Alliance marxist leninist theory of a 'black nation' in USA.pdf- (1.85 MiB) Downloaded 362 times
- Alliance marxist leninist theory of a 'black nation' in USA.epub
- (4.66 MiB) Downloaded 337 times
- cover.png (1.91 MiB) Viewed 3264 times
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1. THE VIEWS OF LENIN: THE TERMINOLOGY : “BLACK NATION”
i) Lenin’s First Citation: “Draft Theses On the National -Colonial Question”
ii) Lenin’s Second Citation: “New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture”
iii) Lenin’s Third Citation : “Statistics and Sociology”
iv) Other Discussions by Lenin Bearing on This Theme – Upon Jews and the Bund
v) Polemics with Rosa Luxemburg
2. STALIN, THE NATIONAL QUESTION, AND THE QUESTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE “BLACK NATION” THEORY
i) Stalin’s Definition Of A Nation
ii) Stalin On The Rights Of Minorities And The National Question
iii) Do Stalin’s Criteria Fit the Theory of the “Black Nation?”
iv) The Modern Day Line of The Black Nation In the USA
3. THE CHARACTER OF THE COMINTERN AFTER LENIN’S DEATH
i) The Role of Zinoviev and Ultra-Leftism
ii) The Perversion of United Front tactics in the Trade Unions
iii) The Distortion of the Colonial Question From 1921 Onwards
iii) Ultra Leftism in the Trade Unions
iv) The Sixth World Congress
4. THE FORMATION OF THE CPUSA & ULTRA-LEFT DEVIATIONS
I) The Situation Before the Russian Bolshevik Revolution
ii) National Left Wing Conference: a new Leninist Communist Party
iii) Dual Unionism And Broad Front Work
iv) The Third Party – Farmer-Labor Party; the LaFollette Movement
v) The Factional Battles Come to the Sixth Comintern Congress
vi) The Black Movement In The USA
vii) The Attitude of Stalin to the American CP in 1928
CONCLUSION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
The rights of national minorities versus the rights of nations are of central strategic concern to the Marxist-Leninist movement, as it strives for the proletarian revolution. Marxist-Leninists in North America are particularly interested in this question because of the capitalist, institutionalised racism rampant in both the USA and Canada. In the USA, this racism peaks with the Negro (or black, or Afro-American) population, and the Chicano (those of Mexican origin) populations. In both the USA and Canada the indigenous peoples, or the Native Americans, also bear the brunt of this problem.
We have already examined in Alliance 22, the views of Marx and Engels on the formation of the USA and the Civil War in the USA, and their views upon USA slavery. We noted that both Marx and Engels talked only in terms of a single unitary nation, the USA, and not in terms of a multi-national state.
We now examine how the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) formulated their response to this issue, in calling for “SELF DETERMINATION OF THE BLACK NATION.” The policy of Alliance is to assist a principled debate to define the lines of the new evolving Marxist-Leninist party. Therefore we publish this view in an anticipation of a principled debate. We aim to ask here, whether the line adopted was objectively correct at the time, and if it is correct today. We examine as part of this, the formation of the CPUSA, and its functioning.
Marxist-Leninists have grappled with the central question over several generations. This is fortunate for us, since their writings can guide us. Both Marx and Engels wrote on the USA and the Negroes of America, and as seen, we have dealt with those views in Alliance 22. Later, both Lenin and Stalin also wrote extensively on the USA. Moreover, Stalin also wrote explicitly on the deficiencies of the former Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA). As Marxists-Leninists, we should take their views into account. How did these Marxist-Leninists view America? What positions did they take, and how did they arrive at their conclusions? Were their positions right then? Are their positions still right under today’s situation?
This list of questions, will force us to consider larger questions. These revolve around the character of the CPUSA and its leaders, and the role of the Comintern in its decisions. So far, the available histories of the CPUSA are either self-justifying revisionist accounts (into which category William Z. Foster‘s history fits); Trotskyite accounts (such as those by James Cannon); or bourgeois accounts.
One school of bourgeois historians, led by Theodore Draper allege that the Comintern subverted this and other lines of the CPUSA and imposed its will. Yet another school of historians led by Maurice Isserman reply this is untrue, and that the CPUSA made its own policies. This latter school, actually derives from the Old CPUSA itself. In addition some memoirs are relevant, such as the autobiography of HARRY HAYWOOD, entitled Black Bolshevik.
All these offer various useful facts. But all these perspectives, agree and take as a central premise that Stalin controlled the Comintern and that Stalin was in full control of the USSR. This viewpoint unites the bourgeois historians, the revisionist historians, the Trotskyites, and finally even those like Haywood. As the career of Khrushchev as a high priest of hidden revisionism shows, we argue that this viewpoint is no longer tenable.
Today, genuine Marxist-Leninists, are confronted by revisionism. This begs the question: “How did the movement fall into revisionism?” Marxist-Leninists are faced with a stark decision regarding the origins of international revisionism. Most genuine Marxist-Leninists today, reflexively defend the history of the Comintern from 1919 to 1943, partly because they believe any other response defends Trotsky. But this attitude is not adequate. To answer the question : “How did the movement fall into revisionism?” Three associated questions must be asked:
a) Was the line itself correct or incorrect?
b) Was the leadership of the Comintern Marxist-Leninist or was it revisionist?
c) Who formed the leadership of the Comintern?
Elsewhere we argue that the line of the Comintern was subverted under the leadership of GRIGORY ZINOVIEV, OTTO KUUSINEN, DIMITRI MANUILSKY AND GEORGY DIMITROV (See Alliance 5; 12; 19). We argue here, that the line of the CPUSA was also subverted. But it was subverted NOT by Stalin, as alleged by Theodore Draper, Trotsky and James Cannon. It was subverted, by others than Stalin – by hidden revisionists. In relation to the USA, the line was first disrupted by ZINOVIEV. Haywood notes that Zinoviev brought up the question of the Black Nation in the USA, when he was in charge of the Comintern, after Lenin’s death. Haywood also comments that his own initial reaction to this line was hostile:
“Apparently Zinoviev and others in the CI leadership were not satisfied with the formulation that had rejected the self-determination for U.S. Blacks. Zinoviev had instructed BOB MAZUT to investigate the question.. I was present at the meeting of the Young Communist League District Committee in Chicago in 1924 when Bob Mazut (then Young Communist International representative to the US) at the behest of Zinoviev… raised the question of self-determination… He had been shouted down by white comrades.. To me the idea of a black nation within US boundaries seemed far fetched and not consonant with American reality.”
