[Marxism] Reply to a couple of points by David Walters (was: Black Nationalism / BPP / etc.

["Lou Paulsen" <Loupaulsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David writes (to Adam):

"So, the *largest* left group in the US with the *highest number* of Blacks,
the CPUSA, doesn't agree with you [that Blacks in the US constitute a
nation."

Well, for the record, the latest statement of the CPUSA's position is here
in an article by Jarvis Tyner:

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/512/1/8/

It states that the USA constitutes a single "multiracial nation", of which
Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Asians, and all the Native American nations
are constituent parts.

It states that the CPUSA's earlier position, that Blacks were an "emerging
nation within a nation", "which involved a solution that meant land and
territory, was not correct."

However, this re-evaluation was made during the same period when the CPUSA
was taking more moderate positions on every level and on every issue.
Furthermore, Tyner doesn't explain why "land and territory" solutions are
not applicable, or, more fundamentally, why, even if "land and territory"
solutions really did become inapplicable, Blacks in the US would cease to be
a nation for that reason alone.

David goes on to say,

"Also, how do a few hundred or a thousand "Black Marxists" have a trump on
this question?"

I just find this rhetorical question very sad and baffling.  If a
revolutionary party ran into a question about nuclear power, for example, or
global warming, and it had a few hundred or a thousand comrades who were
experts on nuclear engineering or climatology, and they studied the question
and came back with an unambiguous answer, any party, not composed of
lunatics, would thank them for their work, and be grateful for their good
fortune that they had knowledgeable comrades who could settle the problem.

But when "a few hundred or a thousand 'Black Marxists'", and for that matter
other Black revolutionaries, who are EXPERTS ON BEING BLACK IN THE UNITED
STATES, give their conclusions, that isn't enough. NO! White Marxists have
to have our equal voice! And when someone suggests that this is a crazy and
destructive path, he or she is accused of being an enemy of freedom of
speech!  My God! I hope some of you enjoy hearing the sort of things Art
said, because it's not the last time we're going to hear it.  It really IS
too colonialist for words.

Despite the fact that some true things have been said in the course of the
discussion, I believe the overall effect has been to discredit Marxism in
the eyes of the oppressed.  It would be bad enough if it happened in a
public meeting, but at least in that case if nobody had a tape recorder then
everyone might forget it or could at least lie and say they weren't there.
But in fact it is as if we had published a BOOK - "White Marxists Debate
Whether Blacks are a Nation or Not" - which will be archived on the
Internet, FOREVER, so that all the oppressed everywhere on the planet can
get a picture of what kind of attitude white U.S. Marxists had toward them
in the fall of 2004.  It's not a good picture.  I'm not proud of being a
contributing author to this book.  The only thing that I can say to the
oppressed who happen to be reading this, this year or in a later year, is
that I don't think this reflects the best we can do.  When white Marxists
are working in multinational parties, some of us can actually help get some
stuff done.  But when we are in this kind of setting, we look really
terrible.

Lou Paulsen
Member, WWP, Chicago


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism