Marvin X and Lenin on the National Question

While it is simple intelligence to examine a question from a variety of viewpoints or points of analysis, in order to arrive at a theoretical solution, such analysis does not eliminate the problem, though it may prolong it. The problem may become confounded in analysis and theory, yet the reality of the situation remains.

While a workers revolution may be the ultimate solution to the American capitalist nightmare, the North American African nation should not be held hostage to the reactionary condition of white workers in particular and all ethnic workers in general. We indeed have the human/divine right to self-determination. We are a nation of forty million strong who have the ability to achieve independence, freedom and dignity, just as the people in the Sudan, as the people are striving to do in Palestine. For sure, we do not want to establish another bourgeoisie nation state, wherein we are nothing but reactionaries in black face, as we have throughout Africa and the Caribbean. We must transcend this level of ignorance and niggardliness.

Africa has yet to overcome tribalism and North American Africans are deeply addicted to white Western individualism, compounded by sectarianism and the color caste system, wherein the mulattoes have a stranglehold on power in many spheres, political, economic, religious and educational. Thus, we should be busy addressing our internal problems as a nation of people, certainly before we can unite with other nationalities, whether white, brown, yellow or whatever.

The question of unity, whether multi-national, Pan African, or global must begin with unity of self and kind. How can we unite with others who in fact have a degree of national unity, e.g. whites, Asians, Latinos, when two North American Africans cannot going around the corner together.

While we may call the nation state a capitalist formation, we originated from nations and empires that exercised the highest level of independence. For us to imagine that we must suffer under the pseudo democratic state of America is the height of delusion and confusion, spearheaded by those who lack the capacity to think out of the box of Americana. America represents no ideal state, except being the haven for every filthy, unclean bird.

After four centuries, we have no illusion about the American dream. Our ancestors were very clear on our possibilities in this land. And we are not fooled by the election or selection of a mulatto as President. They have always been a wedge between the master and the masses, for we are duped by skin color, yet in the end we see oppression continues. We were tricked by the black face, but it was a black face with a white heart, as they say in the Caribbean, "Black man with white heart!"

The most important task is for us to recover from our addiction to white supremacy, but this may be achieved through the process of achieving national liberation, after which we may be happy to consider relations with other states, nations, whether the European, Asian, Latino and/or Indigenous.

We are mature enough to have no fear of international unity, but there can be no international unity without national unity. How in the hell can we unite with other nations while we are lacking national sovereignty. Nations do not deal with individuals, they only deal with other nations. They don't deal with groups, sects, cults, clubs, fraternities, but nations.

An individual will not be able to deal with a Pan African entity, for we come to the table empty handed, only representing ourselves which is unacceptable. For some time we have had individuals and groups going around the world in the name of North American Africans, yet the masses of our people have not benefited from the fruits of these so called representatives, who mainly benefited themselves and/or their little group, cult, sect.

The concept of revolutionary nationalism is not to be seen as reactionary but it is a sane, progressive attempt to lift us out of the muck and mire of this slave system called America. Otherwise, we may linger here another two or three centuries awaiting the day when white suddenly discover the world in not white and they must overcome their addiction to white supremacy. But why should we wait. The baby doesn't wait to come out of the womb because the father is not present.

This child called freedom is long past due for delivery, yet we want to restrain the mother from giving birth, in short, we want an abortion. We continue in the tradition of Sisyphus's climb up the mountain but have yet to gather the strength, call it national will, to reach the top, for we are continually distracted by illusions, mostly of our own making but often merely another trick in the bag of tricks the American slave system devises for our continual subjugation.

It is time to think hard and long where we plan to be in the next fifty to one hundred years. Sadly, our thinkers are caught inside the academic morass and thus paralyzed from thinking outside the box. Name the intellectuals who will stand up for black revolutionary nationalism! They will call it narrow minded nationalism, yet without such black revolutionary nationalist thinkers as David Walker, Henry Highland Garnett, Marcus Garvey, Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X, where would we be today. Their vision made an Obama presidency possible, but that must be transcended because it is not the ultimate but the height of individualism, at a time when our national needs go unmet, and yet Obama speaks of helping nations around the world, forgiving debts, handing our multi-billion dollar grants, proving schooling, housing and employment. Why are we so blind, deaf and dumb that we cannot imagine the American government can be forced to do the same for forty million people if they will only stand up from being kneegrows and push an agenda that represents the aspirations of forty million people, victims of the slave system.

Think of now and the future, what is your plan, what is your agenda for a people yet victimized by the criminal justice system on the basis of their skin color and economic condition? When will you stand up to oppose the incarceration of over one million of your brothers and sisters. Will you stand up when three, four, five million are imprisoned, when? Shall we end with ancestor Harriet Tubman, "I could have freed more slaves if they had known they were slaves!"
--Marvin X
5/21/11


Lenin on the National Question
Written by Rob Sewell
Wednesday, 16 June 2004

As part of our commemoration of the centenary of Lenin's death, we are publishing a series of articles about his life and ideas. Lenin not only led the first succesful socialist revolution, but he also made an enourmous contribution to Marxist theory. The present article deals with the important contribution he made on the national question, and how such a correct stand on this issue guaranteed the success of the Bolshevick Party in October 1917.
The existence of nations, nation states, and national consciousness, is a characteristic feature of the capitalist epoch. Before the advent of capitalism, there was no genuine national consciousness in the modern sense. Feudal society was dominated by particularism, where peoples identified themselves as members of villages, towns, localities, regions, and principalities. It took the development of capitalism, an economic revolution, to bring about the home market and the assimilation of peoples into nations. The gathering together of the productive forces into one nation state was a progressive historical task of the bourgeoisie. On this material basis, in the period particularly from 1789 onwards in Europe, the epoch of bourgeois national-democratic revolution, we see the emergence of nations and national consciousness.

"For the complete victory of commodity production", states Lenin, "the bourgeoisie must capture the home market, and there must be politically united territories whose population speak a single language… Therein is the economic foundation of national movements…

"The tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied." (The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Progress Publishers, pp.8-9)

Therefore, a nation is a historically evolved entity, which emerged under conditions of war, invasion, upheaval and the dissolution of old frontiers and the emergence of new ones. In the general sense, from the viewpoint of Marxism, the nation state arises from a developed stable community of language, territory, economy and culture. There are, however, given the laws of uneven and combined development, exceptions to the rule, where nation states are composed of different nationalities (as in Britain) and different languages (as in Belgium). Nations can be created where none existed before. The last 100 years have been littered with such examples, most notably in the Balkans and the Middle East.

On the basis of capitalism and its drive for markets, power and spheres of influence stronger powers dominated weaker powers. In the epoch of imperialism, this tendency of national oppression took an extreme form, coupled with the oppression of national minorities within states. As Lenin explained in his book 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism': "Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of 'advanced' countries."

A Colossal Brake

Capitalism, rather than resolving the national question, has in its decline exacerbated the problems worldwide. The productive forces created by capitalism have now outstripped national markets. Together with private property, the nation state has become a colossal brake on the further development of society. As a consequence, nationalism has raised its head in the present epoch, with explosive repercussions, from Europe to the Balkans, from the Indian subcontinent to the Middle East. The Colonial Revolution brought national liberation to the fore, bringing millions to their feet from the African continent to the continent of Asia.

The re-emergence of the national question reflects the profound impasse of capitalism on a world scale and the failure of the leaders of the workers' organisations to offer a way out. There can no longer be any solution of the national question on a capitalist basis.

Following on from Marx, Lenin took up the national question as a means of arming the revolutionary social democracy in Russia and uniting the oppressed nationalities under the banner of the working class. In answer to national oppression, the Russian Marxists (in the famous Clause 9 of the Russian Social Democratic Party) called for the right of nations to self-determination - that is, to complete separation as states. This was particularly relevant to tsarist Russia, whose empire constituted a "prison house of nationalities". Such was the make-up of the empire that the Great Russians, the ruling nationality, only constituted 48% of the whole. Those under Russian domination (Poles, Lithuanians, Estonians, Finns, Letts, Ukrainians, and so on), deprived of their rights, were systematically oppressed by tsarism. It was this that gave the national question in Russia such an explosive force.

To win over the oppressed nationalities, Lenin came out against the forcible incorporation of a nationality within the boundaries of a general state. In this, the Bolsheviks were not "evangels of separation". On the contrary, all this meant was that they were obliged to fight implacably against every form of national oppression. "To accuse those who support freedom of self-determination, i.e., freedom to secede, of encouraging separation, is foolish and hypocritical as accusing those who advocate freedom of divorce of encouraging the destruction of family ties", stated Lenin. (The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, p.83)

The demand of the right to self-determination was however to give rise to a heated controversy within the Russian Party, with opposition from Rosa Luxemburg, Bukharin, Pyatakov, and others. The essence of their opposition was that under capitalism, self-determination was utopian, while under socialism it was reactionary. However, the argument is completely false as it ignores the epoch of the socialist revolution and its tasks. Clearly, under the domination of imperialism, the existence of stable independent small states is impossible. Also under socialism, with the progressive withering away of the state, the question of national boundaries will fall away. However, in the intervening period, the forces have to be educated and mobilised to overthrow capitalism and a correct dialectical approach to the national question would facilitate this task.

Working Class Unity

Above all, the slogan of the right to self-determination was a powerful weapon in undermining bourgeois nationalism and winning the confidence of the workers of the oppressed nation. The possibility of separation facilitated a free unification of peoples. In order to convince the more politically backward workers, who had nationalist prejudices, it was necessary to stress that the working class had no interest in coercing any national minority. At the same time, we must argue for the unity of the working class under one banner, with implacable hostility to the poison of the small nation mentality and the poison of chauvinism.

"The sectarian simply ignores the fact that the national struggle", states Trotsky, "one of the most labyrinthine and complex but at the same time extremely important forms of class struggle, cannot be suspended by bare references to the future world revolution."

Of course, the demand of the right of nations to self-determination cannot be used willy-nilly, but must proceed from the facts and not ideal norms. It could only apply to nationalities and not simply to groups, religious castes, or other such minorities.

Above all, Lenin regarded the right of self-determination as subordinate to the interests of the working class. "The bourgeoisie always places its national demands in the forefront, and does so in categorical fashion. With the proletariat, however, these demands are subordinated to the interests of the class struggle." (Ibid, p.21) And again, "While recognising equality and equal rights to a national state, it values above all and places foremost the alliance of the proletarians of all nations, and assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers' class struggle." After all, the right to national self-determination is a bourgeois-democratic demand, not a socialist one.

Lenin also repeatedly explained that the Marxist programme on the national question is essentially a negative one: against national oppression, against the suppression of national culture, etc.

Today, various sectarians in confronting national problems proclaim self-determination at every turn, without any regard to the concrete situation or consequences. They see self-determination as a panacea, universally applicable under all circumstances. Such "Leninists", who simply pay lip service to Lenin and have no idea of his method, invariably end up in a shameful mess. That is why it is necessary to develop the theory of Marxism and apply it to the concrete conditions, and not simply repeat like parrots some of the phrases of Lenin or Trotsky.

When it came to Yugoslavia, they were evangels of the break-up of the country, which prepared the way for reactionary wars and the nightmare that followed. They had no concern for the bloody consequences or the "interests of the class struggle". Their capitulation to petty bourgeois nationalism made them cheerleaders for ethnic cleansing and chauvinist madness. Rather than "independence" for Croatia, Slovenia, Kosovo or Bosnia, and the Balkanisation of the region, the only way forward for the peoples of the Balkans was a socialist federation. There was not an atom of progressive content in the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. Once again, the fate of small peoples was cynically exploited by the imperialist powers for its own ends.

This shows the fundamental difference between Leninism and petty bourgeois nationalism. Lenin supported the right of self-determination exclusively from the point of view of the class struggle, of the unity of the working class.

Even the old pre-war Social Democracy in the Balkans put forward the slogan of the democratic Balkan federation as a way out of the madhouse created by the separate national statelets. Even the word "Balkanisation" became synonymous with the patchwork of squabbling states.

Today, this federation cannot be realised on a capitalist basis, and therefore we call for a Balkan socialist federation as a solution to the problems peoples of the peninsula. Such a federation, as with former Yugoslavia, would be made up of autonomous republics within a common frontier. This would overcome the "Balkanisation" of the region. Those who advocate a Balkan "confederation" (socialist or otherwise) simply reinforce this reactionary "Balkanisation" through a loose alliance of separate independent Balkan states. In the disputes over this question prior to the First World War, the internationalists decisively came out against such a confederation and for a Balkan federation, later partially realised under Tito, when the Yugoslav Federation was formed.

In the Middle East, there can be no solution to the "Palestinian problem" on a capitalist basis. While the Marxists opposed the partition of Palestine in 1948, and the expulsion of the Palestinians, Israel now exists with a people living there. The question now is how to guarantee a homeland to the Palestinians and put an end to their national oppression.

Revolutionary Programme

The national oppression of the Palestinian masses by the Israeli state expresses itself in the desire for their own homeland. How can this aspiration be realised? The policy and methods of the PLO, of individual terrorism and fawning towards the reactionary Arab regimes for a period of decades, have proved to be completely bankrupt. Only a revolutionary programme can serve to appeal to the Israeli workers and the Arab masses. Only a socialist revolution in Israel and similarly in all the surrounding Arab states can bring about a socialist federal state of Israel/Palestine, with its capital in Jerusalem, linked to a socialist federation of the Middle East.

Truth is always concrete. There is no cookbook with a recipe for every national problem. In reality, it is the Marxist method, of dialectical materialism and a class analysis, which allow us to draw the correct conclusions, as the Bolsheviks did in 1917.

In Lenin's writings, there is a sharp difference between the national question before and after 1917. Prior to the October Revolution, Lenin envisaged that the national question could be resolved on a capitalist basis. However, on the basis of October, the resolution of the national question is tied to the fate of the working class and the overthrow of capitalism. Events since that time graphically confirm this prognosis.

The Russian Revolution gave an enormous impetus to the colonial revolution. This movement reached new heights following the Second World War and the victory of the Chinese revolution of 1944-9. Lenin himself had recognised two stages in the national-democratic revolution; the first phase lasting from 1879 to 1871, where the modern European states were created, and the second from 1905 onwards, encompassing Eastern Europe and Asia. In 1920, at the Second Congress of the Communist International, Lenin explained that the only solution to the national question was through the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie was no longer capable of leading the struggle as it was tied hand and foot to imperialism, and was in the camp of counter-revolution.

Communist international

"The cornerstone of the whole policy of the Communist International on the national and colonial questions", stated Lenin, "must be closer union of the proletarians and working masses generally of all nations and countries for a joint revolutionary struggle to overthrow the landlords and the bourgeoisie; for this alone will guarantee victory over capitalism, without which the abolition of national oppression and inequality is impossible." (Preliminary Draft of Theses on the National and Colonial Questions, 5th June 1920)

It was at this Congress that a decision was taken to substitute the term "national-revolutionary" for the term "bourgeois-democratic", to emphasis the Marxist support only for genuinely revolutionary liberation movements. Lenin went on: "In all the colonies and backward countries, not only should we build independent contingents of fighters, party organisations, not only should we launch immediate propaganda for the organisation of peasants' soviets and strive to adapt them to pre-capitalist conditions, but the Communist International should advance and theoretically substantiate the proposition that with the aid of the proletariat of the advanced countries, the backward countries can pass over to the Soviet system and, through definite stages of development, to communism, without going through the capitalist stage." (The Report of the Commission on The National and Colonial Questions, 26th July 1920)

This is none other than the theory of the Permanent Revolution put forward by Leon Trotsky. Here Trotsky explains that the colonial bourgeoisie have come onto the historical scene too late. They could not play the same revolutionary role of carrying through the bourgeois-democratic revolution as did their counterparts of the 18th and 19th centuries. The colonial bourgeoisie were tied to the landed interests and imperialism, which now placed them on the side of counterrevolution. Therefore the unfinished tasks now fell to the new revolutionary class, the proletariat. However, the working class would come to power and not stop with the bourgeois tasks, including the national question, but would immediately proceed to the socialist tasks of expropriating the landlords and capitalists. The revolution would transcend national boundaries, and lay claim to the world revolution.

In other words, the national question, which is a leftover from the past, can only be solved by the coming to power of the working class. This is the case in relation to all the national-democratic tasks wherever these have not been accomplished. The only way out for the peoples of the Indian subcontinent, of the Middle East, Latin America, Africa, or Europe is through the socialist federation of their region as part of a world federation of socialist states. In regard to Ireland, where the living body of the country was divided by British imperialism, only the coming to power of the working class in the 32 counties, can resolve the problem. On a capitalist basis, there can be no solution.

Capitalist crisis

The re-emergence of nationalism in countries where the issue was regarded as long dead, is a product of the deepening crisis of capitalism on a world scale. The national question is not confined to the former colonial countries, but has now affected the advanced countries. At bottom, this crisis reflects the fundamental contradiction of the constrictions imposed on the productive forces by the nation state and private property. The crisis has served to re-ignite all the old poisons of nationalism. In the epoch of capitalist decline, of imperialist crisis, the national question is once again raising its head everywhere, with the most tragic and sanguine consequences. It rests with the working class to come to the head of the nation and offer the masses a way out of this nightmare. At bottom, explained Lenin, the national question is about bread.

Without a correct stance on the national question, the October Revolution would not have taken place. A component part of this outlook was, from 1903 onwards, the need to maintain the sacred unity of the working class and its organisations, free from distinctions of nationality, religion or language. "The policy of Bolshevism in the national sphere had also another side, apparently contradictory to the first but in reality supplementing it", explained Trotsky. "Within the framework of the party, and of the workers' organisations in general, Bolshevism insisted upon a rigid centralism, implacably warring against every taint of nationalism which might set the workers one against the other or disunite them. While flatly refusing to the bourgeois states the right to impose compulsory citizenship, or even a state language, upon a national minority, Bolshevism at the same time made it a verily sacred task to unite as closely as possible, by means of voluntary class discipline, the workers of different nationalities. Thus it flatly rejected the national-federation principle in building the party. A revolutionary organisation is not the prototype of the future state, but merely the instrument for its creation. An instrument ought to be adapted to fashioning the product; it ought not to include the product. Thus a centralised organisation can guarantee the success of a revolutionary struggle - even where the task is to destroy the centralised oppression of nationalities."

Lenin

As can be seen, Lenin made a unique dialectical and dynamic contribution to the national question, which will find its place among the theoretical treasure-houses of the workers' movement. The national borders created by capitalism have long ago become fetters on the development of society. Our task remains the expropriation of the monopolies, the elimination of borders and the free association of peoples. In that way will the national question be finally resolved.

Shakespeare and the Murder of Chauncey Bailey

Chauncey Bailey: A Shakespearan Tragedy

On one level, the Chauncey Bailey assassination can be best understood by recalling the drama of classic Shakespeare, Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear. Many of his plays dealt with succession rights/rites, often involving themes of jealousy, envy, greed and power. Of course these are general themes of humanity, but the man known as Shakespeare wrote about these matters better than others before and after him. In Othello we find a man duped by his friend and advisor, Iago, so confused by the tricknology of Iago that the great Moorish warrior killed his beloved wife Desdemona, then took his own life.

Paul Robeson as Othello, the tragic Moor.

We can see the parallel in the Chauncey murder. The king dies and there is the fight over which of his twenty sons (there are twenty daughters as well, but this is a patriarchy) shall succeed him. One of the several mothers is determined she and her children should control the empire, but another mother feels the same and moves to secure the throne for her son (s). The first son dies mysteriously in a car-jacking. Her next in line takes over the throne.

Meanwhile, the man who was a dear friend of the king receives information about the succession battle, a piece of dirt that was, for the most part, already public information. But the messenger was sent by his mother-in-law, knowing the message would incite anger in the successor to the throne who was not of her bloodline.

When the message is delivered it is overheard by a former co-wife who immediately relays it to her friend, the wife or widow, whose son has seized control. Apparently she tells her son, the new king, who goes into a rage at his father's friend, not realizing he has been set up by the co-wife who sent the message by her son-in-law.

Iago, Murder under the color of law

Also, the new king's advisor, call him Iago, has deep resentment for the old king's friend, for the friend knows Iago is a devil and has been seeking information to expose him. Iago figures he can dispose of his nemesis by encouraging the boy-king to murder his father's dear friend.

Knowing the boy-king is a hot head, Iago (OPD), suggests the plan and it is carried out. He convinces the boy-king he will go free after his dastardly deed, for Iago claims special powers under the color of law. The boy-king is convinced he can commit innumerable crimes because he is under the protection of Iago. He truly believes Iago can get him out of any situation. Yet Iago has his own motivation for inspiring murder, to stop the old king's friend from a possible exposure of his dark deeds that, now involve the boy-king: money laundering, fencing, drug dealing, homicide, prostitution, etc. The boy-king is in too deep, even after considering that his father had a deep relationship with the man he must now dispose.

The co-wife, now widow, had no idea things would get out of hand but she felt entitled to the empire and was not about to settle for her sister-wife inheriting everything.

After the assassination of the old king's friend, Iago takes control of the crime scene, gathers selected evidence and a confession. He refuses to question eye-witnesses at the crime scene for they are irrelevant, he has accomplished his mission, or shall we say his patsy has.

The boy-king soon realizes he has been set up from two sides, the co-wife and Iago, for different reasons. He realizes his deed has caused the death of his father's friend and the possible death of himself by hanging.

Iago is in the corner laughing, yet worried his mentee may one day disclose all the dirty deeds he was asked to perform for Iago, hence Iago is not home free yet. Now he must configure a way to silence the boy-king. Stay tuned.

--Marvin X, Prime Minister of Poetry,

First Poet's Church of the Latter Day Egyptian Revisionists

http://www.firstpoetschurch.blogspot.com/

Marvin X received his B.A. and M.A. in English from San Francisco State University. One of his professors was novelist John Gardner who took Marvin's first play Flowers for the Trashman to the Drama department and they produced it while he was an undergrad. Marvin co-founded Black Arts West Theatre, 1966, with playwright Ed Bullins, and a short time later co-founded the Black House with Eldridge Cleaver., 1967.

Marvin X is the author of thirty books, eight in the last year. He is one of the founders of the Black Arts Movement and cosidered the father of Muslim American literature (Dr. Mohja Kahf). Bob Holman calls him the USA's Rumi. Ishmael Reed says he is Plato teaching on the streets of Oakland. From time to time he writes in the Oakland Post Newspaper, but most of his writings are on his twenty blogs on the Internet. He is editing an anthology of essays on the assassination of his friend Chauncey Bailey.

www.theblackchaunceybaileyproject.blogspot.com

Palestinian Activist Says Obama is Irrelevant

Omar Barghouti: The US continues to oppose Palestinian basic rights, Arabs will make their own democracy!

Skin Bleaching and Global White Supremacy

CURRENT ISSUE:
Journal of Pan African Studies



Volume 4 • Number 4 • 2011

On The Cover:
Ancient Kemet Alive.


● Editorial: Skin Bleaching and Global White Supremacy
by Yaba Amgborale Blay and Christopher A.D. Charles
[ view PDF ]



● Skin Bleaching and Global White Supremacy: By Way of Introduction
by Yaba Amgborale Blay
[ view PDF ]

This introductory article critically examines the symbolic significance of whiteness, particularly for and among African people, by outlining the history of global White supremacy, both politically and ideologically, discussing its subsequent promulgation, and further investigating its relationship to the historical and contemporary skin bleaching phenomenon. The article also provides a broader socio-historical context within which to situate the global practice of skin bleaching, and provides a necessary framework for further realizing the critical significance of the articles presented in this issue.

● Skin Bleach and Civilization: The Racial Formation of Blackness in 1920s Harlem
by Jacob S. Dorman
[ view PDF ]

The author of this paper argues that for African Americans at the turn of the 20th century, skin bleaching represented much more than mere cosmetic practice. Examining historical archives, newspaper records, skin bleaching product advertisements, and the infamous and bitter wrangle between W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus Garvey, the author positions skin bleaching within the larger discourse of civilization and contends that the practice reflected ambiguous notions of racial progress and advancement.

● Visual Representations of Feminine Beauty in the Black Press: 1915-1950
by Amoaba Gooden
[ view PDF ]

In an examination Black vanguard news reporting this paper highlights the extent to which the Black press, influenced by White supremacy, patriarchy, and classism, assigned higher value to those ideals and physical features associated with Whiteness than those associated with Blackness. Given the frequent appearance of skin bleaching advertisements, and the extent to which reporters attempted to reject degrading popular images of Black women (e.g. the Mammy), the author argues that the Black press ultimately endorsed skin bleaching as a means through which Black women in particular could attain not only feminine beauty, but social respectability.

●Black No More: Skin Bleaching and the Emergence of New Negro Womanhood Beauty Culture
by Treva B. Lindsey
[ view PDF ]

An examination of a number of skin bleaching advertisements, focused specifically on late 19th to early 20th century Washington D.C. and skin bleaching among Washingtonian women. The author explores the relationship between White supremacy, skin bleaching, and New Negro womanhood, and in the final analysis she connects skin bleaching to a politics of appearance that intersected with White supremacist and gendered discourses about urban Black modernity and social mobility; and asserts that African American women of the time embraced a White constructed beauty culture as means to an end – social, political, and economic freedom.

● The Derogatory Representations of the Skin Bleaching Products Sold in Harlem
by Christopher A.D. Charles
[ view PDF ]

This work analyzes the images used to market skin bleaching products sold in contemporary Harlem in order to determine whether or not such imagery is derogatory. The author discovers that many of the underlying messages inherent to the imagery displayed on skin bleaching labels today are identical to those used decades ago in that they continue to exhibit hegemonic representations of Whiteness versus Blackness. In estimation of the author, it is this consistency and continuation that continues to push the sale of skin bleaching products in the United States.


● Buying Racial Capital: Skin Bleaching and Cosmetic Surgery in a Globalized World
by Margaret L. Hunter
[ view PDF ]

This contribution argues that the increased incidence of transnational skin bleaching is a result of the merging of old ideologies (colonialism, race, and color) with new technologies of the body (skin bleaching and plastic surgery). In this way, as one attains light skin, s/he attains a form of racial capital – a resource drawn from the body that provides tangible benefits within the context of White supremacy.

● From Browning to Cake Soap: Popular Debates on Skin Bleaching in the Jamaican Dancehall
by Donna P. Hope
[ view PDF ]

This work situates skin bleaching within the specific cultural contexts within which it takes place, Jamaica and Zimbabwe respectively. The article examines skin bleaching through the lens of dancehall music culture which, unlike the larger Jamaican society, contends that skin bleaching represents a mode of fashion and style. By examining dancehall artists, their public personas, and their lyricism about skin bleaching, and further situating skin bleaching within Jamaica’s historically three-tiered racialized society, the author attempts to unpack conflicting cultural debates surrounding skin bleaching in Jamaica.

● Shona Proverbial Implications on Skin Bleaching: Some Philosophical Insights
by Ephraim Taurai Gwaravanda
[ view PDF ]

This paper examines the phenomenon of skin bleaching from a cultural perspective and argues that Shona proverbs (in Zimbabwe) are part of wise sayings that can be used to overcome the dilemmas, contradictions and uncertainties of skin bleaching. The research is theoretically grounded in the Afrocentric theory that defends African value systems and critiques global white supremacy.

● Commentary: On Skin Bleaching and Lightening as Psychological Misorientation Mental Disorder
by Daudi Ajani ya Azibo
[ view PDF ]

This commentary argues that skin bleaching is consistent with the psychological misorientation mental disorder articulated in Azibo Nosology. Thus, living under White domination has severely traumatized people of African descent and has destabilized people of African descent of the ability to psychologically orient themselves. Skin bleaching is thus regarded a reflective side effect of psychological destabilization.


www.jpanafrican.com

Leon Trotsky on the Negro Question

We reproduce here extracts from discussions that took place in the 1930s between Trotsky and various members of the American Trotskyist movement (at the time of the first discussion, still regarding itself as an opposition group within the CP, called the Communist League, later the SWP) about its policy. For obvious reasons of space we have had to edit these discussions, including only the first two out of the total of four, and these with deletions of contributions by some of the participants other than Trotsky. The full discussions are available in a collection published by Merit (obtainable from IS books at Rs 6d). Johnson, the other main participant in the second discussion besides Trotsky, was the party name of the well-known West Indian writer and revolutionary, C.L R. James.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Negro Question in America
Prinkipo, Turkey
February 28, 1933

Swabeck: We have in this question within the American League no noticeable differences of an important character, nor have we yet formulated a program. I present therefore only the views which we have developed in general.

How must we view the position of the American Negro: As a national minority or as a racial minority? This is of the greatest importance for our program.

The Stalinists maintain as their main slogan the one of ‘self-determination for the Negroes’ and demand in connection therewith a separate state and state rights for the Negroes in the black belt. The practical application of the latter demand has revealed much opportunism. On the other hand, I acknowledge that in the practical work amongst the Negroes, despite the numerous mistakes, the [Communist] party can also record some achievements. For example, in the Southern textile strikes, where to a large extent the color lines were broken down.

Weisbord,* I understand, is in agreement with the slogan of ‘self-determination’ and separate state rights. He maintains that is the application of the theory of the permanent revolution for America.

[* Albert Weisbord, then the leader of a small organization called the Communist League of Struggle.]

We proceed from the actual situation: There are approximately 13 million Negroes in America; the majority are in the Southern states (black belt). In the Northern states the Negroes are concentrated in the industrial communities as industrial workers, in the South they are mainly farmers and sharecroppers.

Trotsky: Do they rent from the state or from private owners?

Swabeck: From private owners, from white farmers and plantation owners; some Negroes own the land they till.

The Negro population of the North are kept on a lower level —economically, socially and culturally; in the South under oppressive Jim Crow conditions. They are barred from many important trade unions. During and since the war the migration from the South has increased; perhaps about four to five million Negroes now live in the North. The Northern Negro population is overwhelmingly proletarian, but also in the South the proletarianization is progressing.

Today none of the Southern states have a Negro majority. This lends emphasis to the heavy migration, to the North. We put the question thus: Are the Negroes, in a political sense, a national minority or a racial minority? The Negroes have become fully assimilated, Americanized, and their life in America has overbalanced the traditions of the past, modified and changed them. We cannot consider the Negroes a national minority in the sense of having their own separate language. They have no special national customs, or special national culture or religion; nor have they any special national minority interests. It is impossible to speak of them as a national minority in this sense. It is therefore our opinion that the American Negroes are a racial minority whose position and interests are subordinated to the class relations of the country and depending upon them.

To us the Negroes represent an important factor in the class struggle, almost a decisive factor. They are an important section of the proletariat. There is also a Negro petty bourgeoisie in America but not as powerful or as influential or playing the role of the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie among the nationally oppressed people (colonial).

The Stalinist slogan ‘self-determination’ is in the main based upon an estimate of the American Negroes as a national minority, to be won over as allies. To us the question occurs: Do we want to win the Negroes as allies on such a basis and who do we want to win, the Negro proletariat or the Negro petty bourgeoisie? To us it appears that we will with this slogan win mainly the petty bourgeoisie and we cannot have much interest in winning them as allies on such a basis? We recognize that the poor farmers and sharecroppers are the closest allies of the proletariat but it is our opinion that they can be won as such mainly on the basis of the class struggle. Compromise on this principled question would put the petty bourgeois allies ahead of the proletariat and the poor farmers as well. We recognize the existence of definite stages of development which require specific slogans. But the Stalinist slogan appears to us to lead directly to the ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’. The unity of the workers, black and white, we must prepare proceeding from a class basis, but in that it is necessary to also recognize the racial issues and in addition to the class slogans also advance the racial slogans. It is our opinion that in this respect the main slogan should be ‘social, political and economic equality for the Negroes’, as well as the slogans which flow therefrom. This slogan is naturally quite different from the Stalinist slogan of ‘self-determination’ for a national minority. The [Communist] party leaders maintain that the Negro workers and farmers can be won only oil the basis of this slogan. To begin with it was advanced for the Negroes throughout the country, but today only for the Southern states. It is our opinion that we can win the Negro workers only on a class basis advancing also the racial slogans for the necessary intermediary stages of development. In this manner we believe also the poor Negro farmers can best be won as direct allies.

In the main the problem of slogans in regard to the Negro question is the problem of a practical program.

Trotsky: The point of view of the American comrades appears to me not fully convincing. ‘Self-determination’ is a democratic demand. Our American comrades advance as against this democratic demand, the liberal demand. This liberal demand is, moreover, complicated. I understand what ‘political equality’ means. But what is the meaning of economical and social equality within capitalist society? Does that mean a demand to public opinion that all enjoy the equal protection of the laws? But that is political equality. The slogan ‘political, economic and social equality’ sounds equivocal and while it is not clear to me it nevertheless suggests itself easy of misinterpretation.

The Negroes are a race and not a nation:—Nations grow out of the racial material under definite conditions. The Negroes in Africa are not yet a nation but they are in the process of building a nation. The American Negroes are on a higher cultural level. But while they are there 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 do, of course, not obligate the Negroes to become a nation; if they are, then that is a question of their consciousness, that is, what they desire and what they strive for. We say: If the Negroes want that then we must fight against imperialism to the last drop of blood, so that they gain the right, wherever and how 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. It is not a question of the authority of the states but of the Negroes. That in the overwhelming Negro territory also whites have existed and will remain henceforth is not the question and we do not need today to break our heads over a possibility that sometime the whites will be suppressed by the Negroes. In any case the suppression of the Negroes pushes them toward a political and national unity.

That the slogan ‘self-determination’ will rather win the petty bourgeois instead of the workers—that argument holds good also for the slogan of equality. It is clear that the special Negro elements who appear more in the public eye (businessmen, intellectuals, lawyers, etc) are more active and react more actively against the inequality. It is possible to say that the liberal demand just as well as the democratic one in the first instance will attract the petty bourgeois and only later the workers.

If the situation was such that in America common actions existed between the white and the colored workers, that the class fraternization had already become a fact, then perhaps the arguments of our comrades would have a basis—I do not say that they would be correct—then perhaps we would separate the colored workers from the white if we commence with the slogan ‘self-determination’.

But today the white workers in relation to the Negroes are the oppressors, scoundrels, who persecute the black and the yellow, hold them in contempt and lynch them. When the Negro workers today unite with their own petty bourgeois that is because they are not yet sufficiently developed to defend their elementary rights. To the workers in the Southern states the liberal demand for ‘social, political and economic equality’ would undoubtedly mean progress, but the demand for ‘self-determination’ a greater progress. However, with the slogan ‘social, political and economic equality’ they can much easier be misled (‘according to the law you have this equality’).

When we are so far that the Negroes say we want autonomy; they then take a position hostile toward American imperialism. At that stage already the workers will be much more determined than the petty bourgeoisie. The workers will then see that the petty bourgeoisie is incapable of struggle and gets nowhere, but they will also recognize simultaneously that the white Communist workers fight for their demands and that will push them, the Negro proletarians, toward Communism.

Weisbord is correct in a certain sense that the ‘self-determination’ of the Negroes belongs to the question of the permanent revolution in America. The Negroes will through their awakening, through their demand for autonomy, and through the democratic mobilization of their forces, be pushed on toward the class basis. The petty bourgeoisie will take up the demand for ‘social, political, and economic equality’ and for ‘self-determination’ but prove absolutely incapable in the struggle; the Negro proletariat will march crier the petty bourgeoisie in the direction toward the proletarian revolution. That is perhaps for them the most important road. I can therefore see no reason why we should not advance the demand for ‘self-determination’.

I am not sure if the Negroes do not also in the Southern states speak their own Negro language. Now that they are being lynched just because of being Negroes they naturally fear to speak their Negro language; but when they are set free their Negro language will again become alive. I will advise the American comrades to study this question very seriously, including the language in the Southern states. Because of all these Masons I would in this question rather lean toward the standpoint of the [Communist] party; of course, with the observation: I have never studied this question and in my remarks I proceed from the general considerations. I base myself only upon the arguments brought forward by the American comrades. I find them insufficient and consider them a certain concession to the point of view of American chauvinism, which seems to me to be dangerous.

What can we lose in this question when we go ahead with our demands, and what have the Negroes today to lose? We do not compel them to separate from the States, but they have the full right to self-determination when they so desire and we will support and defend them with all the means at our disposal in the conquestion [conquest] of this right, the same as we defend all oppressed peoples.

Swabeck: I admit that you have advanced powerful arguments but I am not yet entirely convinced. The existence of a special Negro language in the Southern states is possible; but in general all American Negroes speak English. They are fully assimilated. Their religion is the American Baptist and the language in their churches is likewise English.

Economic equality we do not at all understand in the sense of the law. In the North (as of course also in the Southern states) the wages for Negroes are always lower than for white workers and mostly their hours are longer, that is so to say accepted as a natural basis. In addition, the Negroes are allotted the most disagreeable work. It is because of these conditions that we demand economic equality for the Negro workers.

We do not contest the right of the Negroes to self-determination. That is not the issue of our disagreement with the Stalinists. But we contest the correctness of the slogan of ‘self-determination’ as a means to win the Negro masses. The impulse of the Negro population is first of all in the direction toward equality in a social, political and economic sense. At present the party advances the slogan for ‘self-determination’ only for the Southern states. Of course, one can hardly expect that the Negroes from the Northern industries should want to return to the South and there are no indications of such a desire. On the contrary. Their unformulated demand is for ‘social, political and economic equality’ based upon the conditions under which they live. That is also the case in the South. It is because of this that we believe this to be the important racial slogan. We do not look upon the Negroes as being under national, oppression in the same sense as the oppressed colonial peoples. It is our opinion that the slogan of the Stalinists tends to lead the Negroes away from the class basis and more in the direction of the racial basis. That is the main reason for our being opposed to it. We are of the belief that the racial slogan in the sense as presented by us leads directly toward the class basis.

Frank: Are there special Negro movements in America?

Swabeck: Yes, several. First we had the Garvey movement based upon the aim of migration to Africa. It had a large following but busted up as a swindle. Now there is not much left of it. Its slogan was the creation of a Negro republic in Africa. Other Negro movements in the main rest upon a foundation of social and political equality demands as, for example, the League [National Association] for Advancement of Colored People. This is a large racial movement.

Trotsky: I believe that also the demand for ‘social, political and economic equality’ should remain and I do not speak against this demand. It is progressive to the extent that it is not realized. The explanation of Comrade Swabeck in regard to the question of economic equality is very important. But that alone does not yet decide the question of the Negro fate as such, the question of the ‘nation’, etc. According to the arguments of the American comrades one could say for example that also Belgium has no right as a ‘nation’. The Belgians are Catholics and a large section of them speak French. What if France would annex them with such an argument? Also the Swiss people, through their historical connection, feel themselves, despite different languages and religion, as one nation. An abstract criterion is not decisive in this question, but much more decisive is the historical consciousness, their feelings and their impulses. But that also is not determined accidentally but rather by the general conditions. The question of religion has absolutely nothing to do with this question of the nation. The Baptism of the Negro is something entirely different from the Baptism of Rockefeller: These are two different religions.

The political argument rejecting the demand for ‘self-determination’ is doctrinarism. That we heard always in Russia in regard to the question of ‘self-determination’. The Russian experiences have shown to us that the groups who live on a peasant basis retain peculiarities, their customs, their language, etc, and given the opportunity they develop again.

The Negroes are not yet awakened and they are not yet united with the white workers. 99.9 per cent of the American workers are chauvinists, in relation to the Negroes they are hangmen and they are so also toward the Chinese. It is necessary to teach the American beasts. It is necessary to make them understand that the American state is not their state and that they do not have to be the guardians of this state. Those American workers who say: ‘The Negroes should separate when they so desire and we will defend them against our American police’—those are revolutionists, I have confidence in them.

The argument that the slogan for ‘self-determination’ leads away from the class basis is an adaptation to the ideology of the white workers. The Negro can be developed to a class standpoint only when the white worker is educated. On the whole the question of the colonial people is in the first instance a question of the development of the metropolitan worker.

The American worker is indescribably reactionary. It is shown today that he is not even yet won for the idea of social insurance. Because of this the American Communists are obligated to advance reform demands.

When today the Negroes do not demand self-determination that is naturally for the same reason that the white workers do not yet advance the slogan of the proletarian dictatorship. The Negro has not yet got it into his poor black head that he dares to carve out for himself a piece of the great and mighty States. But the white worker must meet the Negroes half way and say to them: ‘When you want to separate you will have our support’. Also the Czech workers came only through the disillusion with their own state to Communism.

I believe that by the unheard-of political and theoretical backwardness and the unheard-of economic advance the awakening of the working class will proceed quite rapidly. The old ideological covering will burst, all questions will emerge at once, and since the country is so economically mature the adaptation of the political and theoretical to the economic level will be achieved very rapidly. It is then possible that the Negroes will become the most advanced section. We have already a similar example in Russia. The Russians were the European Negroes. It is very possible that the Negroes also through the self-determination will proceed to the proletarian dictatorship in a couple of gigantic strides, ahead of the great bloc of white workers. They will then furnish the vanguard. I am absolutely sure that they will in any case fight better than the white workers. That, however, can happen only provided the Communist party carries on an uncompromising merciless struggle not against the supposed national prepossessions of the Negroes but against the colossal prejudices of the white workers and gives it no concession whatever.

Swabeck: It is then your opinion that the slogan for ‘self-determination’ will be a means to set the Negroes into motion against American imperialism?

Trotsky: Naturally, thereby that the Negroes can carve out their own state out of mighty America and with the support of the white workers their self-consciousness develops enormously.

The reformists and the revisionists have written much on the subject that capitalism is carrying on the work of civilization in Africa and if the peoples of Africa are left to themselves they will be the more exploited by businessmen, etc, much more than now where they at least have a certain measure of lawful protection.

To a certain extent this argument can be correct. But in this case it is also first of all a question of the European workers: without their liberation the real colonial liberation is also not possible. When the white worker performs the role of the oppressor he cannot liberate himself, much less the colonial peoples. The self-determination of the colonial peoples can, in certain periods, lead to different results; in the final instance, however, it will lead to the struggle against imperialism and to the liberation of the colonial peoples.

The Austrian Social Democracy (particularly Renner) also put before the [first world] war the question of the national minorities abstractly. They argued likewise that the slogan for ‘self-determination’ would only lead the workers away from the class standpoint and that such minority states could not live independently. Was this way of putting the question correct or false? It was abstract. The Austrian Social Democrats said that the national minorities were not nations. What do we see today? The separate pieces [of the old Austro-Hungarian empire, beaded by the Hapsburgs] exist, rather bad, but they exist. The Bolsheviks fought in Russia always for the self-determination of the national minorities including the right of complete separation. And yet, by achieving self-determination these groups remained with the Soviet Union. If the Austrian Social Democracy had before accepted a correct policy in this question, they would have said to the national minority groups: ’You have the full right to self-determination, we have no interest whatever to keep you in the hands of the Hapsburg monarchy’—it would then have been possible after the revolution to create a great Danube federation. The dialectic of the. developments shows that where the tight centralism existed the state went to pieces and where the complete self-determination was proposed a real state emerged and remained united.

The Negro question is of enormous importance for America. The League must undertake a serious discussion of this question, perhaps in an internal bulletin.

Self-Determination for the American Negroes

Coyoacan, Mexico
April 4, 1939

Trotsky: Comrade Johnson proposes that we discuss the Negro question in three pans, the first to be devoted to the programmatic question of self-determination for the Negroes.

Johnson: (There was introduced some statistical material which was not included in the report.) The basic proposals for the Negro question have already been distributed and here it is only necessary to deal with the question of self-determination. No one denies the Negroes’ right to self-determination. It is a question of whether we should advocate it. In Africa and in the West Indies we advocate self-determination because a large majority of the people want it. In Africa the, great masses of the people look upon self-determination as a restoration of their independence. In the West Indies, where we have a population similar in origin to the Negroes in America, there, has been developing a national sentiment. The Negroes are a majority. Already we hear ideas, among the more advanced, of a West Indian nation, and it is highly probable that, even let us suppose that the Negroes were offered full and free rights as citizens of the British Empire, they would probably oppose it and wish to be absolutely free and independent ... It is progressive. It is a step in the right direction. We weaken the enemy. It puts the workers in a position to make great progress toward socialism.

In America the situation is different. The Negro desperately wants to be an American citizen. He says, ‘I have been here from the beginning; I did all the work here in the early days. Jews, Poles, Italians, Swedes and others come here and have all the privileges. You say that some of the Germans are spies. I will never spy. I have nobody for whom to spy. And yet you exclude me from the army and from the rights of citizenship.’

In Poland and Catalonia there is a tradition of language, literature and history to add to the economic and political oppression and to help weld the population in its progressive demand for self-determination. In America it is not so. Let us look at certain historic events in the development of the Negro America.

Garvey raised the slogan ‘Back to Africa’, but the Negroes who followed him did not believe for the most part that they were really going back to Africa. We know that those in the West Indies who were following him had not the slightest intention of going back to Africa, but they were glad to follow a militant leadership. And there is the case of a black woman who was pushed by a white woman in a street car and said to her. ‘You wait until Marcus gets into power and all you people will be treated in the way you deserve’. Obviously she was not thinking of poor Africa.

There was, however, this concentration on the Negroes’ problems simply because the white workers in 1919 were not developed. There was no political organization of any power calling upon the blacks and the whites to unite. The Negroes were just back from the war—militant and having no offer of assistance; they naturally concentrated on their own particular affairs.

In addition, however, we should note that in Chicago, where a race riot took place, the riot was deliberately provoked by the employers. Some time before it actually broke out, the black and white meatpackers had struck and had paraded through the Negro quarter in Chicago with the black population cheering the Whites in the same way that they cheered the blacks. For the capitalists this was a very dangerous thing and they set themselves to creating race friction. At one stage, motor cars, with white people in them, sped through the Negro quarter shooting at all whom they saw. The capitalist press played up the differences and thus set the stage and initiated the riots that took place for dividing the population and driving the Negro back upon himself.

During the period of the crisis there was a rebirth of these nationalist movements. There was a movement toward the 49th state and the movement concentrated around Liberia was developing. These movements assumed fairly large proportions up to at least 1934.

Then in 1936 came the organization of the CIO. John L. Lewis appointed a special Negro department. The New Deal made gestures to the Negroes. Blacks and whites fought together in various struggles. These nationalist movements have tended to disappear as the Negro saw the opportunity to fight with the organised workers and to gain something.

The danger of our advocating and injecting a policy of self-determination is that it is the surest way to divide and confuse the worker’s in the South. The white workers have centuries of prejudice to overcome, but at the present time many of them are working with the Negroes in the Southern sharecroppers’ union and with the rise of the struggle there is every possibility that they will be able to overcome their age-long prejudices. But for us to propose that the Negro have this black state for himself is asking too much from the white workers, especially when the Negro himself is not making the same demand. The slogans of ‘abolition of debts’, ‘confiscation of large properties’, etc, are quite sufficient to lead them both to fight together and on the basis of economic struggle to make a united fight for the abolition of social discrimination.

I therefore propose concretely: (1) That we are for the right of self-determination. (2) If some demand should arise among the Negroes for the right of self-determination we should support it. (3) We do not go out of our way to raise this slogan and place an unnecessary barrier between ourselves and socialism. (4) An investigation should be made into these movements; the one led by Garvey, the movement for the 49th state, the movement centering around Liberia. Find out what groups of the population supported them and on this basis come to some opinion as to how far there is any demand among the Negroes for self-determination.

Trotsky: I do not quite understand whether Comrade Johnson proposes to eliminate the slogan of self-determination for the Negroes from our program,* or is it that we do not say that we are ready to do everything possible for the self-determination of the Negroes if they want it themselves. It is a question for the party as a whole, if we eliminate it or not. We are ready to help them if they want it. As a party we can remain absolutely neutral on this. We cannot say it will be reactionary. It is not reactionary. We cannot tell them to set up a state because that will weaken imperialism and so will be good for us, the white workers. That would be against internationalism itself. We cannot say to them, ‘Stay here, even at the price of economic progress’. We can say, ‘It is for you to decide. If you wish to take a part of the country, it is all right, but we do not wish to make the decision for you.

[* In the internal bulletin of the SWP, Johnson had written: The Negro must be won for socialism. There is no other way out for him in America or elsewhere. But he must be won on the basis of his own experiences and his own activity. There is no other way for him to learn, nor for that matter, for any other group of toilers! If he wanted self-determination, then however reactionary it might be in every other respect, it would be the business of the revolutionary party to raise that slogan. If after the revolution he insisted on carrying out that slogan and forming his own Negro state, the revolutionary party would have to stand by its promises and patiently trust to economic development and education to achieve an integration. But the Negro, fortunately for socialism, does not want self-determination.]

I believe that the differences between the West Indies, Catalonia, Poland and the situation of the Negroes in the States are not so decisive. Rosa Luxemburg was against self-determination for Poland. She felt that it was reactionary and fantastic, as fantastic as demanding the right to fly. It shows that she did not possess the necessary historic imagination in this case. The landlords and representatives of the Polish ruling class were also opposed to self-determination for their own reasons.

Comrade Johnson used three verbs: ‘support’, ‘advocate’ and ‘inject’ the idea of self-determination. I do not propose for the party to advocate, I do not propose to inject, but only to proclaim our obligation to support the struggle for self-determination if the Negroes themselves want it. It is not a question of our Negro comrades. It is a question of 13 or 14 million Negroes. The majority of them ate very backward. They are not very clear as to what they wish now and we must give them a credit for the future. They will decide then.

What you said about the Garvey movement is interesting—but it proves that we must be cautious and broad and not base ourselves upon the status quo. The black woman who said to the white woman, ‘Wait until Marcus is in power. We will know how to treat you then’, was simply expressing her desire for her own state. The American Negroes gathered under the banner of the ‘Back to Africa’ movement because it seemed a possible fulfillment of their wish for their own home. They did not want actually to go to Africa. It was the expression of a mystic desire for a home in which they would be free of the domination of the whites, in which they themselves could control their own fate. That also was a wish for self-determination. It was once expressed by some in a religious form and now it takes the form of a dream of an independent state. Here in the United States the whites are so powerful, so cruel and rich that the poor Negro sharecropper does not dare to say, even to himself, that he will take a part of his country for himself. Garvey spoke in glowing terms, that it was beautiful and that here all would be wonderful. Any psychoanalyst will say that the real content of this dream was to have their own home. It is not an argument in favor of injecting the idea. It is only an argument by which we can foresee the possibility of their giving their dream a more realistic form.

Under the condition that Japan invades the United States and the Negroes are called upon to fight—they may come to feel themselves threatened first from one side and then from the other, and finally awakened, may say, ‘We have nothing to do with either of you. We will have our own state.’

But the black state could enter into a federation. If the American Negroes succeeded in creating their own state, I am sure that after a few years of the satisfaction and pride of independence, they would feel the need of entering into a federation. Even if Catalonia which is very industrialized and highly developed province, had realized its independence, it would have been just a step to federation.

The Jews in Germany and Austria wanted nothing more than to be the best German chauvinists. The most miserable of all was the Social Democrat, Austerlitz, the editor of the Arbeiterzeitung. But now, with the turn of events, Hitler does not permit them to be German chauvinists. Now many of them have become Zionists and are Palestinian nationalists and anti-German. I saw a disgusting picture recently of a Jewish actor, arriving in America, bending down to kiss the soil of the United States. Then they will get a few blows from the fascist fists in the United States and they will go to kiss the soil of Palestine.

There is another alternative to the successful revolutionary one. It is possible that fascism will come to power with its racial delirium and oppression and the reaction of the Negro will be toward racial independence. Fascism in the United States will be directed against the Jews and the Negroes, but against the Negroes particularly, and in a most terrible manner. A privileged’ condition will be created for the American white workers on the backs of the Negroes. The Negroes have done everything possible to become an integral part of the United States, in a psychological as well as a political sense. We must foresee that their reaction will show its power during the revolution. They will enter with a great distrust of the whites. We must remain neutral in the matter and hold the door open for both possibilities and promise our full support if they wish to create their own independent state.

So far as I am informed, it seems to me that the CP’s attitude of making an imperative slogan of it was false. It was a case of the whites saying to the Negroes, ‘You must create a ghetto for yourselves’. It is tactless and false and can only serve to repulse the Negroes. Their only interpretation can be that the whites want to be separated from them. Our Negro comrades of course have the right to participate more intimately in such developments. Our Negro comrades can say, ‘The Fourth International says that if it is our wish to be independent, it will help us in every way possible, but that the choice is ours. However, I, as a Negro member of the Fourth, hold a view that we must remain in the same state as the whites,’ and so on. He can participate in the formation of the political and racial ideology of the Negroes.

Johnson: I am very glad that we have had this discussion, because I agree with you entirely. It seems to be the idea in America that we should advocate it as the CP has done. You seem to think that there is a greater possibility of the Negroes wanting self-determination than I think is probable. But we have a hundred per cent agreement on the idea of which you have put forward that we should be neutral in the development.

Trotsky: It is the word ‘reactionary’ that bothered me.

Johnson: Let me quote from the document : ‘If he wanted self-determination, then however reactionary it might be in every other respect, it would be the business of the revolutionary party to raise that slogan’. I consider the idea of separating as a step backward so far as a socialist society is concerned. If the white workers extend a hand to the Negro, he will not want self-determination.

Trotsky: It is too abstract, because the realization of this slogan can be reached only as the 13 or 14 million Negroes feel that the domination by the whites is terminated. To fight for the possibility of realizing an independent state is a sight of great moral and political awakening. It would be a tremendous revolutionary step. This ascendancy would immediately have the best economic consequences.

A Black Revolutionary Nationalist Response to President Obama's Speech to Muslims

A Black Revolutionary Nationalist Response to President Obama's Speech to the Middle East

Talk is cheap. Politicians glorify in the world of make believe, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. After oppressing the people in North Africa and the Middle East for decades, we now learn the imperialists will come with new tricknology to appease and assuage the wounds suffered by the neo-colonized people.

Don't believe the hype. Dad taught me that charity begins at home and spreads abroad. If America is sincere about aiding the people of North Africa and the Middle East, let her set the example at home by liberating the 40 million North American Africans.

Firstly, recognize our human and Divine right to self-determination, which may include a nation of our own on territory of the United States of America but separated from the USA in recognition of those persons too traumatized to live within the boundaries of the United States.

We must have the human and divine right to separate from the United States of America into a nation of our own. We have given four hundred years of free and nearly free labor to the USA to make her the most powerful nation on earth.

In our condition of wretchedness, economic, educational, spiritual, political, and moral, we cannot sit on the sidelines of history while our President pontificates on how America will address the woes of the others but ignore the condition of 40 million North American Africans.

We heard our President say he will aid the youth of North Africa and the Middle East by giving them assistance in loans, grants, jobs, housing, etc., yet we have not heard him say he will do the same for the home front, for the youth of America who are without education, jobs and housing.

As he promised for the Middle East and North Africa, we want him to forgive the debts of North American Africans, forgive the outstanding mortgages.

We want the USA to establish land trusts in the cites to implement an immediate halt to gentrification. This must occur coast to coast, including the Dirty South and anywhere gentrification is occurring.

As an immediate solution to the housing crisis, we want North American Africans to acquire life estates in apartments and houses in communities where we reside in large numbers.

If America can do the same for North Africa and the Middle East, we shall not sit quietly by without receiving the same for us. We are in harmony with the people of North Africa and the Middle East: liberty or death! We have no fear of your guns, tanks, bombs, jails, prisons and torture chambers. What time is dinner?

We want a general amnesty for all prisoners held unjustly in the numerous jails and prisons of America. Release them immediately to the North American African Council of Elders.

How can you promise economic security to the youth of North Africa and the Middle East, yet not provide the same for North American African youth who languish in the putrid cities suffering drugs and violence because you refuse to provide them jobs with a living wage?

North American Africans are human beings and we demand respect due human beings. You cannot support self-determination for human beings abroad but not at home. Don't be a hypocrite. We shall challenge you every step of the way!

Do not claim you oppose violence while Israel plummets Palestinians to death with guns, tanks, bombs and planes paid for with the money of US taxpayers. Stop supplying the hood with guns and drugs provided by your armies, police, politicians and big time drug dealers in cahoots with such.

You want self-determination for individuals, well, this must be true at home and abroad. There are forty million individuals who have the right to vote in a plebiscite on whether we shall remain under your oppressive regime or seek independence. You supported independence for the Sudan, well, we have the human right to the same. There are those of us who have no desire to live under your wicked regime of socalled democracy and freedom.

We have the divine and human right to establish a nation of our own on some of this land in which we have labored under the sun for over four centuries.