(Haywood, “Black Bolshevik: Autobiography of An Afro-American Communist”; Chicago 1978; p. 226, 219).
Of course Zinoviev was exposed and removed from the leadership of the Comintern. All Marxist-Leninists accept that Zinoviev was revisionist. But his work was continued by MANUILSKY, and KUUSINEN, who ensured acceptance of the “Black Nation” theory in the USA. The first, and natural reaction of the CPUSA, including black activists such as Harry Haywood himself, had been to reject this line as a form of Black Separatism. Ultimately, by using a mixture of pressure and persuasion over a long period, elements such as Harry Haywood were won over by SEN KATAYAMA, and then by Kuusinen, to this line. We assert that Sen Katayama, Kuusinen and Manuilsky were revisionists.
REVISIONISM whether open or hidden, aims to subvert the socialist revolution. This line of the “Black Nation,” was calculated to overturn a class solidarity of white and black, and foster racial division between white and black workers. This line is and was, usually justified by honest Marxist-Leninists, as being directly traceable to Lenin and Stalin. But the evidence for these assertions does not exist. As Draper says:
“American Communists have claimed that Lenin spoke of American Negroes as a nation three times in his voluminous writings. Each of these citations fails on examination to bear out the extreme construction that has been placed on it.”
(Theodore Draper “American Communism and Soviet Russia”; New York; 1986; p. 335).
There is little doubt that this line of “The Black Nation,” was adopted by the CPUSA at the Sixth World Congress of the Comintern. It was held from 17 July to 1 September 1928 in Moscow and was dominated by NIKOLAI BUKHARIN. J.V. Stalin did not even attend the congress. From many accounts the Congress was in a state of some apprehension over the recent expulsion of Trotsky, and some were anticipating further ideological attacks including against Bukharin, the apparent head of the current Comintern. Draper alleges that Stalin foisted his views on the CPUSA because of his authority on the National Question:
“As the Russian party’s specialist on the national colonial question, Stalin considered the (Far Eastern University in Moscow), his ward.”
(Draper Ibid; p. 334).
The source cited by Draper, and by honest Marxist-Leninists, to support the thesis that Stalin directly supported the theory of the “Black Nation” is Harry Haywood, who is adamant that:
“Stalin was undoubtedly the person pushing the position (ie. That the Blacks were an oppressed nation -Ed).”
(Harry Haywood; Ibid; p. 223).
But in fact all authorities – whether those arguing for the line of “Black Nation” or those arguing against the line of “Black Nation” – acknowledge, that there is no smoking-gun in any text by Stalin, that can be linked to this adventure. Marxist-Leninist forces do point to some textual references by Lenin. But we here show by a full textual analysis, that these quotes are lifted out of context.
So, if the line did not come from Lenin and Stalin, where did it emanate from? Haywood, while firmly maintaining that the line on “Black nation” did emanate from Stalin, tells us that others actually imparted the “Word From On High.” As if Stalin in 1928-30 can not speak for himself! In fact, Haywood was sold this line by a chain of several revisionists – from Zinoviev to Sen Katayama to Otto Kuusinen. The role of Sen Katayama was central to the initial persuasion of those like Harry Haywood. Haywood states that:
“Sen Katayama had told us Black University Of The Toilers Of The East (Named after the Russian letters – KUTVA – Ed) students that Lenin had regarded U.S. Blacks as an oppressed nation and referred us to his draft resolution on the national and colonial question which was adopted by the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920.”
(Haywood; Ibid; p.219).
Haywood adds that whilst he was in Moscow, Sen Katayama:
“Was a special friend of the Black students in Moscow. He was born to a Japanese peasant family, was educated in the US and became one of the founders of the Japanese Social Democratic Party in 1901. A member of the ECCI, he had spent several years in exile in the U.S., and was considered an expert on the Afro-American question. Katayama was most interested in our studies and our view on the situation in the US., particularly as it concerned Blacks. ‘Old Man’ Katayama knew all about white folks and we regarded him as one of us. We often came to him with our problems and he always had a receptive ear. It was Katayama who told us of Lenins’ earlier writings about U.S. Blacks and Lenin’s views on the Black belt. He died in Moscow in 1933 at the age of 74.”
(Haywood; Footnote; p. 656; Ibid).
But Sen Katayama had rather simplified Lenin’s views, as we will discuss later. Moreover, and most unfortunately given the influence he had over Haywood, it is clear that Sen Katayama was an early adherent of LEON TROTSKY. Trotsky, it will be recalled, just prior to the 1917 revolution had stayed in the USA, intending to remain as an emigre. But when the Clarion call to Russia came, he correctly went. But in the interim, he had been contending with two other Russians for control of the USA fledgling movement of communists. Acting on the behalf of Lenin’s Bolsheviks were Bukharin and Alexandra Kollantai. As Draper puts it:
“Lore and Katayama agree that Trotsky talked himself into the momentary command of the American left Wing.”
(Theodore Draper; “The Roots of American Communism”; New York; 1957; (Hereafter Draper 2); p. 82).
In fact Sen Katayma was explicit about his own role in that business:
“We intended to organise the Left wing under the direction of Comrade Trotsky, and Madame Kollantai was going to Europe to establish the link between the European and American Left Wing movements.”
(Katayama’s words cited in Draper 2; Ibid p. 82).
We suggest that it is most unlikely that Sen Katayma had shaken off his adherence to Trotsky, at that very time that he was busily influencing Haywood. The question then naturally arises, as to whether Trotsky himself is on record on the “Black Nation” question? Indeed he is. Trotsky was interviewed by ARNE SWABECK, a leader of the Trotskyite Communist Opposition in the USA, and later by C.L.R. JAMES, a militant Black Caribbean Trotskyite.
The two Trotskyites had arrived at the Master’s feet, to seek guidance on the line of the CPUSA on the Black nation. Far from attacking the line of the Comintern, Trotsky in fact, supported the “Black Nation” line. He had to persuade the Trotskyite Opposition in the USA to embrace this line. In fact, in a chain of argument to arrive at this position, Trotsky first asserts that it is a fact that Negroes are “a race and not nation.” However, Trotsky then states that Nationhood is “a question of their consciousness, that is, what they desire and what they strive for.” His full words were as follows:
“The Negroes are a race and not a nation. Nations grew out of racial material under definite conditions. The Negroes in Africa are not yet a nation, but they are in the process of forming a nation. The American Negroes are on a higher cultural level. But since they are under the pressure of the Americans they become interested in the development of the Negroes in Africa. The American Negro will develop leaders for Africa, that one can say with certainty and that in turn will influence the development of political consciousness in America. We of course, do not obligate the Negroes to become a nation; whether they are is a question of their consciousness, that is to say, what they desire and what they strive for. We say: If the Negroes want that then we much fight against imperialism to that last drop of blood, so that they gain the right wherever and when however they please, to separate a piece of land for themselves. The fact that they are today not a majority in any state does not matter.”
(Leon Trotsky ; “The Negro Question In America,” interview with Arne Swabeck 1933; In “On Black Nationalism and Self Determination”; New York; 1967; p. 24-25).
Having “manufactured a nation” from a wish; and denied the relevance of a “majority”; now Trotsky asserts that this slogan will attract the petty-bourgeois primarily, whilst deterring the workers. But he adds quickly, that this is irrelevant since the white & black workers are divided as it is!:
“That the slogan of ‘self-determination’ will win over the petty bourgeois more than the workers- that argument also good for the slogan of equality. It is clear that those Negro elements who play more of a public role (businessmen, intellectuals, lawyers etc) are more active and react more actively against inequality… If the situation was such that in America common actions took place involving black and white workers, that class fraternization already was a fact, then perhaps our comrades’ arguments would have a basis (I do not say that it would be correct); the perhaps we would divide the black workers from the white if we began to raise the slogan “self-determination.'”
(Leon Trotsky ; “The Negro Question In America,” interview with Arne Swabeck 1933; In “On Black Nationalism and Self Determination”; New York; 1967; p. 24-25).
The identity of Trotsky with the Comintern should give rise to pause for those adamant that the Comintern line was correct. Trotsky’s line is a complete chain of specious arguments. First from asserting the ability to “wish” a nationhood; over to asserting the leading role of American blacks for the “Negroes” in Africa; through to the excusing of a policy that promotes division – “because there is some division now!” Parts of this chain of argument are very similar to those that today, emphasise the “wishes” of a section of the Black petty-bourgeois. The “Black Nation” line as accepted by Trotsky, then became part of the policy of a prominent USA Trotskyite organisation, the SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY (SLP):
“The minority status of the Negro in the political divisions of capitalist America, even in the South, and the absence of a national Negro language and literature and of differentiated political history as in prewar Poland or Catalonia and the Ukraine of today, have caused in the past a too facile acceptance of the Negroes as a merely a more than usually oppressed section of the American workers and farmers… The desire to wipe out the humiliating political subservience and social degradation of centuries might find expression in an overpowering demand for the establishment and administration of a Negro state… The demand for a Negro state in America its revolutionary achievement with the enthusiastic encouragement and assistance of the whites , will generate such creative energy in every section of the Negro workers and farmers in America as to constitute a great step forward too the ultimate integration of the American Negroes into the United Socialist States of North America.”
(Socialist Workers Party Convention; July 3, 1939; “Results of The Discussions on the Right of Self-Determination and the Negro In the United States of North America”; in : Leon Trotsky ; “On Black Nationalism and Self Determination”; Ibid; p. 76-77).
It should be no surprise that the SLP, would later fully support MALCOLM X.
Some in the international movement, have privately dismissed the documentation amassed by Alliance and CL as “fictions,” but have so far not enlightened us as to any documentary counter evidence. Some honest advocates of the line of “Black Nation,” have argued in recent principled discussions with Alliance, that quotes from Lenin and Stalin can be used as “scripture,” to support “any position.” So, they argued, this was not a very useful way of confirming or refuting the correctness of the line of “the Black Nation In the USA.” They will also no doubt argue that the use of Trotsky’s words, as a negative example, is also open to “support any position.”
In general we agree that historically, the words of the Marxist-Leninists leaders have often been deliberately misused. But we argue that, since Haywood and many others, down to the present day – including organisations such as Working People’s News, Revolutionary Communist League (MLM), R.O. Light, Labour’s Champion, Communist Party USA Marxist-Leninist; and many others; all vigorously defend the line of the “Black Nation,” by themselves citing Lenin and Stalin, we must all re-examine these texts. This is why we will analyse Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin’s actual written works in relation to the “Black Nation” line. But, in any case, we will argue that whether or not Lenin or Stalin supported it then; the question should be whether or not the policy was correct? Furthermore, is it correct now?
LENIN AND THE TERMINOLOGY: “BLACK NATION”
The proponents of the “Black Nation” theory, insist that they derive their position from Lenin. In fact there is little doubt that Lenin did indeed, use the terminology “NEGRO NATION.” There are THREE MAIN CITATIONS of Lenin, usually described in any description of Lenin that discusses this question. We will analyse these. We also draw attention to other statements of Lenin that abut onto this question.
Before examining Lenin’s views as distinct from those of the earlier Marxist-Leninists, we will briefly examine Lenin on the Civil War. This is logical as Lenin’s views closely followed those of Marx and Engels. He echoed their views on the Civil War and the naivete of Kriege. In distinction however to them, he could closely analyse the phenomenon of Southern share-cropping. This had been firmly established after the Reconstruction period of the South, as Marx had noted. However, it had not yet had time to establish itself. Lenin had recognised as clearly as Marx and Engels had, the progressive nature of the Civil War in destroying old property relations of the Plantations:
“The representatives of the bourgeoisie understand that for the sake of overthrowing the rule of the slave owner, it was worth letting the country go through long years of civil war, through the abysmal ruin, destruction and terror that accompany every war.”
(Lenin: From “Letter to American Workers”; Aug 1918; Vol 28; pp.62-75; In “Lenin On USA”; p. 342. CW Vol 28; pp 69-70).
As we saw above, Marx had thought the plantation economy of Southern Slavery was in fact capitalist, though he had appended the term a “formal capitalism,” because of the fact of slavery as opposed to “free labour” being used. Lenin pointed out that the full erection of a capitalist agriculture had developed out of the Post-Reconstruction Land Deals that had been worked out:
“It was not the old slave holding economy of the big landowners that became the basis of capitalist agriculture (the Civil War smashed the slave-owners estates).. But the free economy of the free farmer working on free land – free from all medieval fetters, from serfdom and feudalism.”
(Lenin : CW: Vol 15; p. 140).
But as his other works show, Lenin knew that this had led to the institution of share-cropping. It is from this point that it is logical to examine in detail the views of Lenin on the Black National Question. We will examine in turn the citations cited by Harry Haywood and others. They cite Lenin thrice, in support of this line.
Lenin’s First Citation: “Draft Theses On the National-Colonial Question”
HARRY HAYWOOD in his autobiography, describes as a key ideological supporter of the theory of the “Black Nation,” one SEN KATAYMA. Katayama was a Japanese born member of the Comintern who had spent a great deal of time in the USA and had worked with the CPUSA at an early stage of its formation. We have already discussed in the introduction, Katayama’s Trotskyite adherence. Katayama claimed that his own support of the theory of the “Black Nation,” derived from Lenin. This claim, and Haywood’s own offered version of the translated text of Lenin’s “Draft Theses On the National-Colonial Question” is recorded by Haywood:
“Sen Katayma told us black KUTVA students that Lenin had regarded U.S. Blacks as an oppressed nation and referred us to his draft resolution on the national and colonial question which was adopted by the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920…It first appeared in Lenins’s ‘Draft Theses On the National-Colonial Question’… The draft which was later adopted called upon the communist parties to Arender direct aid to the revolutionary movements among the dependent and underprivileged nations (for example Ireland, the American Negroes, etc) and in the colonies.”
(Cited by Haywood; “Black Bolshevik”; Ibid; p.219, p. 223).
Haywood himself is certainly aware that some have offered a different explanation of this citation. But Haywood relies only upon the views expressed by Katayama to him. Haywood argument is simple, that Katayama was there and must have known what “Lenin really thought”:
“Some have argued that Lenin’s reference to U.S. Blacks as a subject nation was merely a tentative deduction. When he submitted his draft, he asked the delegates for opinions and suggestion in 15 points, one of which was ‘Negroes in America.’ It was recorded however that the Colonial Commission of the Congress, which Lenin himself headed and in which Sen Katayma was a leading member, held lengthy discussion on the question of U.S.Blacks.. Sen Katayma told us of Lenin’s earlier writings about U.S. Blacks, and about Lenin’s views on the Black Belt.”
(Haywood “Black Bolshevik”; Ibid; p.223; and footnotes on p. 656).
This is only an indirect view that at the moment, because for lack of archival evidence, we cannot corroborate this. But furthermore, there is a problematic question of the exact translation of the text. Theodore Draper argues that there has been a mis-translation:
“This translation is based on the final text in German and Russian. The key phrase: ‘Among the dependent nations and those without equal rights,’ reads in German: ‘Aunter den abhangigen und nicht gleichberectigten Nationen’ (Protokoll des II Weltkongresses der Kommunistischen International, p.228) It reads similarly in Russian: ‘Azavicimykh ili neravnopravnikh natsiakh’ (Vtori Kongress Cominterna, revised edition, 1934, p.493 for resolution and p.648 for draft). The adjectival use of ‘without equality’ cannot be rendered literally in English.”
(Draper T; “American Communism and Soviet Russia”; New York; 1986; p. 337).
Draper comments correctly that:
“A strange fate awaited these few words. American Communists… Have known them in inaccurate English translations. In the official German and Russian texts of these, ‘without equal rights’ appears as an adjective before ‘nations’. Communist translations have changed ‘without equal rights’ into ‘subject’ or ‘subordinated’ nations, or have omitted it altogether. By accident or not, these mistranslations have oversimplified what Lenin may have had in mind for the American Negroes.”
(Draper; Ibid, p. 337-338).
What does the text actually say? A well recognised un-impeachable source for Comintern documents, is JANE DEGRAS, whose three volume text of the Document of the Comintern from 1922-1943 is a basic and much used source. The exact wording according to that text is this:
“(9). In regard to relations within States, the Communist International’s national policy cannot confine itself to the bare and formal recognition of the equality of nations expressed only in words only and involving no practical obligations, to which bourgeois democracies-even if they call themselves socialist- restrict themselves. Offences against the equality of nations and violations of all the guaranteed rights of national minorities, repeatedly committed by all capitalist states despite their “democratic” constitution, must be inflexibly exposed in all the propaganda and agitation carried on by the communist parties, both inside and outside parliament. But that is not enough. It is also necessary: first to make clear all the time that only the Soviet system is able to ensure real equality all the time that only the Soviet system is able to ensure real equality for the nations because it unites first the proletarians, and then all the masses of the working people, in the struggle against the bourgeoisie; secondly communist parties must give direct support to the revolutionary movements among the dependent nations and those without equal rights (e.g. in Ireland, and among the American Negroes), and in the colonies. Without this last particularly important condition the struggle against the oppression of the dependent nations and colonies, and the recognition of their right to secede as separate States remains a deceitful pretence, as it is in the parties of the Second International.”
(J.Degras : “Documents: The Communist International 1919-1943; Volume 1 1919-1922”; London; 1971 ; p.142).
On the text as it stands in Degras, it is certainly clear that Lenin did not view the “Black Nation” in the USA as an entity; but he viewed the position of the Negro as one of “without equal rights.” What did take place in the discussions in the Colonial Commission on this particular issue? It appears that the American Delegate to the Colonial Commission was JOHN REED who argued against the view that there was a “Black Nation” within the USA. Reed argued that the problem of U.S. Blacks was that of:
“Both a strong race movement and a strong proletarian workers movement which is rapidly developing into class consciousness.”
(Cited by Haywood; “Black Bolshevik”; Ibid; p. 223).
Most authors accept that this was how the matter was left, and accepted by the Comintern at that time, and by the CPUSA.
Lenin’s Second Citation: “New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture”
The Second written piece of evidence from Lenin, that is usually quoted, including by Haywood, is “New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture.” Only the first section entitled “Part One: Capitalism and Agriculture in the USA,” was ever completed. This magnificent piece was written by Lenin in 1918, to counter the views of Mr. Himmer, an “extreme left wing bourgeois,” who had argued that in the USA family labour and small scale farming was dominant. Haywood cites only this following paragraph in Negro Liberation. It clearly shows that Lenin recognised that the Negro in the South USA was in dire straits. In this quote, Lenin sees the Negro in a position similar to that of the serfs of 1860 Russia:
“The farmers we are discussing are not tenants in the European, civilized modern capitalist sense; they are mainly semi-feudal or – what is the same in the economic sense – semi-slave share tenants. The sharecropping region.. is the region of the greatest stagnation, where the toiling masses are subjected to the greatest degradation and oppression.. Segregated, hidebound, a stifling atmosphere, a sort of prison for the emancipated Negroes – this is what the American South is like.”
(In Haywood H: Negro Liberation; Chicago; 1976; p. 48).
It will be noted that Lenin does not here use the terminology of the “Black nation.” This is so for the rest of the document. But nonetheless the work is of major importance for us to understand the process of transition from the latifundia through to share cropping. In several places, Lenin reminds us that the transition from Plantation (or other forms of pre-capitalist agriculture) to capitalist agriculture, is not against Marxist predictions:
“In Volume III of Capital Marx had already pointed out that the form of landed property with which the incipient capitalist mode of production is confronted does not suit Capitalism. Capitalism creates for itself the required forms of agrarian relationships out of the old forms, out of feudal landed property, peasants commune property, clan property etc.. Marx compares the different methods by which capital creates the required forms of landed property.. In America this re-shaping went on in violent way as regards the slave farms in the Southern States. There violence was applied against the slave-owning landlords, Their estates were broken up and the large feudal estates were transformed into small bourgeois farms.”
(Lenin, In “The Agrarian Programme of Social Democracy In the First Russian Revolution 1905-07”); In “Lenin on the USA” Moscow 1967; From Vol 13; pp 275-76. p.40).
Lenin does not deny that the transition from slavery towards capitalism was slow:
“If we get down to brass tacks, however has it happened in history that a new mode of production has taken root immediately without a long secession of setbacks, blunders and relapses? Half a century after the abolition of serfdom there were still quite a number of survivals of serfdom in the Russian countryside. Half a century after the abolition of slavery in America the position of the Negroes was still very often one of semi-slavery.”
(Lenin: “A Great Beginning”; July 1919; Vol 29; p.425; In Collection “Lenin On USA”; Ibid; p. 397).
Nonetheless, the work New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture does detail the transition into capitalism; and contrasts this passage as it occurred in the South, to that as it occurred in the North of the USA. In graphic detail, Lenin outlines the process by which the “freed” Negroes were re-enslaved; and how their actual “freedom” had still left them, on the whole illiterate:
“The South of the U.S.A was slave owning until slavery was swept away by the Civil War of 1861-65. To this day, the Negroes who make up no more than 0.7-2.2% of the population in the North and the West, constitute from 22.6% to 33.7% of the population in the South. For the U.S.A. as a whole the Negroes constitute 10.7% of the population. There is no need to elaborate on the degraded social system of the Negroes. The American bourgeoisie is in no way better than the bourgeoisie of any other country. Having ‘freed’ the Negroes, it took good care under ‘free’, republican-democratic capitalism, to restore everything possible and do everything possible and impossible for the most shameless and despicable oppression of the Negroes. A minor statistical fact will illustrate their cultural level. While the proportion of illiterates in 1900 among the white population of the U.S.A. of 10 years of age and over was 6.2%, among the Negroes it was as high as 44.5%! More than seven times as high!”
(Lenin, “Data On Development of Capitalism In Agriculture In the USA,” In “Lenin On the USA”; Moscow 1967; Ibid; p. 123-4).
Lenin goes on to describe the economic system – share cropping – that leaves them in this condition. He will later define share cropping in detail (See below):
“What then is the economic basis that has produced and continues to support this fine superstructure? It is the typically Russian, ‘purely Russian’ labour service system which is known as share-cropping. In 1910 Negroes owned 920,883 farms ie 14.5% of the total. Of the total number of farmers, 37% were tenants; 62.1%, owners; the remaining 0.9% of the farms were run by managers. But among the whites 39.2 % were tenant farmers, and among the Negroes -75.3% The typical white farmer is an owner. The typical Negro farmer is a tenant. This proportion of the tenants in the West was only 14%.. In the North the proportion of tenant farmers was 26.5% and in the South 49.6! Half of the Southern farmers were tenants. But that is not all. These are not even tenants in the European civilised modern capitalist sense of the word. They’re chiefly semi-feudal or- which is the same thing in economic terms-semi-slave share-croppers. In the ‘free’ West, share croppers were in the minority (25,000 out of a total of 53,000 tenants). In the old North, which was settled long ago, 483,000 out of 766,000 tenant farmers ie 63% were share croppers. In the South 1,021,000 out of 1,537,000 tenant farmers ie 66% were share croppers. In 1910 , free republican-democratic America had 1,5000,000 share-croppers of whom more than 1,000,000 were Negroes. And the proportion of share croppers to the total number of farmers is not decreasing, but is on the contrary steadily and rather rapidly increasing. In 1880, 17.5% of the farmers in the USA were share-croppers, in 1890 18.4%; in 1900 22.2% and in 1910, 24%. In 1910, free republican-democratic America had 1,500,000 share-croppers, of whom more than 1,000,000 were Negroes. And the proportion of share-croppers to the total number of farmers is not decreasing, but is on the contrary steadily and rather rapidly increasing. In 1880, 17.5% of the farmers in the USA were share-croppers; in 1890, 18.4%; in 1900 22.2%; and in 1910, 24%.”
