*NEW BOUNDARIES

W S

UNITED &^X~& y" /

PUERTORICO

sO "HAWAII

013 Large tracts of land south of our mark belong to other native

peoples. Also the Virgin Islands, Samoa, Guam, the PanamaCanal Zone and numerous Pacific Islands, all "territorialpossessions"of the US will be controlled by the indigenouspeoples.

Dotted lines show approximate North American boundaries afterimperialism is defeated and land returned to it3 rightful owners

New Boundaries

Send Printed Material to:

H. MartinBox 2761Dartmouth EastNova Scotia, Canada

B2W 4R4

MAR. Send Letters to:

G. SmithBox 102LakesideNova Scotia, Canada

BoJ 1Z0

NEW BOUNDARIES

Table of Contents

New Boundaries, An Introduction 1

What Is Our Philosophy? 6

Marxist Errors on Natural Resources 13

MarxismProblematical Legacy 29

NEW BOUNDARIES, AN INTRODUCTION

Future battles will transform todayfs political map of NorthAmerica into new, more just, boundaries like those we depict.Present borders reflect might, not right. In North America andworld-wide, phrases like "advanced" and "less developed" nations

provide superficial cover for the real, fundamental contradictionbetween oppressor peoples and their victims, the oppressed.

Imperialist countries, headed by the U.S., control and depletethe resources of the world, making misery, starvation, genocidecommonplace for the exploited peoples and degrading oppressor

peoples into living as parasites. To solve most current problems,the fundamental contradiction must be resolved in favor of the

oppressed. Only when imperialism has been destroyed will ample

food, shelter, and clothing be produced; industry and economiesdevelop in balance with the needs of people and nature; world tradebe conducted fairly; or any genuine peace exist between nations.

The authors of these articles are U.S. whites who see a gap

between what the world is now and what it should be. Cur map

foreshadows changes to be made by the oppressed peoples and theirsupporters. Correct ideas will speed change while wrong ones aregreatly responsible for losses and setbacks suffered by the oppressedin past and present struggles.

We assess the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, the firnt philosophy

dedicated to the process of change in human society. For thelast century most revolutionaries have looked to the theories andexperiences of Marx and Engels and their followers. Yet othershave criticized them sharply. "Communism is not an ideology suited

2.

for Black people, period. Socialism is not an ideology fitted forBlack people, period, period," declared Stokely Carmichael, BlackPower advocate. He continued, "Communism nor Socialism does not speakto the problem of racism. And racism, for Black people in this country(D.S"7) , is far more important than exploitation."

Studying Mr. Carmichael1s views in 1968, we believed his condemnation applied to "revisionist" Marxism as practised in Russia andChina but not to all Marxism. In this article, we reexamine theproblem in light of experiences since then.

We turned to the Marxist movement drawn by its history of actionand accomplishments, by its avowed goal of changing the status quo.We realized that the most crucial struggles in the world were forthe liberation of oppressed peoples, so we stayed with the ideasof Marxism-Leninism which paid attention to these battles. Aspiringto be Marxist-Leninists we urged others to do so, believing thatincreased knowledge and understanding of Marxist-Leninist writingswould lead to greater success for the oppressed peoples and increasedsupport for them from the oppressor nations.

Through these years we learned from a U.S. newsletter entitledHammer & Steel which always tried to evaluate ideas, individuals,and current events in light of their contribution to victory forthe oppressed peoples. Consistent backing of national liberationdifferentiated Hammer & Steel from other Marxist-Leninist publications,and over the years led to its separation from and struggle againstvarious individuals, groups and ideas which in practice continuedsupport to the status quo of oppression throughout the world.

As U.S. whites who hate our own nation's role as oppressor,we are greatly influenced by the history of U.S. Blacks. With ahomeland in the Black Belt, Afro-Americans form a seoarate nationoppressed within U.S. boundaries. Longtime victims of genocidalattacks, their danger has increased because of neglect and betrayalby the international Marxist movement. Liberation of the Black

Belt would break up the boundaries of the main imperialist nation,

Hammer & Steel Newsletter, occasional periodical, 1963-1975, outof print.

3.

reduce its supply of wealth, provide great support to Puerto Rican,native American, Mexican and other national liberation strugglesworld-wide. This demand has been raised by the Republic of NewAfrica and Hammer & Steel. Can any serious revolutionary not supportit?

Yet attempts to win non-left white support for Blacks taughtus the vast extent of white supremacy among our people. Unsuccessful struggle to change U.S. Marxist demands for Black-white integrateinto support for the right to secession demonstrated the sell-outof our left. Attempts to discuss these topics with China andAlbania eventually taught us the reluctance and inability of thesocialist camp to fight imperialism on this vital front.

Consistently, Hammer & Steel spoke out in favor of nationalliberation and against the theories of Marxist-Leninists.Specifically, Hammer & Steel called for the break-up of imperialistboundaries, especially in the U.S., supporting self-determination

for the Afro-American nation in the Black Belt and Puerto Rico and

return of the lands stolen from Mexico; called for an international

boycott of U.S. goods during the Vietnam war and exposed the

failure of pacifism to support the oppressed peoples. .The news

letters attacked the pro-imperialist role played by the "women'sliberation" movement and opposed forced population control and

abortion as genocide. Hammer & Steel criticized the Chinese

Cultural Revolution for its support to U.S. imperialism and

polemicized against neglect and betrayal of the oppressed peoplesby the USSR since Stalin's death. They called for the destructionof the State of Israel as the only way to defend Palestinians'right to their land. Our grasp of these positions, proven soundby subsequent events, encourages us to go on to tackle new

theoretical problems.

We have to face counter-revolutionary world conditions, in

order to help overcome them. Imperialism's world control becomesstronger, producing military and economic defeats for the oppressedin great number while leftist movements provide no explanationsor solutions. The question arises: are there some basic errors

4.

in Marxist philosophy which make its followers into vacillatingallies at best and, at worst, outright opponents of the oppressedpeoples? The real world calls for such a reassessment of Marxism.

We found it useful to compare U.S. imperialism with Germanimperialism before World War II. Like the U.S., a powerful imperialistGermany had working and middle classes whose great majority supportedtheir ruling class's aggression. They were "led" by a left thatmostly failed to understand the support, to prevent the aggression,or to save itself.

Powers calling themselves Marxist, led by the Soviet Unionand the Peoples' Republic of China, do not devote their economiesto aiding oppressed nations against U.S. imperialism. Rather, theycollude and compete with the U.S. They export ideological errorsand confusion to cover up the miniscule practical aid for Vietnam,Palestine and other anti-imperialists.

Members of oppressor nations who call themselves Marxist-Leninists refuse to expose and correct chauvinism in their ownpeople. Instead they urge "unity" between oppressor and oppressedworkers. They continue to develop these theories supported byMarxism's labor theory of value.

Do such errors result only from a betrayal or revision of

Marxism-Leninism? Why are all these forces so susceptible to the

pressures of state power, nuclear blackmail, bribery?

One specific impetus to answer these questions came from Soulbook:

Marx and Engels' theories focused primarily on the largerindustrialized states of Western Europe. They regarded largeindustrialized nations as essential to world progress. Thoughthey decried national oppression, Marx and Engels had littlesympathy for the demands of small nations.!They (Marx and Engels) ignored completely the greatestrevolutionary event of the 19th century: The Haitianrevolution of 1804. Haiti, where the Black masses triumphedover aryan oppressors.2

1Soulbook3 Volume 3, Number 10, (Spring, 1975), p. 40, P.O. Box61213, Los Angeles, Calif. 90059, USA.2Ibid., p.7.

5.

With these ideas in mind, we read Accumulation of Capital1, KarlMarx on Colonialism and Modernisation and reread Capital. Westudied the topic of natural resources, wealth and land.-lookingfor theoretical support in Marx's economic work for the right ofpeople to control their own land. The lack of such key materialfrom Marx and Engels and the failure of subsequent Marxists (Lenin,Stalin, Mao) to supply it, helped us understand many of the obstacle^facing today's oppressed peoples and all who desire their victories.

Armed with correct theories, man can improve his world. Asthe liberation struggles are inevitable, so is the developmentof international assistance both theoretical and practical. Suchaid will begin with efforts to exchange experiences and ideas,support and criticism. We hope to contribute to such efforts in

the articles that follow.

in the following article we discuss the basis of our political

orientation.

TRosa Luxembourg, Accumulation of Capital, Monthly Review Press,New York, 1968.Shlomo Avineri, Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernisation,Doubleday and Co. Inc., "New York, 1969-

6.

WHAT IS OUR PHILOSOPHY?

We need a correct, consistent philosophical viewpoint from whichto develop our critique of Marxism. Our study begins by reaffirmingdialectical materialism and the general framework of historicalmaterialism as developed by Marx and Engels. It describes howMarx and Engels used historical materialism wrongly. They placedtheir main hopes for revolution on the workers in industrializednations and condemned the oppressed colonial peoples to a secondaryrole.

Developments have taken a different turn. The main revolutionaryforce has turned out to be patriots from all classes of oppressed

nations opposed to domination of their national resources by imperialismespecially U.S. imperialism. It is by denying this fact andfollowing Marx that contemporary Marxists have turned into supportersof the status quo.

As past proponents of Marxism, we attempt a contribution torevolutionary theory by reexamining the philosophical and economic

foundations of Marxism. In this section we discuss and reaffirm

the basics of dialectical materialism. Starting from its basic

premises as outlined by Stalin, we develop our own historicalmaterialist critique of historical materialism.

Why Dialectical?

As anti-imperialists in a world dominated by U.S. imperialism

our constant focus is on the future, on change. The philosophical

basis of our study cannot be "common sense" or another of the current

1Joseph V. Stalin, History of the Communist Party of the SovietUnion (Bolsheviks); Short Course, International Publishers,New York, 1939, p"."105-131.

7.

fads. Dialectics includes a formal study of the process of change

and development in nature, human society and man's understanding

of nature and society. Dialectics and "common sense" overlap in

some cases. For example, it is common sense that a child's behavior

at one stage changes into its opposite in another. This is common

sense because it happens relatively quickly in relation to human

life and is repeated hundreds of millions of times. But common

sense does not tell us that the strength of U.S. imperialism will

turn into its opposite. This requires a more formal understandingand conscious application of dialectical materialism.

In fact, the common sense approach says that U.S. imperialismwill remain strong and that it is best to adapt to it rather thanoppose it. Since such an attitude would be fatal to all revolution

ary development, it is not common sense but dialectical materialism

which must be our starting point.

Applied to society, the dialectical method views the worldas an interconnected, united whole, in which everything is movingand changing. Change is not random but reflects contradictionsbetween what is new and growing (national liberation movements)and what is old and dying (imperialism headed by U.S. imperialism).Today, imperialism is strong and national liberation forces areweak. Yet their gradual development will progress to leaps forwardand eventual victory. Today, we cannot predict whether thistransformation of quantity to quality will flow from a worldwar weakening the imperialist system, from a series of "local"guerilla wars, or from other events. We can, however, use thedialectical method to forecast the end of the imperialist system.

The principles of dialectics are drawn from nature andobserved in history. Applying the dialectical method meansstudying the internal contradictions in events. Further, dialecticsis truly revolutionary since it focuses on development andchange. Yet conforming to the dialectical method is noguarantee of useful discussion or an advance in theory. The resultsof such discussion or theory must be tested for more than their

8.

formal recognition of contradiction. Can the theory explain andpredict objective events? Can it be used to influence events,to change the world?

Why Materialism?

We believe the world is material; that there exist objectivelaws outside man's mind (or "God's will"). A materialist judgestheory in relation to that material world. Correct theory can

predict and influence events. In turn, it is events, socialdevelopments, which are mainly responsible for the development (andsometimes the lack of development) of ideas:

Marx discovered the law of development of human history: thesimple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology,that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter andclothing before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion,etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate materialmeans of subsistence and consequently the degree of economicdevelopment attained by a given people or during a given epochform the foundation upon which the state institutions, thelegal conceptions, art and even the ideas on religion, of thepeople concerned have been evolved, and in the light of whichthey must therefore be explained, instead of vice versa ashad hitherto been the case.

In brief, materialism means that society is the main influenceon ideas but dialectics tells us that ideas bear an important,secondary influence on society. For this reason, we are strictabout the preservation and development of our theory. Study of therole of ideas in history shows that theory can become a materialforce. It follows that the test of scientific theory must be itspredictive power and the possibility of using the theory to speedhistorical developments. As a result, we need to update the theoryconstantly as the material world changes.

Why Historical?

Our review of dialectical materialism establishes that contra

dictions within society determine its development while ideas reflect,

Frederick Engels, "Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx",Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works in Two Volumes,Volume II, Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscow, 1962, p.l67.

9.

and in turn, influence these contradictions. Of all the social

contradictions, which is most important?

Historical materialists answer that the most important involves

the mode of production, the method of procuring the means of life.Productive forces and the relations of production are two antagonistic aspects of the mode of production. Productive forces, theleading aspect, are the inputs into production land, labor,

capital organized into a system by the relations of production.For example, different relations of production distinguish socialismin the USSR before World War II (state ownership of capital) fromcapitalism (private ownership of capital).

As developed by Marx and Engels, historical materialismfocuses on the contradiction between relations of production

(ownership) and productive forces. Once a given social systemhas reached a certian point in its development, its relations ofproduction begin to restrict further development of the productiveforces, leading to its replacement by a new and more efficientsystem. We take from historical materialism its focus on relationsof production and productive forces. We question its applicationby Marx and Engels who violated dialectics by looking only o.tEurope when using their framework to study the transition fromcapitalism to socialism.

Critique of Historical Materialism

The founders of historical materialism believed that the

key contradiction in capitalism was between labor and capital.The capitalist class appropriated surplus value, the profitsremaining from sales of products after wages and other costs arededucted. For Marx, the contradiction between the relations ofproduction and the productive forces hinged on the appropriationof surplus value. The contradiction over surplus value producedthe class struggle the central contradiction according to Marxand Engels.

As the world market expanded and brought with it increasing

10.

scale of production, Marx foresaw that capitalism would tend towardincreased need for raw materials- and lower wages. The former wouldlead to a spreading of capitalism while the latter transformed theworking class into its gravediggers. By continuing Ricardo's labortheory of value Marx was able to make surplus value the source ofcapital's might and the class struggle the driving force in history.He looked for expansion of surplus value as the source of increasedprofits.

Mgrx's view was rooted in a valid philosophical system whichwe reaffirm. His economic analysis uncovered and dissected thecontradiction between two important productive forces labor andcapital and the resulting class struggle. Yet his view wasrestricted by his times. Great though his knowledge was, both ofhistory and of the events of his day, it failed to encompassobvious developments outside Europe and North America, developmentslittle influenced by the labor theory of value. For example, whenMarx and Engels studied the transition from feudalism to capitalismin Europe, they focused on one important feature the factorysystem. They traced its development and its impact on rural lifethe enclosures. In Volume I of Capital, Marx lays bare the contribution of landstealing in England and Scotland to primitive accumulation of capital for factories.1 But the wealth generated fromthe slave trade in the colonies receives almost no attention. Whenhe does write on the colonies, Marx views them as a net drain onEurope's wealth.2 In fact, the colonial and slave systems probablycontributed more heavily to the early accmumlation af capital andto the defeat of feudalism in Europe tfVan did low wages.

Appropriation of resources from all over the world is thekey to the wealth of the imperialist countries today. As long aswealth from the oppressed nations supports high living standardsfor workers in imperialist nations, the class struggle between labor

Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I, Foreign Languages PublishingHouse, Moscow, 1961, Chapter 27.

2Karl Marx, "The British Rule in India", Handbook of Marxism,International Publishers, New York, 1935, pp. lBO-187.

11.

and capital and between socialism and capitalism, will remain amere squabble between junior and senior partners.

When he excluded non-European factors from his analysis,Marx contradicted his own dialectical materialism. Yet dialectical

materialism helps us understand why Marx was limited. Living inEurope as capitalism expanded, Marx indirectly participated ineconomic and cultural developments bought at the expense of thecolonies. He tended to see other parts of the world as permamentlyauxiliary to Europe whether Europe be capitalist or socialist.For him, the main battlegrounds were Europe and North America,the main protagonists, capital and labor.

In different degrees, Lenin, Stalin and Mao advanced somewhatover Marx and Engels in applying historical materialism outsideEurope. On the positive side, they recognized that capitalismdevelops unevenlyleading to a contradiction between imperialism

and national forces (including capitalists) in oppressed nationsthe national liberation forces. On the minus side, they continued

Marx's primary focus on class struggle. To them, the importance

of the Paris Commune and the class struggles in Russia far out

weighed that of the ravages of colonialism in the Congo. They

failed to realize that the workers in the West were objectivelyon the side of imperialism when it came to the colonies. It is anunfortunate fact that the present treatment of national liberationforces as auxiliary to "socialism" in Russia and China is basednot on revising but on following Lenin and Stalin.

In today 's world the contradiction between labor and capitalis, along with every major development, influenced by the maincontradiction between finance capital* headed by US imperialism,and the peoples from whose territory it draws its oil and othervital raw materials. For the imperialist system (relations ofproduction) has restricted the production of food and basicnecessities on their land (productive forces) driving thesepeoples either to resist imperialism or to become victims ofgenocide. Productive forces clash with the relations of production

12.

resulting in wars of national liberation.

What will come of these wars? Is socialism the next stage?

In the oppressed and formerly-oppressed nations the stages ofdevelopment differ from those of the West. In answering thesequestions, Marxists have almost always neglected the national andstressed the class aspects of developments in oppressed nations.By freeing historical materialism from its crippling focus on classstruggle we promote future answers answers to the status-quoMarxism of Moscow and Peking.

So by returning historical materialism to its original generalinterpretation, we develop a theory which is valid today and ofservice to the oppressed peoples. Key elements of our theory are:

1. reaffirmation of dialectical materialism,2. support for the broad: interpretation, of historical-:materialism,3. refutation of Marxism's focus on surplus value and the class

struggle,

4. focus instead on the real, main contradiction, the oppressedversus imperialism, as key in applying historical materialism.

13.

MARXIST ERRORS ON NATURAL RESOURCES

During 1972, the people of the U.S. consumed approximately 30barrels of oil per capita; the people of India consumed about 3/10of a barrel per capita. About 39$ of the oil consumed in the U.S.was producedpother countries: Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, andIran. The 61% produced within U.S. borders was taken almostexclusively from land rightfully belonging to either the Afro-American people (U.S. Black Belt) or to Mexico. Now the U.S. isattempting to extract large amounts of oil from Native Peoples'

land in northern North America.

These few facts illustrate how unjust and unequal is theconsumption of oil in the world. For most other kinds of wealth,the picture is the same: The U.S. and a handful of other industrialized nations accumulate wealth far out of proportion to their

populations, leaving very little for the peoples af Asia, Africa,and South America, as well as Afro-Americans, Mexicans, and NativePeoples in North America. This inequity, initiated by colonialism,is intensified under modern-day imperialism.

Let us examine the record of Marxism on economic questions.

Historical materialism firmly grasps the contradiction betweenproductive forces and the relations of production in human society.When Marx used historical materialism to analyze capitalism, he

arrived at some important and useful conclusions about "value".We, however, focus on some of the more crucial economic errorscommitted by Marx and scrutinize Lenin's contribution in the samemanner.

^Figures' derived from statistics in N. H. Jacoby, MultinationalOil, Macmillan, 1971*, p. 55.

14.

What Marx Did and Did Not Say

Marx, with Engels' support and collaboration, built his economictheories on what he found positive in the ideas of such economistsas Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Marx went further than they didtaking a position against capitalism and calling on workers toorganize and overthrow it. To support his position, Marx undertookwhat he believed was systematic and scientific analysis of capitalistproduction centered on the "labor theory of value" of David Ricardo.Marx's theory provided a useful contribution to economics, adescription of the creation of value by human labor under capitalistproduction, including analysis of surplus value.

Marx's definition of value is found in the first volume ofCapital. It can be summarized as follows: capitalist productionis organized to produce "commodities". A "commodity" is a thingproduced by human labor that has value for someone; moreover someonemust be willing to exchange something for it. If it is to beexchanged, it must have some measurable value that governs what andhow much one gets in return. That exchange value is determined bythe amount of labor expended in its production. In the Marxistscheme, "value" is synonymous with "exchange value"; anything nota product of human labor is considered to have no value.

Marxism states that the value of commodities a worker producesis greater than the value of commodities he would need to subsist.This extra value is called "surplus value". But the capitalist,not the worker, owns the means of production. The capitalist isable to keep a part of the surplus value produced by the worker for -himself by paying wages which are less than the actual value of thecommodities produced by the worker.

Despite these important advances, Marx's treatment alsoresulted in some major theoretical errors that belie his "scientific"approach. These arose mainly as a consequence of his almostexclusive concern with capitalism as it developed in Europe. InCapital he relied on capitalist production in England

Karl Marx, Capital, Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscow,1961.

15.

to illustrate his theories. He did not consider the colonies,where capitalism was then either nonexistent or very weak, asimportant to his economic scheme.

Marx actually supported English colonialism in India. He wasguided by his "labor theory of value" which implied that theproletarians in Europe and the U.S., working under advanced capitalistconditions, were mainly responsible for the ever-increasing wealthand capital accumulation in Europe and the U.S. So Marx justifiedEnglish rule of India as a "civilizing" force: English colonialrule would develop an Indian proletariat and middle class whichcould constitute a market for English goods, thereby breaking the

pfeudal bonds and allowing capitalism to flourish in India.

In effect, Marx treated capitalism as a strictly Europeanphenomenon. However, Europe accumulated great wealth from thecolonies. While European labor played an important historicalrole in creating value, let us not forget the millions of Africans

enslaved by Europeans and brought to the Western Hemisphere where

they produced cotton, tobacco, sugar, and many other substances

that were used by Europeans and white Americans, including the

working classes. In addition, there was wholesale theft of food,minerals, oil, and numerous other substances that were not

produceable in Europe. So much did they desire the products of

land that the Europeans and later the Americans massacred the

native peoples of North America, Australia, and many parts ofSouth America, populating these areas with people of European

descent. Evidently Europe wanted land and resources badly enoughto murder and enslave. Marx's labor theory of value cannot

adequately explain either land-stealing or genocide. By restricting

value to that created by labor, it precludes assigning value tothe other main sourceland.

t

'Karl Marx, Capital, Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscow,1961.

Karl Marx, "The British Rule in India", Handbook of Marxism,International Publishers, New York, 19353 pp. 180-187.

16.

Land Also Contributes to Value

Marx acknowledged that land has a price but maintained that ithas no value (since it is not the product of human labor). Let usremember that Marx used the term "value" Interchangeably with the

term "exchange value". (The latter term is a theoretical tool hedefined to measure the amount of one commodity that can be exchangedfor another). According to the labor theory of value, over the longrun, commodities embodying the same amount of labor should exchangeequally.

This all seems theoretically sound until we consider land.Since land has a price, and virtually everything people use isderived from land, then to some degree, exchange value is notdetermined solely by labor but by land as well, so that in theMarxian sense, land has value. The exchange value of any commodityis composed of a certain part labor and another part land; we arenot proposing here a formula for calculating the percentages.

To illustrate our theory, we apply it to the economics of oil.The U.S. imports oil from Iran, among other countries. Most of thelabor used is highly-paid U.S. labor. The capital is drilling andpiping equipment manufactured in the U.S. Therefore, accordingto the labor theory of value, all the value of the oil is producedby U.S. labor. A certain price is paid to the government of Iran forthe oil. In Marxist theory this can only be considered rent. Marxsaid rent is part of the surplus value produced by labor which isexpropriated by the landlord by virtue of his monopoly on land.Thus from the Marxist point of view it is correct to say that thegovernment of Iran exploits U.S. workers. To the small extent thatthe money benefits the peasants and workers of Iran, the wholenation of Iran exploits U.S. workers. This is the attitude of theU.S. workers themselves and it is supported by Marxist theory. Marxis'theory says that oil production should make Iran richer arid the U.S.poorer.

The truth is just the opposite. The U.S. becomes richer becausethe oil has a value above its cost of production even with rent

17.

being paid. This value is not a product of labor but of land.

Land has value and some land is more valuable than other land.

By taking an extremely valuable portion of land (oil) and shippingit to the U.S., the U.S. becomes richer.

Of course Iranians have some money which they can spend in theworld market dominated by U.S. imperialism. But they have lost

their oil which could have been used to power irrigation,

fertilize crops and to develop industry. In addition, they help

strengthen their main enemy, U.S. imperialism, which recaptures

all the money and more through loans and military sales. The

money will soon be gone and so will the oil.

Going further, there is no reason why we, as Marx did, shouldrestrict our concept of value to "exchange value". For if we seekto explain the role of natural resources today, the labor theory ofvalue is unsatisfactory. It is true that many natural resourcesare worked into finished goods by industrial labor. But It isalso true that many, like petroleum or foods, are transferredto industrialized countries and consumed with little labor

intervention. The point Is that the acquisition and accumulationof these resources, and not labor, produced much of the wealthin the advanced capitalist countries.

Use Value

In Marx's time, his emphasis on exchange value had someapplication to Europe and the U.S. where capitalism had matured.In the rest of the world, where capitalism was present in limitedforms, if at all, the concept of exchange value had littlerelevance. Such is still the case today where feudalism survivesin many parts of the world and subsistence farming prevails. Soto limit "value" to "exchange value" as Marx did, implies thatmillions of people do not contribute any value and that their mostimportant possessions have no value. Since it is the oppressedpeoples who will play the biggest role in defeating imperialism(especially U.S. imperialism)we must reject Marx's one-sided opinio]

18.

of what constitutes "value" and develop realistic criteria.

Marx's equation of "value" with "exchange value" provided himwith a quantitative method to measure value, only partially correct

due to his denial of the value of land. Because of the limitations

of the Marxist approach, we propose a more qualitative view of"value" employing use value as broadly defined by Marx: "the utilityof a thing makes it a use value". This view enables us to assignvalue to the important things that Marxism belittles : products ofland. This is not a rejection of exchange value (with the alterationswe propose), but rather an enhanced emphasis on the other importantkind of value.

We must also propose an alteration to Marx's stated view inCapital on use value. In speaking of human wants satisfied by use

values, Marx asserts that "the nature of such wants, whether, for

instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes nop

difference." Contrast this with the following excerpt from thespeech at Marx's graveside by Engels, "...mankind must first of alleat, drink, have shelter and clothing before it can pursue politics,

science, art, religion, etc." We believe the latter to be the moreaccurate expression of use values: the use values that satisfy

wants springing from the stomach are the most immediate and important.

With the division of the world into oppressor and oppressed nations,it is generally the oppressed who have the fewest use values tosatisfy wants springing from the stomach, whereas the oppressorpeoples, accumulating most of the world's use values, are able toenjoy many that spring from both stomach and fancy.

For. .example, we would say that oil and gas, most of whichgoes to the industrialized countries, usually satisfy a want springingfrom a fancy when used to power cars there. They would have muchgreater use value if they were used by the oppressed peoples in

Karl Marx, Capital, p.36.^Karl Marx, Capital, p.35.3Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works of Karl Marx

and Frederick Engelsa Volume II, FLPH, Moscow, 1962, p.167.

19.

tractors for farming, in factories to develop machinery or weapons,

or for power generation. In an era when the oppressed peopleswill strike the main blows at imperialism, use values like these

that can support the national liberation forces of the oppressed,must be considered as primary. In the long run, satisfying nationalliberation needs will serve to produce the basic necessities ofexistence for the oppressed peoples.

Marx's Theory and the Black Economy

The needs of the Afro-American people provide a key example

of the shortcomings of the Marxist theory of value.In the Caribbean and its surrounding areas lie many territories

which Europeans colonized by slaughtering and driving out theIndians and importing slaves to raise a cash crop for export.

Of these, one of the largest is the Black Belt of the southernU.S. Black Belt cotton contributed mightily to the growth ofcapitalism in England and the U.S.

When Marx noted imported cotton's vital roll in the textileindustry,he treated its availability as an asset to the class

struggle joined over value added to cotton by proletarian labor.The value slave labor contributed was little discussed. The value

from huge territories on which the economies of New and old Englandfattened he declared non-existent. Yet, the industrial system

of that day. capital and labor, could not function withoutcolonized land and slavery.

Class-struggle blinders narrowed Marx's view of the U.S.Civil War. He supported Emancipation as the deathblow to U.S.capitalism's feudal opposition, yet once northern capitalism hadwon the war, Marx had little more to say, even though Blacks werestill fighting for land, education and political power in theSouth. The semi-feudal sharecropper system was the result of

their setbacks.

After World War I, and especially since World War II, Afro-Americans have been forced out of the Black Belt into the cities

20.

of the North and West. Marxists and others have emphasized thatthis was due to capitalism's need for labor and for a reserve armyof unemployed. This hardly seems likely as immigrant labor and afast-growing white population had always served before. The factis that imperialism's export of capital, mechanized production inthe Black Belt and made the Afro-Americans "surplus population" asfar as the imperialists were concerned. Their presence on the landbecame a threat to imperialist control, so they were driven off.

The pill was sweetened with some jobs and some welfare so thata violent struggle was averted. Marxists and others have picturedthis mass migration as a step forward from feudalism to capitalism,from sharecropper to proletarian. Marx did so in articles on theCivil War in the U.S. and Lenin in his article, "Development ofAgriculture in the U.S."1 We consider it a step backward, removingBlack population centers from Black Belt land.

Marxists consider land to have no value. But U.S. imperialismdraws cotton, timber, soybeans, peanuts, iron, coal and oil fromthe Black Belt. Of these, oil is the most important both as asource of large profits and for its particular use value. Imperialismas it now exists requires large quantities of oil to avoid a massivebreakdown in production and in bribes to its own working class,The Black Belt today makes a major contribution to U.S. "domestic"oil production. The oil Interests are most dangerous to the Afro-American nation because oil production requires even less unskilledlabor than mechanized agriculture, resulting in more exile andgreater pressures toward genocide.

The more capitalized agriculture becomes, the more dependentit becomes on oil companies' products and on the biggest banksas sources of finance capital. The Black Belt land remains a

source of great profits, but the development of "agribusiness"strengthens the control of the top and most genocidal imperialistso-ver Black Belt land.

Vladimir I. Lenin, "Development of Agriculture in the U.S.",Selected Works International Publishers, New York, Volume 12, 1937.

21.

Marxists argue that present-day imperialism, like the capitalisrof Marx's day, needs a Black reserve army of unemployed. In fact,Afro-American unemployment is a byproduct of finance capital inthe South. Newspaper accounts of high abortion rates, forcedsterilization, murder in prisons and malnutrition are evidence thatU.S. imperialism is attempting to destroy this reserve army beforeit can become a Black liberation army. As long as they remainsqueezed into extremely small areas of cities Blacks will be ingrave danger- of genocide. They depend on U.S. imperialism forfood, water, clothing and shelter controlling neither land normaterials for providing their own.

The land of the Black Belt has great potential value for theAfro-Americans as well as for U.S. imperialism. Not only can itprovide the personal necessities of food, water, clothing, andshelter, but the necessities for nation-building as well. Land

is needed to set up rural base areas and to feed troops in thestruggle against Imperialism. Oil, coal, and iron will be neededto build a machine-tool industry and to produce weapons for

defence of independence.

Like the fruitful land from which the Black Belt draws its

name, the theory of Afro-American liberation is a fertile fieldin which many great thinkers have labored. We believe that

clearing the land of imperialism requires clearing the theoreticalfield of the Marxist weeds with which it has long been overgrown.

One Century After Marx

As Marx foresaw events, wages in Europe and the U.S. woulddecline. He predicted that capital accumulation combined with

technological change of the instruments of production (improvedmachinery) would tend to lower the rate of profit and level ofwages in the long run. Lower wages, coupled with the realizationamong the proletarians that they, the "real producers of value"should control production, would, he believed, lead to socialist

revolutions in the most advanced capitalist countries.

p.o

S3

o

o

oq

P

r-

p

CO

ct

^

P>

^

ct

p>

ct

01

31

09

o

ct

W

P*p*

p.

Wp.

3

4

ct

33

o

*-*)

M>

CDCD

3c

'J-

o

3

3*

3*

CO

3*

ct

p

4

O

3*

0

3

p*

CO

c

0

P

p.P*

o

4

3

Pi

3

-*>

CO

Pi

S3

^

i^r

P*

M

P

P,

0

Xi

Eh

3

73

o

CO

rH

0

Xi

43

co

CO

rHnH

McdnH

u

H

73

0

cd

C

CD

K

n

S

VO

CO

CO

nH

X

o

>s

3

vo

ONbO

C

M

u6

r-

Xi

COrH

CO

C

O

3

C

o

o

ON

C

1

=r

nHo

0

:s

CO

M

rH

C

o

in

C

73

4^

CO

CD

bC

ON

0

o

CD

P.

=rr-C^

rH

CO

CO

O

=r^=r

O

CM

=rO^

o

cd

COrH

Ehw

o

0

CO

>

>cd

rH

m

0

Cm

t>-

Xi

0cd

:

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

O

rH

cr\

CO

CO

in-=r

=r-=T

-=r

CO

CO

0

H

En

nH

o

0

H

0

rH

bO

cd

43

CO

CO

cd

rH

e-

u

M

o

M

Xi

C

COON

0

bO

27.

On the labor theory of value. We must assume that when he referred

to "super-profits", Lenin was thinking of "profits" in the Marxistsense resulting from surplus value. As we argue earlier, surplusvalue is not the only source of profits; through its products,

land produces profits as well. During the colonialist period,such labor-intensive products as cotton, tea, coffee, cocoa,

sugar, and spices were the important goods (excepting the slavetrade) shipped from the colonies to Europe. By the imperialistera, technological developments in the imperialist societiesrequired oil and minerals above all and developed machinery fortheir extraction. This shift meant the labor of the oppressed

peoples had less use for the imperialists than before. Productsof labor took second place in importance to products of the land.

U.S. government statistics on direct investment bristlewith supporting facts. For example, in 1975 we find overseasinvestment divided between Canada and Europe (6l%) and the restof the world (39$) roughly encompassing the oppressed nations.We look to manufacturing investment as a prime example of labor-intensive sources of profits and to petroleum as land-intensive.For 1975, roughly half of the petroleum investment was outsideWestern Europe and Canada. At the same time, this oppressedarea accounted for only 20$ of U.S. overseas manufacturing capital.In U.S. relations with oppressed peoples, products of labor

2take second place to products of land.

Lenin states that "under modern capitalism when monopoliesprevail, the export of capital" (from the imperialist countries)"has become the typical feature"3. Properly, emnhasis on theresults of capital exports suggest that today the typical featurehas become the export of land values from the oppressed nationsto the oppressor nations. The result is: most of the land values

1J.V.Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, International Publishers,New York, 1939, p.10.

Statistics from Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1976, U.S.Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census, 1976, Table 1396,p.328

^Lenin, Imperialism, p.56.

28.

of the earth have accumulated in the oppressor nations with oilproviding today's most striking example. Emphasizing the essentialrole of land values helps us to recognize the vital role ofnational liberation struggles and particularly the importance ofland in these struggles.

While major leaders like Stalin and. Mao did make prominentpolitical contributions to Marxism-Leninism, in the main theypracticed it as disciples, accepting the economic theoriesuncritically. For this reason, we have limited the discussionof economics to Marx and Lenin.

Conclusion

Our main points are: Marx's fundamental errors on colonialismand value influenced Lenin. As a result, instead of recognisingthe main contradiction, (between the oppressed peoples and imperialismheaded by the U.S.), Marxist-Leninists place their greatest faithin the workers in the industrialized West. For the last 30 years

however, the oppressed peoples have been in the forefront of thestruggle against imperialism, while the Western working class,as a whole, has been a bulwark of imperialism much longer than that.So Marxism-Leninism is incorrect on the most important question

facing the world's people.What we know today *as Marxism-Leninism encompasses a generally

reactionary theory. Those who profess to follow it, particularlythose in state power, are apologists for the status quo, objectivelybacking imperialism. By taking what is positive from the economicideas of Marx and Lenin, criticizing what is harmful, and developingnew answers to replace what is wrong, we hope to contribute to anew theory which will help the oppressed peoples defeat U.S.imperialism and its ideological allies, the Marxist-Leninists.

The following chapter discusses political and historicalaspects of our legacy from Marxism.

29.

MARXISMPROBLEMATICAL LEGACY

We study Marxism's historical role as we would any other

drawing on the general premises of historical materialism. Marxismis the product of historical conditions. After capitalism developedthere was class struggle because the capitalist class didappropriate surplus value from proletarian labor.

However, Marxism was quite incomplete. It was then the mostaccurate analysis of proletarian-capitalist relations, but thesewere the main relations it considered. In fact, there were two

kinds of value accumulating in the hands of European and U.S.capitalists: l)surplus value from proletarian (and colonial andslave) labor; 2) value from the land of colonized peoples.

Further, there was a strong connection between the appropriation of values from colonies and the appropriation of surplusvalue from the proletariat. Since Marxism did not recognize valuefrom land at all and underemphasized the role of non-proletariancolonial labor, it presented a distorted picture. This contradiction accounts for both the successes and failures of Marxism

as a theory and guide to action. Our discussion of Marxism'srole in history emphasizes the socialist revolutions in Russiaand China and their relations with oppressed peoples.

Marxism and the National Question Through 1917The world's first socialist revolution occurred not where

capital and the proletariat were most developed, but in Russiawhere capital was weak. Russian imperialism exploited the Russianworking class, but also the land (as well as labor) of otherpeoples; the land values that Marxism and Russian Marxists

30.

ignored did flow in the Russian empire. World War I consumedthese values leaving Russian capitalists without the resources toforestall a revolution led by the impoverished working class. Aclass-struggle theory fitted the situation without reflecting itfully accurately. Marxism was able to lead the October Revolution.

The October Revolution and the following economic developmentprovide a great historical example of the material gains possiblefor the masses when surplus value from proletarian and peasantlabor is released for the social and personal use of the producers.It showed the possibility of rapid economic development undercentral planning, demonstrating that the capitalist had becomeobsolete as a necessary element in production. The USSR provedMarx's theory on these points.

While Marxism scored one big victory in the class strugglearena, it limped along, pushed by events, on the national question.Because Marxists could not see that oppression of other nationsand peoples was the main source of strength of "their" Europeanand North American imperialists in the class struggle, they viewednational demands as something subordinate, and possible harmfulto the class struggle.

Within the limits of Marxist economics, national oppression

meant control by an oppressor nation's capitalists over valueproduced by labor in an oppressed nation. This view tended to bypass most nations and peoples of Asia, Africa, South and CentralAmerica, the Black Belt and North American Indians, who produced

relatively little surplus value but whose lands were pillaged.Marx paid insufficient attention to the colonial profits he did

recognizesurplus value from laborbecause it was extracted mainlyfrom non-proletarians not involved in class struggle.

Although colonial profits had existed since the origin ofcapitalism, the "national question" received most theoreticalattention when national divisions undermined proletarian solidarityamong European nations or when necessary to the October Revolution.Stalin's Marxism and the National Question (1913) deals primarily

31.

with European nations, where the Marxist idea of national oppression

mainly through surplus value, was more accurate. Marxism and the

National Question argues that only peoples with a capitalisteconomy and other unifying attributes can enjoy'solf-determinatirn. .

"A nation is a historically evolved, stable communityof language, territory, economic life and psychologicalmakeup manifested in a community of culture."2We agree that a nation, according to Stalin's definition,

has the power to maintain itself economically and culturally in a

capitalist-dominated world. However, the definition best fitsimperialist nationsU.S. whites, Russians, English, French,Germans,Italians, Japanese, and the dominant Han nation of China.

This group (by monopolizing the values from the oppressed'sland) robs them of the opportunity to develop their own unifiedand diversified economies. Only by seizing political and economiccontrol of their land can the oppressed nations develop powerfuleconomies capable of providing for their people and fulfilling

Stalin's definition. Contrary to Stalin's work, peoples who meetthe other criteria of his defintrn9but lack a capitalist economy,have the right to match action to their anti-imperialist aspirations

Marxism and the National Question1918 and AfterThe October Revolution produced a change of emphasis in

Marxism which had a strong effect on the oppressed. Before the

October Revolution, the main revolutionary goal world-wide wasexecuting the class struggle. After it succeeded in the USSR,a new main problem developedstrengthening and supporting the

proletarian state. The oppressed had not received much attention

as actors in the class struggle, but with imperialism as a whole

the main enemy of the new USSR, the oppressed became an ally.

Furthermore, the European proletariat had proven a weaker allythan expected while most of the USSR's territory and borders were

occupied by non-European oppressed nations and peoples.

J.V.Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, ForeignLanguages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954, p.14

2Stalin, p.16.

32.

In 1913 Stalin stated, "The obligations of Social-Democracy,

which defends the interests of the proletariat, and the rights

of a nation, which consists of various classes, are two differentthings."1 In 1918, he wrote, "Thus the October Revolution, byestablishing a tie between the peoples of the backward East andof the advanced West, is ranging them in a common camp of struggle

pagainst imperialism."

In 1918 and 1924 (Foundations of Leninism), Stalin accusesKautsky and the Second International of limiting discussion ofthe national question to European nations. Lenin and Stalin themselves did just that before the October Revolution. As dialecticalmaterialists, they should have credited their recent politicalexperience with changing their ideas, for that is what happened.The need for an international front to counter the imperialists

unanimous hostility is what expanded Marxism to include the rightof self-determination for imperialism's colonies.

The shift on the national question produced some ideas whichcontradicted basic Marxism. Originally, Marxism's view was; "Theproletariat has no country." But to establish the USSR, Lenin,and Stalin had to reverse their earlier opposition to federalismand draw internal boundaries to create national republics. Stalin's(1924) statement supporting the Egyptian bourgeoisie and the Emirof Afghanistan against imperialism properly tends to negate hisideas of 1913 that class struggle is the main task in every nation;that only industrialized, capitalist peoples have the right toself-determination. Similarly, the presentation of three majorcontradictions (working class vs. capitalists, imperialism vs.oppressed, imperialist vs. imperialist) tends to blur Marx's focus

Joseph V. Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, ForeignLanguages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954, p.34.

2Joseph V. Stalin, The October Revolution, Foreign LanguagesPublishing House, Moscow, 1957, p.19.

3Joseph V. Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, InternationalPublishers, New York, 1939, pp.76-77.

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "The Communist Manifesto",Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works in Two Volumes,Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1962, Volume I, p.51.

33.

on class struggle. Though Marx and Engels supported colonialismin many instances, on the theoretical front, Lenin and Stalinopposed all national oppression by imperialism.

No Marxist pursued the national, question to discover the truemechanics of national oppression and bribery of theoppressor working classes. Stalin's 1913 work on the national

question stood unquestioned along with his later work. In short,the shift on the national question produced not clear-cuttheoretical changes in Marxism, but contradictions within it.

Lack of better Marxist theory on the national question madeMarxism the failure it is today, but the post-1917 positionscontradicting previous Marxismplayed an important role amongnationalists of oopressed nations. For the first time a stateproclaimed opposition to all national oppression, making majorimprovements in the lives of oppressed nationalities within itsborders. For the first time, an established government set upan international organization to aid national struggles and offereda world view asserting the power and necessity of politically

conscious men to bring revolution.Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Sun Yat-sen all described the galvanizing

effect of Marxism in state power. Marxism did not create nationalliberation strugglesnational oppression didand its theorytends to exclude national struggles as a force. But Marxism was"right for the wrong reasons"; it offered hope and organizationat a time when many oppressed nationalists were ready to respond.From this hope and organization came the Marxist-led struggleswhich reached their height in many oppressed nations in che decadefollowing World War II.

On the other hand, the errors of Marxism and the USSR'sfailure to correct them also help to explain why U.S. imperialismwas able to defeat most of these struggles.

In the name of proletarian unity, the Soviet leaders gavepriority to a strong central economy. The USSR would have beenstronger had it encouraged its formerly oppressed nations and

34.

peoples to develop their own national economies, placing theirproducts at the disposal of other national struggles. Such anemphasis might have prevented the development of the presentimperialist economy. The CPSU leaders attempted to end nationaloppression as they understood itrevolving around surplus value.They used proletarian power to resolve class questions againstboth the Russian capitalist and feudal powers, and against capitalistand feudal exploiters among the oppressed. The surplus valuereleased brought material and social gains to the oppressed, aswell as to the Russians.

Yet autonomous political forms and a raised standard of livingdo not constitute national self-determination. There was nothing

in Marxism to prevent Russian economic planners from continuingthe imperial pattern of using crops and power from the oppressedto supply Russian industry. The Russian proletariat took creditfor the value of the oppressed lands' contribution to production,in appearance subsidizing the oppressed Republics while theoppressed really were subsidizing Russian industry. The oppressedtook the best alternative in joining the USSR. But, using Marxism,the USSR could not solve the problem of their economic relationswith Russia.

Marx was in error when he wrote that capitalism from Europecould develop capitalism in the colonies. Hence, it was impossiblefor the Russian working class to use his theory to develop industryin its oppressed Republicsthe values from the land cannot be intwo places at once. If they are developing Russian industry theyare not there for the oppressed peoples.

Even when industry in the USSR was established outside Russiafor military or economic reasons, it was still part of the centrally-controlled system using power and land values from oppressed nationsin Russian industryin this case the Russian workers came alongwith the factory. The increased Russian population in someoppressed Republics ran counter to the USSR's attempts to developoppressed cultures. How can their culture flourish while the

35.

people are denied their land base? The USSR contains oppressed

peoples who are well off compared to most, but remain suppliersof raw materials and buyers of finished goods with little industrialbase of their own to guarantee their standard of living.Ultimately, the question of control of the USSR's oppressed peoples'land must be fought out.

Soviet planners applied Marxist theory on building Socialism

and on the national question and gave the USSR an economy which

functions like imperialism. Especially after it grew larger,this economy developed the same interests on a world scale asimperialismobtaining raw materials, trading in the internationalmarket which favors big industrial economies.

At this point the interests of the USSR and the oppressedbegan to diverge. When the USSR was struggling to exist againstimperialism, it weakened imperialism and helped national liberationin spite of its Marxist, wrong, orientation toward class strugglein Europe and North America and toward its own economy. Later,however, the same USSR-first policy justified peaceful economiccompetition and summit diplomacy with imperialist powers. Itstrengthened Imperialism and directly attacked oppressed peoples,as in the creation of Israel.

The United Front Against Fascism, World War II and the 1950'sexhibit contradictory tendencies. The earlier efforts of theUSSR on the national question bore fruit, especially in China.On the other hand, the USSR moved into the ruling circle of animperialist-controlled world.

The only clear-cut alternative was a break with Marxism,putting the national liberation struggles in first place. But,like Europeans and U.S. whites, Russians had a great materialstake in the status quo and in theories which justify it. Thetitles of Stalin's main writings of those years indicate postwar Soviet interests: For Peaceful Co-Existence, EconomicProblems of Socialism in the USSR. A third, Marxism and

36.

