 

Chechnya is not a very complicated issue and of course it is not a question 
of Russia "having no right to her" in the first place. This is like saying the 
state of our own bourgeoisie had to right to Texas. Saying for instance, the 
various European powers had no right to conduct the slave trade, would not be 
taken serious by anyone. 

In respects to my presentation of the National Factor, Lou and I come from 
different political trends, different spheres of work over the years, different 
political orientation and speak very different language. For instance all the 
talk about "nationalist" struggles is not how Lenin presented the issue. The 
national movement was not a "nationalists" movement as such and imposing the 
ideological term "nationalists" movement is meant to obscure the question. If in 
fact the "Chechnya struggle" is a nationalist movement it is reactionary by 
definition. A National Movement does not mean the same things as a 
"nationalists movement." 

If would be a mistake to think for a moment that Lenin attempted to reverse 
the heavy handed actions in Georgia. Lenin wanted to correct the "heavy hand" 
not the action. His disagreement was not over approach or presentation of the 
National Factor but how administrative decisions were implemented and Lenin 
does speak of allowing any of the various nations to leave the sphere of Soviet 
Power. Lenin means the right to secede but not leaving the multinational state 
system of the USSR. "Self determination" within the Soviet State and "Regional 
autonomy" within the Soviet State. 

In America the National Factor is the proletariat. 

During the past century the struggle of the African American peoples and the 
Mexican/Chicano cannot be characterized as "nationalist movement" or 
nationalists struggle. Fighting to speak ones language is not a nationalist struggle 
but what is called the national character of a struggle. Fighting against 
lynching is not a nationalists struggle. Fighting for voting rights, educational 
opportunity and against second class citizenship is not a "nationalists 
movement." 

Fighting for empowerment within the electoral arena is not a nationalists 
struggle, except when it comes to blacks, according to the ideologists. When the 
Slavic workers constituted a majority in a distinct and began to elected 
representatives from amongst themselves no one in America call this a nationalists 
movement or struggle. The same applies to the Irish or Italians. When I 
periodical level a charge of chauvinism of white chauvinism I do not mean one is a 
fascist but rather, their error is within the ideology of which these terms 
implies. 

I would ideologically argue a communist to the ground who stated that an 
electoral movement for representation by the Irish in America, based on our 
distinct system was a nationalists struggle. 

Really.

The ideology of the various political and social groups that come to the fore 
cannot be mistaken for the inner logic of the national movement or describe 
the reality of the National Factor. 

Melvin P. 




More information about the A-List mailing list