Re: [Marxism] Did Cannon have a "liquidationist" position on the Blackquestion in the U.S.?

[Ben Courtice <benj2006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not convinced about the strictly "national" character of the black
struggle. I'd be interested for Joaquin to comment.

The definition of a nation I'm going by is the Lenin/Stalin one
(endorsed, subsequently, by Trotsky) which Norm Dixon puts like this in
Links magazine no. 13:


"The Leninist definition of a nation was summarised as "a historically
evolved, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common
language, territory, economic life and psychological make-up manifested
in a common culture".

"The key to the Leninist position, which identifies a nation with its
objective material conditions of formation and existence, is that the
solution to the national question lies in changing those material
conditions.

"Marxists—guided by historical materialism—maintain that sustained life
within a single capitalist economic formation is what forges diverse
peoples into unified nations, with a common language and culture.

"A nation cannot be reduced to a subjective common consciousness. It is
an objective entity defined by the four features identified by Stalin.
These four features are necessary. It is idealism to speak of the
formation of a nation without all four features. "


I found the arguments put forward by Norm Dixon in Links magazine fairly
straightforward and convincing, in utilising clear Marxist categories.
It's not that the struggle isn't a (or *the*) pivot for the whole US
revolutionary movement; it's not that Blacks shouldn't have the right to
organise autonomously; it's not that socialists should tell black
organisations to abandon nationalist labels or goals they set
themselves. But strategically, can we expect the black struggle to
evolve closer to nationalist positions, or away from it, as the movement
grows stronger?

***

For those who don't know him, Norm Dixon is white and lives in
Australia; Malik Miah, who is black and lives in the US had some issues
with Norm's comments, and the debate went for 2 subsequent issues (I
don't know if Malik ever wrote a further piece). Maybe Joaquin can add
something -- in what sense are US Blacks a nation? Do you go by the
Lenin/Stalin definition, or do you think that it isn't useful? Is there
something Norm is missing? Something Malik could have bolstered his
argument with? He raises some interesting points. I'm certainly
interested in the debate. And thanks, by the way, for posting the link
to the Cannon article -- I will read it while I await a reply!

See
<http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue13/Dixon.htm> "Marx, Engels and
Lenin on the national question" by Norm Dixon
<http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue14/Miah.htm> "A critique of Norm
Dixon's article, 'Marx, Engels and Lenin on the National Question'" by
Malik Miah
<http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue15/Dixon.htm> "For a materialist
analysis of national and racial oppression" by Norm Dixon
(The Links page currently uses frames -- go to
<http://www.dsp.org.au/links/> and click on "Back Copies" to see the
full site)


Ben Courtice

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism