[Marxism] Communists and black liberation

hasc.warrior.stew at gmail.com hasc.warrior.stew at gmail.com
Sat Feb 20 14:17:34 MST 2016


If that is the case, my discussion and research on the topic with Gerald Horne and several others who are involved in the scholarship indicated that theoretical nuances is far different than how the public reaction in America developed. You are being tremendously combative and condescending here and I don't think that is necessary, especially considering that as a film scholar I have seen massive gaps in your criticism but don't exactly make a spectacle of it. 

Best regards,
Andrew Stewart 

> On Feb 20, 2016, at 3:55 PM, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/20/16 3:12 PM, Andrew Stewart via Marxism wrote:
>> My latest piece on the history of the Old Left and African Americans.
>> 
>> http://www.rifuture.org/have-a-radical-black-history-month-communism-and-black-liberation.html
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew Stewart
> 
> Andrew, Stalin's understanding of the national question was highly problematic as Jim Blaut pointed out in an article:
> 
> http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/021.html
> 
>    Stalin put forward a fully diffusionist theory of nationalism in 1913; ironically, his point of departure was Lenin's earlier views, before Lenin had analyzed the dynamics of colonialism and imperialism.
> 
>    Stalin's 1913 essay, “Marxism and the National Question,” has had immense influence on Marxism down to the present, mostly because its basic thrust is to argue that nationalism is essentially a bourgeois phenomeno and national movements are not, in most cases, progressive and they will not, in general, succeed in forming new states, an argument that has almost always been used by those Marxists who reject nationalism in general or oppose some particular national movement (see Blaut 1987). Stalin's theory starts with the axiom that national movements are simply an aspect of the rise of capitalism; they are progressive only when capitalism is commencing its rise in a particular region; they are not progressive—— are either frivolous or reactionary—in all other circumstances. Capitalism has now fully risen, says Stalin; therefore national movements are not progressive, although (putting forward the Bolshevik position) the right of peoples to struggle for independence must be recognized. This is pure Euro- Marxism. It sees capitalism as a wave diffusion spreading out from Western Europe across the world's landscapes, and nationalism as nothing more than a part of that diffusion;hence as”bourgeois national- ism.”
> 
> ---
> 
> That does not get into the question of why so many Blacks ended up hating the CPUSA, which involved its practice. When A. Philip Randolph began organizing a March on Washington in 1941 to protest the KKK and demand desegregation in the army, the CPUSA denounced him as undermining the war effort.
> 
> The CPUSA did a lot of good things in the 1930s and 40s to fight racism but given its bureaucratic methods and its subservience to the Kremlin, it was a poor substitute for the kind of organizing that was necessary.
> 
> When Malcolm X began building a Black nationalist movement in the 1960s, he was denounced by the CPUSA for being "divisive", which was the strange inverse of its "Black Belt" program. In the 1920s, they pushed for it despite the lack of a mass movement for it and when Blacks began pushing for Black control of the Black community in the mid-60s, they opposed it.
> 
> When you keep making big mistakes like this, you lose credibility. That is among the reasons the CP is falling apart like all other Leninist sects.
> 
> 
> 




More information about the Marxism mailing list