(Lenin, “Development of Capitalism In Agriculture In USA,” In “Lenin On USA”; Ibid; p. 123-4).
Lenin then goes on to show that the tenant farms arose from the plantations of “considerable size from before the Civil War.” He quotes American statisticians to corroborate this. Lenin uses figures from the American Census to point out that conditions are so dreadful in the South, that the peasantry are “fleeing.” He later uses the term “displacement”:
“To show what the South is like, it is essential to add that its population is fleeing to other capitalist areas, and to the towns, just as the peasantry in Russia is fleeing from the most backward central agricultural gubernias, where the survival of serfdom have most greatly preserved.. To those areas of Russia which have a higher level of capitalist development, to the metropolitan countries the industrial gubernias and the South. The sharecropping area both in America and in Russia is the most stagnant area where the masses are subjected to the greatest degradation and oppression. Immigrants to America who have such an outstanding role play in the country’s economy and all its socials life, shun the South… The South is distinguished by the immobility of its population and by the greatest ‘attachment to the land’… Negroes are in full fight from the two Southern division where there is no homesteading: these two division provided other parts of the country with almost 600,000 ‘black’ people. The Negroes flee mainly to the towns, in the South, 77-80 % of all the Negroes live rural communities; in other areas only 8-32%.”
(Lenin; “Data On Development of Capitalism in Agriculture”; Ibid; p. 125; & Ibid; p. 123-24).
This leads on to a detailed analysis of the transition in the South of the USA in particular (as opposed to the North) from the LATIFUNDIA to “small commercial agriculture.” In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1973, Latifundia are defined as: “Large estates.” Lenin’s working definition of Latifundia is given below:
“I designate latifundia farms with an area of 1,000 acres and over. In 1910, the proportion of such farms in the USA was 0.8% (50,135 farms) and they added up to 167.1 million acres, or 19.0% of the total amount of land.. During the 10 years from 1900 to 1910 the total acreage of the latifundia, but only of the latifundia, showed a decrease. The reduction was quite substantial: from 197.8 million to 167.1 million acres 30.7 million acres. In the South there was a reduction of 31.8 million acres.. Consequently it is in the South and in the slave owning South alone, that the latifundia with their negligible proportion (8.5%) of improved land are being broken up on a really vast scale. The inescapable conclusion is that the only exact definition of the economic process under way is – a transition from the slave holding latifundia, nine-tenths of which remained unimproved to small commercial agriculture. It is a transition to commercial farms.”
(Lenin Ibid; p. 129).
This transition to a commercial farming was to one of a state of dependency for the smallest farmers on landowners, which is the state of SHARE-CROPPING:
“There is no doubt that in America as in all the other capitalists countries a part of the handicapped farmer have to sell their labour power.. more than one third of the farmers are directly exploited by the landlords and capitalists (24% share-croppers who are exploited by former slave-owners in feudal or semi-feudal fashion, plus 10% who are exploited by the capitalists or altogether 34%). This means that of the total number of farmers a minority , hardly more than one-fifth or one-quarter neither hire labourers or nor hire themselves out or sell themselves into bondage.”
(Lenin Ibid; p. 133).
Because share cropping is in essence one step up from slavery, although free labour, it utilises very little machinery. It is the lowest rung of farms in post-Reconstruction USA in its use of machinery:
“The former slave owning South, the area of share cropping occupies a bottom place in the use of machinery. The value of implements and machinery per acre- for its three divisions – is one-third, one-quarter, one-fifth of the figures for the intensive states of the North. The latter lead the rest, and in particular are afar ahead of the West North Central states, Americas’ most agricultural area and her granary.. (moreover) In the Northern intensive states, capitalism is growing faster.”
(Lenin; Ibid, p. 144; p. 145).
What makes an agricultural system capitalist? is the central theme of Lenin’s article. The use of machinery is one major hallmark of the advent of capitalism in agriculture. Lenin warns against the equation of latifundia with capitalism, using purely the criteria of large size to mean capitalism. In addition to the importance of mechanisation for understanding the penetration by capital into the countryside, another factor limits the use of purely size as a characteristic of capitalism in agriculture. Lenin describes the universal tendency in systems which are disintegrating their “pre-capitalist farming systems,” for the continual break up of outdated modes of land owning into smaller fragments. This stands in contrast to the tendency under capitalism for an ever increasing farm size. But it does not change the character of capitalism in agriculture:
“It would be imprudent to confuse the latifundia with large-scale capitalist agriculture, and the latifundia are frequently survivals of pre-capitalist relationships- slave owning, feudal or patriarchal. A break-up, a parcelling out of the latifundia is taking place both in the South and in the West. In the North the total farm acreage increased by 30.7 million of which only 2.3 million is accounted for by latifundia, while 32.2 million belongs to big capitalist farms (175-999 acres). In the South the total acreage was reduced by 7.5 million. The latifundia decreased by 31.8 million acres. On the small farms there was an increase of 13 million, and on the medium farms 5 million acres.”
(Lenin; Ibid; p. 151).
This universal tendency for farms to grow in size under capitalism is due to the displacement or expropriation of the small farmers by the large farmers:
“In effect the fundamental and principal trend of capitalism is the displacement of small-scale by large scale production both in industry and in agriculture. But this displacement should not be interpreted merely as immediate expropriation. Displacement also implies the ruin of the small farmers and a worsening of conditions on their farms, a process that may go on for years.”
(Lenin; Ibid; p. 172).
“The tendency of capitalism to expropriate small scale agriculture is so strong that the American ‘North’ shows an absolute decrease in the number of landowners in spite of the distribution of tens of millions of acres of unoccupied free land. Only two factors still serve to paralyse this tendency in the U.S.A. : (1) The existence of the still unparcelled slave holding plantations in the South, with its oppressed and downtrodden Negro population; and (2) that fact that the West is still partly unsettled.”
(Lenin; Ibid; p. 190-191).
Part of this process entails the drift of the population, towards the towns (Now termed urbanisation). Lenin shows this process was at work, even in the ‘rural’ South of the USA:
“The general statistics show that the urban population is growing at the expense of the rural, the population is abandoning the countryside. The proportion of the urban population increased from 29.5% in 1880 to 36.1% in 1890, 40.5% in 1900 and 46.3% in 1910. In every part of the country the urban population is growing more rapidly than the rural population: from 1900 to 11910, the rural population in the industrialised North went up by 3.9% and the urban by 29.8% in the former slave holding South the rural population increased by 14.8% and the urban by 41.4%.”
(Lenin; Ibid.; p.187).
In conclusion in this work Lenin describes the passage of the Negro from slavery through into a form of capitalist agriculture – sharecropping. He depicts the misery of this existence. He shows the Negro “fleeing” and becoming “urbanised.” But as to the description of a Negro, or Black nation, this is not clearly described.
iii) Lenin’s Third Citation: “Statistics and Sociology”:
The Third piece of work cited by Haywood in Lenin’s writings regarding the “Black Nation” theory, is in an unfinished work entitled: “Statistics and Sociology” begun in 1917. Haywood cites only one fraction of the unfinished piece. The fraction cited by Haywood reads as follows:
“In the United States, the Negroes (and also the Mulattoes and Indians) account for only 11.1%. They should be classed an oppressed nation, for the equality won in the Civil War of 1861-65 and guaranteed by the Constitution of the republic was in many respects increasingly curtailed in the chief Negro areas (the South) in connection with the transition from the progressive pre-monopoly capitalism of 1860-70 to the reactionary monopoly capitalism (imperialism) of the new era.”
(As cited by Haywood p. 224-225).
Clearly, in this quote, and quite unequivocally, Lenin does use the term: “Oppressed nation” to describe the situation of the Negroes of the USA. But this truncation of the quote, is most unfortunate. Because in fact, the thrust of the article is slightly different. Lenin is describing an analysis of the diminution of national differences in 14 advanced countries, who have made “especially great strides in colonial policy.” Lenin is actually pointing out the rapidly disappearing significance of “nations” within states like the USA.
Just prior to the quote cited by Haywood, Lenin discusses the older states of Western Europe. Then just following the quote cited by Haywood, Lenin is referring to the “smoothing out” (or assimilation) to form a single “American nation.” We will therefore pick up Lenin after he has first discussed the significance of the advanced states of the Western Europe who have in the main got a homogenous population. He first calculates how many per cent within the population of those countries could be classed as “oppressed nations”; finds that this amounts a low figure, and asks way that should be? He then lists the features of these “advanced countries”:
“Obtaining 12 Western European countries with a total population of 242 million. Of these only about 9.5 million ie only 4% represents oppressed nations (In England and Germany – ie Ireland for England; and Germany Poles (5.47%) Danes (0.25%); and Alsace Lorraine (1.87 million) [of whom Lenin felt that ‘an unknown part of the latter’ undoubtedly incline toward Germany] – leaving ‘about 5 million of Germany’s population belonging to alien unequal and oppressed nations’. If we add together these sections of the population in all these countries we will get about 15 million, ie 6%.
On the whole consequently, this group of states is characterised by the following: they are the most advanced capitalist countries, the most developed both economically and politically. Their cultural level too is the highest. In national composition most of these countries are homogeneous or nearly homogeneous. National inequality as a specific political phenomenon plays a very insignificant part. What we have is the type of ‘national state’ people often refer to, oblivious, in most cases, to the historically conditional and transitory character of this type in the general development of mankind. But that will be dealt with in its proper place.”
He then asks whether this situation applies outside of Europe? It does in the USA and Japan, he replies. In the USA the Negroes form an “oppressed nation”:
It might be asked: ‘Is this type of state confined to Western Europe?’ Obviously not. All its basic characteristics – economic (high and particularly rapid capitalist development), political (representative government), cultural and nationals- are to be observed also in the advanced states of America and Asia: The United States and Japan. The latter’s national composition took shape long ago and is absolutely homogenous: Japanese make up more than 99% of the population. In the United States, the Negroes (and also the Mulattoes and Indians) account for only 11.1%. They should be classed an oppressed nation, for the equality won in the Civil War of 1861-65 and guaranteed by the Constitution of the republic was in many respects increasingly curtailed in the chief Negro areas (the South) in connection with the transition from the progressive pre-monopoly capitalism of 1860-70 to the reactionary monopoly capitalism (imperialism) of the new era which in America was especially sharply etched out by the Spanish-American imperialist war of 1898.”
(Lenin: “Statistics & Sociology” unfinished work; Vol 23: pp 273-76. In “Lenin On USA;” Ibid; p. 301-306).
But the significance of this oppression is not as intended by Haywood, since Lenin points out that as a consequence of the “advanced nature” of these countries, differences are being eliminated, in the forming of a single “American nation.” Lenin has introduced the concept of “smoothing out differences,” similar to “assimilation”:
“The white population of the US makes up 88.7% of the total and of this figure 74.3% are Americans and only 14.4% foreign born, ie, immigrants. We know that the especially favourable conditions for the development of capitalism and the rapidity of this development have produced a situation in which vast national differences are speedily and fundamentally, as nowhere else in the world, smoothed out to form a single ‘American’ nation.”
(Lenin; From “Statistics and Sociology”; Ibid; p. 306).
THIS VIEWPOINT OF LENIN’S, AS EXPRESSED IN THESE WORKS CITED BY HAYWOOD; IS NOT FOR A BLACK NATION – AS IS PRESENTED BY HAYWOOD AND OTHERS.
iv) Other Discussions by Lenin Bearing on This Theme – Critical Remarks on the National Question: On Jews and the Bund
Are there any other indications of how Lenin regarded minorities, and those who saw themselves as nations? The Jews were a group who crossed borders of countries and who certainly had some common identity, during Lenin’s life. Moreover they had the desire to be liberated from oppressions, and these desires frequently took the form of national aspirations. These were supported by the socialists of the Jewish “Bund.”
What was Lenin’s views on this? In his “Critical Remarks on the National Question,” Lenin is quite vocal that they are not a nation, that assimilation is the order of the day, and that they are often worse off than Negroes. In the following text, the term “PURISHKEVICH” derives from the landowner and monarchist, Vladimir Mitrofanovich Purishkevich; who founded the reactionary Black Hundreds organisations in the 1905-07 period in Russia to ward off revolution:
“It is the Jewish nationalists in Russia in general and the Bundists in particular who vociferate most about Russian orthodox Marxists – being ‘assimilators.’ And yet ..out of the ten and a half million Jews all over the word, about half that number live in the civilised world, where conditions favouring ‘assimilation’ are strongest, whereas the unhappy downtrodden disfranchised Jews in Russia and Galicia who are crushed under the heel of the Purishkeviches (Russian and Polish) live in conditions for ‘assimilation’ least prevail where there is most segregation and even a ‘Pale of Settlement’, a ‘numerous clausus’ and other charming features of the Purishkevich regime. The Jews in the civilised world are not a nation, they have in the main become assimilated, say KARL KAUTSKY and OTTO BAUER. The Jews in Galicia and in Russia are not a nation; unfortunately (through no fault of their own but through that of the Purishkevices) they are still a caste here.”
(Lenin ‘Critical Remarks on the National Question’ In Collection “Lenin On USA”; p. 87. Written 1913; Vol 20; pp 28-30, and 37).
Lenin moves from this overall discussion of assimilation to point out the rapidity of this process in the USA:
“A rough idea of the scale which the general process of assimilation is assuming under the present conditions of advanced capitalism may be obtained from the immigration statistics of the United States of America.. The 1900 census in the USA recorded over 10,000,000 foreigners. New York state.. grinds down national distinctions.”
(Ibid; p. 88).
He concludes that the plan for non-assimilation is reactionary, and directly links this with the introduction of “separate” school systems in the South of the USA:
“In practice the plan for ‘extra-territoriality’ or ‘cultural national’ autonomy could mean only one thing: the division of educational affairs according to nationality re the introduction of national curia in school affairs.. How utterly reactionary it is even for the standpoint of democracy let alone from that of the proletarian class struggle for socialism.. A single instance and a single scheme for the ‘nationalisation’ of the school system will make this point abundantly clear. In the USA the division of the States into Northern and southern holds to this day in all departments of life: the former possess the greatest traditions of freedom and of struggle against the slaveowners; the latter possess the greatest traditions of slave ownership, survivals of persecution of the Negroes, who are economically oppressed and culturally backward (44% of Negroes are illiterate and 6% of whites), and so forth. In the Northern states Negro children attend the same schools as white children do. In the South there are separate ‘national’, or racial, whichever you please, schools for Negro children. I think this is the sole instance of actual ‘nationalisation’ of schools.. In Eastern Europe there exists a country where things like the Beilis case are still possible, and Jews are condemned by the Purishkeviches to a condition worse than that of the Negroes. In that country a scheme for nationalisation Jewish schools was recently mooted in the Ministry. Happily this reactionary utopia is no more likely to realised than the utopia of the Austrian petty bourgeois.”
(Lenin ‘Critical remarks on the National Question’; Ibid; p. 88-89).
v) Polemic with Rosa Luxemburg – On “The Right Of Nations To Self-Determination”
Of course elsewhere Lenin talks of Stalin as “that great Georgian” who wrote on the National Question. But before examining Stalin on the National Question, what else did Lenin write on the National Question? In his polemics with ROSA LUXEMBURG, Lenin had a great deal to say about this. In his “The Right Of Nations To Self-Determination” written in 1914, Lenin firmly upholds the rights of nations to self determination, against Luxemburg’s hesitations. This is not controversial to Marxist-Leninists where there is proven to be a nation. Lenin also discusses issues regarding the multi-national state.
If there are indeed two nations within the USA, then the USA is a multi-national state. This would be composed of (as the Comintern, Harry Haywood, the CPUSA and all his later followers have maintained) the “Negro nation” and a “Euro-American” nation. [We leave aside for the moment the assertions that there are two other nations within the USA, the “Chicano Nation” and the “Native American” nation]. But Lenin holds that the “typical normal” capitalist state is one inhabited by a single nation:
“The tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which.. Requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied. The most profound economic factors drive towards this goals and, therefore for the whole of Western Europe, nay, for the entire civilised world, the national state is typical and normal for the capitalist period.”
(Lenin; “Right Of Nations to Self Determination”; Sel Ws; Vol 1; Moscow; 1977; p.569; C W 20; p 393).
Lenin goes on to say that the then Marxist Karl Kautsky agreed that multi-national states are formed in territories where the state structure remains “abnormal or underdeveloped” in relation to the needs of capitalist society:
“States of mixed national composition (known as multi-national states, as distinct from national states) are always those whose internal constitution has for some reason remained abnormal or underdeveloped (backward). Needless to say, Kautsky speaks of abnormality exclusively in the sense of lack of conformity with what is best adapted to the requirements of a developing capitalism.”
(Lenin; “Right Of Nations to Self Determination”; Ibid; p.569).
There were indeed remnants of the slave owning system in the South. But as Lenin pointed out, this was confined to the South where the USA state was not constructed. This USA state was constructed in the North, and this state forcibly destroyed, the Confederate State of the Southern slave owners during the Civil War of 1861-65. At this time the authority of the North was established throughout the territory of the United States. Moreover Lenin showed how rapidly the system of capitalism had transformed the slavery system into share-cropping; and that even though this held back capitalism, as compared to the North, this was only in a relative comparison to the North. Those factors then that would operate in forming multi-national states were NOT operating in the USA. This must of itself rise serious doubts about the presentation of the USA as a “multi-national state.”
In conclusion, Lenin was not in favour of the theory “Black Nation” as argued by the proponents of the “Black Nation” theory.