--Marvin X

5/19/11

Happy birthday, Malcolm X

Chauncey Bailey trial nears end, Police Drama Begins

Chauncey Bailey Murder Trial Nears End,

Oakland Police Drama Begins

As the Chauncey Bailey Murder trial wraps up, the long suspected Oakland police role in the murder investigation is being uncovered. Oakland Post Newspaper Publisher Paul Cobb and the Black Chauncey Bailey Project organizer Marvin X have long called for an investigation of the OPD's role in the assassination of Oakland Post Editor Chauncey Bailey.

The "white" Chauncey Bailey Project has resisted investigating the alleged police role in the assassination of Chauncey Bailey, focusing singularly on the indictment of the Black Muslim Bakery Brothers as the sole culprits, even though at the outset of the editor's assassination in broad daylight, Post Publisher Paul Cobb told the OPD that Chauncey was not only investigating the activities of YBMB, but more importantly, the alleged activities of corruption by African American members of the OPD.


He informed the DA Tom Orloff of his feelings. Not only did Orloff reject Cobb's assertion, but he resigned shortly after the killing. Police Chief Tucker resigned or retired as well.

Before he resigned, Chief Tucker suggested if Cobb wanted the OPD to pursue police involvement in the assassination of Chauncey, Cobb should get himself a bullet proof vest.


When Paul Cobb suggested the "White" Chauncey Bailey Project should also pursue police involvement, embedded OPD crime writer Harry Harris suggested Cobb was out of his mind. Cobb suggests Harris has been hanging around in the OPD locker room too long.


It is clear that Harry Harris has been embedded with the OPD far beyond any objective usefulness. The same may be true for Oakland Tribune Editor Martin Reynalds who related to Black Chauncey Bailey Project organizer Marvin X that the OPD had fine officers, especially Lt. Longmire, chief investigator of the Bailey killing as well as mentor of the murder suspects who was temporarily relieved of his duties due to conflict of interest. He was in charge of the crime scene and led the raid of the bakery, securing the murder weapon and a confession in less than 24 hours after the murder of Chauncey.


When Marvin X published the conversation he had with Oakland Tribune Editor Reynolds during a lunch meeting, Reynolds threatened to throw a Molotov Cocktail at Marvin X, one of the most prolific writers in America and the world. Marvin wrote eight books last year and is considered the USA's Rumi (Bob Holman), Plato teaching on the streets of Oakland (Ishmael Reed), the father of Muslim American literature (Dr. Mohja Kahf), one of the founders and innovators of the revolutionary school of African writing (Amiri Baraka).

As the murder trial concludes, it appears the OPD drama is just beginning. KTVU television reported last night that a long suspected cover up in the Bailey murder investigation has been uncovered.


Because of his association with those indicted for the murder of Chauncey, there are persons who think Marvin X's assertions are tainted. Marvin X rejects this. After all, Chauncey was his friend as well. One of his last stories was a review of Marvin's book How to Recover from the Addiction to White Supremacy.

--Marvin X

the Black Chauncey Bailey Project

http://www.theblackchaunceybaileyproject.blogspot.com

5/19/11

OPD Cover-Up Emerges

In Bailey Murder Investigation

Posted: 9:10 pm PDT May 18, 2011
Updated: 9:43 am PDT May 19, 2011

OAKLAND, Calif. -- As the eight-week trial of the alleged mastermind of the Chauncey Bailey murder heads to the jury this week, KTVU Channel 2 News has obtained hundreds of pages of legal documents never seen publicly that explain for the first time the inside story of the controversial homicide investigation.

It's a story that KTVU has largely been prevented from telling because of a gag order imposed by the command staff of the Oakland Police Department.

The documents paint a troubling picture of former top commanders at Oakland police misleading the public about several key aspects of the Bailey case.

On December 15, 2008, then-Oakland Police Chief Wayne Tucker called a highly unusual press conference to respond to a story revealing what may have been the single biggest turn in the assassination of Bay Area journalist Chauncey Bailey.

That was the discovery that Tucker had delayed for two days a massive police raid scheduled for August 1st, 2007 on the violent "Your Black Muslim Bakery" so a member of the chief's command staff could extend a camping trip.

But the next day, August 2nd, a self-described "soldier" from the bakery gunned down Bailey in cold blood on a downtown Oakland street. The delayed raid then took place on August 3rd, the day after the murder.

The documents contain charges that Tucker and his command staff held a private meeting just before the press conference, where they agreed to cover-up that decision when they met the news media.

In the sworn statement KTVU has obtained, an Oakland police captain testified he was in that meeting and spoke to the chief about what he regarded as a lie:

Captain Ersie Joyner: "Chief Tucker was adamant that we had only one date set and there was never two dates."

Attorney: "And to your knowledge, did Chief Tucker know that there were two dates, August 1st and then August 3rd?"

Joyner: "Yes."

Attorney: "Was there anyone else in that meeting with Chief Tucker and Chief Jordan and others who believed that the department had knowledge of the two dates, August 1st and August 3rd?"

Joyner: "Yes."

Attorney: "After that press conference, did you talk to Chief Tucker about what you perceived to be a dishonest statement?"

Joyner. "Yes."

San Francisco attorney John Scott, who is bringing a lawsuit against the city of Oakland on behalf of the lead investigator of the Bailey murder, says Tucker’s action goes to the heart of a story never heard before -- until now.

"The department, I believe, had its own sense of guilt or believed it had its own sense of guilt or responsibility for the murder because the department was supposed to execute a warrant on the Black Muslim Bakery on August 1st, the day before the murder." Scott said. "Now, no one is suggesting or implying the department intended to kill Chauncey Bailey."

Scott is representing Oakland police Sgt. Derwin Longmire, who has been under a gag order by the chief's office since the fall of 2007.

Longmire has never spoken to the news media about the Chauncey Bailey case. He also declined to speak to KTVU for this story.

But KTVU Channel 2 News has obtained sworn statements by Longmire and other Oakland police officials, some testifying that Sgt. Longmire has been unjustly painted as the scapegoat for the Bailey homicide investigation.

Tucker's assistant chief, Howard Jordan, launched internal investigations against Longmire because he believed the homicide investigator had become far too close to the Black Muslim Bakery and didn't tell his boss or colleagues what he was doing.

Recorded phone conversations between Longmire and Yusef Bey IV shortly after Bailey's murder indicate they had a close relationship:

"Nobody has the right to say we can't be friends because you know what I mean," Bey can be heard saying in one recorded call.

To which Longmire replied: "You know what, I totally agree. I totally agree. I feel that way wholeheartedly."

The documents KTVU obtained, however, have sworn testimony from Longmire's immediate supervisor saying he had ordered Longmire to take those actions and that the district attorney also knew -- and approved -- of them.

Longmire's lawsuit charges the Oakland police brass with discriminating against him and it uses sworn statements such as this one by Assistant Chief Howard Jordan to attempt to prove he made biased assumptions:

Attorney: "Did you believe that Sgt. Longmire had compromised the investigation because of that relationship with either the Black Muslims or the bakery?"

Jordan: "Yes."

Attorney: "At the time of the Chauncey Bailey murder, did you believe that Sergeant Longmire was associated with the Black Muslim Bakery?"

Jordan: "Yes."

However, the documents also include evidence that Longmire was not protecting the Black Muslims, showing that as early as five years before Bailey was shot Sgt. Longmire warned the police command staff that the bakery was a criminal enterprise and needed to be cleaned up.

No serious, sustained action was taken on those repeated warnings until it was too late.

The department moved to fire Longmire in May 2009.

After a series of internal investigations, Longmire was ultimately exonerated.

But even then, the Oakland command staff offered Longmire his job back only if he promised not to sue. He refused, and filed his lawsuit in April 2010.

Although Longmire is still prohibited from discussing the Bailey case, he did talk to KTVU when he filed his lawsuit against the department.

"There was so much media attention that when questions came up they couldn't answer about mistakes early on, for them there was no other way but to let it fall on someone and that someone was me," said Longmire.

Assistant Chief Howard Jordan declined to comment on this story through a letter from an attorney representing the city of Oakland.

A phone call to former chief Wayne Tucker, now a civilian, asking for his perspective on the allegations in these new documents brought this brief response:

"I have nothing to say to your s***** station,” Tucker declared. “Why don't you publish that? You should publish that."

The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in February 2012.

Copyright 2011 by KTVU.com. All rights reserved.

"Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention": Manning Marable's Exhaustive Biography of the Civil Rights Leader

"Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention": Manning Marable's Exhaustive Biography of the Civil Rights Leader