Linguistics . discussed language issues in the USSR without mentioningthe national question.1

National liberation struggles flared up after World War II.However, the Marxist leaders of these struggles, many of whom had been 'encouraged by the Communist International in earlier:times, were *unable to resolve the conflict between their necessary activities andthe international Communist line. Today, through the limitationsof Marxism, these leaders, their parties and their line are partof the roadblock to a new anti-imperialist ideology.

As a major power, the USSR has helped a handful of Marxist andnon-Marxist leaders take power in oppressed nationsCuba, Chile,Bangladesh, Vietnam and Angola are major examples. These countrieshave various forms of government and different kinds of diplomaticrelations with the U.S. and the USSR. In every case, their economicoppression remains.

China might seem an exception. Why did Marxism succeed inbringing a measure of economic and political independence to China,in spite of its general failure where imperialism's victims wereconcerned?

Marxism and China

From the long history of Marxism in China, we distill fourimportant reasons. 1) The shift on the national question after theOctober Revolution led Lenin, Stalin, and Mao to agree that imperialism, not internal capitalism was China's main enemy. 2) Thedominant Han nation had a proletariat, petty-bourgeoisie andbourgeoisie and according to a Marxist view on the national question,they had a right to self-determination. 3) Imperialism oppressedthe Hans mainly through trade and industry, wringing surplus valuefrom peasants and proletariat in a dozen different ways; Marxistscould understand this process. The Hans' own economy was an exception

Joseph V. Stalin, For Peaceful Co-Existence, InternationalPublishers, New York, 1951.

, Economic Problems of Socialism In the USSR, ForeignLanguages Publishing House, Moscow, Second Edition, 1953.

, Marxism and Linguistics, International Publishers,New York, 1951.

37.

arar-ng oppressed nations. This is why Marxism could play a construe-f tive role in China. But this is also why Chinese urgings of other

oppressed to emulate them will lead only to setbacks. 4) Finally,the USSR supported China more than it did any other oppressed

outside its borderspartly because a Soviet China would clearly

strengthen the USSR, partly because it could understand oppression

of China. As a result, Marxist ideas on class struggle andbuilding socialism were adapted to China without questioning the

assumption that value comes only from labor.

The ideological differences which developed between China

and the USSR around i960 reflected their different positions inthe world. The USSR was a world power with industrial might and

diplomatic and cultural relations with imperialism. China'seconomy was still very weak and backward and she was under threat

of imperialist attack. The differences focused on two points:who is the main revolutionary forcethe industrial working classor oppressed nationsand what attitude to take toward U.S.

imperialism?

The leaders of the Peoples' Republic of China never didrenounce the Moscow Statement of i960 (8l-Party Statement), aclass-struggle document. In 1963 they issued a statement inMao's name confusing the Afro-American liberation movement withclass struggle. In the face of one setback after another for the

oppressed, they insisted U.S. imperialism was a paper tiger. While

the ideological struggle with the USSR continued, China's economydeveloped further. The Communist Party showed no advance overMarxism on its policy toward the oppressed peoples within Chinawho lacked capitalist features. As the Han economy developed,pressure to use the other peoples' land grew.

The Cultural Revolution in 1966 was a major turning pointa political line aimed at developing the Han economy and comingto terms with U.S. imperialism supplanted support to the oppressed.The Cultural Revolution ended ideological developments in China

a

38.

which contradicted Marxism. At their best, the Chinese Communistleaders let the contradiction between Marxism and their idea of the

main contradiction stand without exploring its implications.U.S. Blacks are one of many oppressed nations who have been

harmed by the ideas of Chinese Marxists. As U.S. whites who have

supported Marxism and particularly Stalin on the Afro-American

question, we now re-examine Marxism's role from our new critical view.

Marxism and Afro-Americans

As we discuss above, Marx saw Black slavery and Emancipationin I863 entirely from the perspective of the class struggle in thebig capitalist economies of England and the USA. Slave labor andBlack Belt land were the actual productive forces over which theCivil War was fought, but Marx was not equipped to see the bearingthese forces had on English and U.S. capitalism. An independentBlack economy in the Black Belt would have weakened U.S. and English

capitalism. A Black Belt dominated by U.S. capital did just theopposite. After the Civil War, Marx and U.S. Marxists made no demandsfor Black control of the Black Belt because they could not see alarge proletariat or a significant class struggle there.

In 1929, as part of the effort to include oppressed nations

in a common front against imperialism, the Communist International2

declared the Afro-Americans an oppressed nation in the Black Belt.

Books were written by U.S. Marxists showing how the Afro-Americansfit Stalin's definition of a nation.

There is no doubt that between 1863 and 1929 the Afro-Americansdeveloped a larger bourgeoisie, petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat.To that extent the Afro-Americans "became" a nation. However, the

main problem is with Stalin's definition of a nation. In the absence

of a large Afro-American proletariat, great values were taken from

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Civil War in the UnitedStates , 3rd Ed. , International Publishers, New York, 1961.

pCommunist International, The 1928 and 1930 Cominterm Resolutions

on the Black National Question in the United States, RevolutionaryReview Press, P.O. Box 3408, Washington, D.C., 1975.

-*Harry Haywood, Negro Liberation, International Publishers,

39.

the Black Belt over that entire period. Increasingly, those

values were from the land alone, as U.S. imperialism brought in

farm machinery to replace Black labor. Much of the new Black

proletariat was forced off the land and out of the Black Belt to

work for not Blacky but white capital. Such a course is not a

sign of development of unified economic life, but of itsdestruction. Thus, becoming eligible for nationhood under

Stalin's definition was a pyrrhic victory.

There is a great apparent change from Marx in the l860'swho neglected the possibility of Black control of the Black Belt,to Stalin, who helped to establish recognition of Afro-American

nationhood in 1929. The practical change was not so great since

the Communist International still did not recognize the Black

Belt land as a source of immense values to U.S. imperialism.

Since the development of sizeable proletarian forces was

accompanied by exile and these forces were considered the

potential Black political vanguard, the Communist Internationalresolution and practice by U.S. Marxists had no choice withinMarxism but to emphasize Black and white proletarian unity and

to all but ignore the "formality'' of Black rights to state

power in the Black Belt.

The International's resolution has helped a'-~ver^few:-To^&esadvance on the Afro-American question to the point of breaking

with Marxism. In the main, it misled by applying Marxism onvalue and Stalin's Marxism and the National Question.

Conclusion

Marxism, partially valid as it was, was a major advance inphilosophy, economics and political thought. It came into being

because the proletariat could run production and play a political

role independent from the capitalists. Capitalism restricted the

early economic and political development of the oppressed nations

New York, 1948.William Z. Foster, The Negro People in American History,

International Publishers, New York, 1954, Reprinted in 1970.

40.

As a result, Marxism reflected almost exclusively the material view

of the European and U.S. proletariat, and later that of the Russian

and Chinese proletariat in power, bettering themselves both vis-a-visthe imperialists and the oppressed. All the gaps and errors inMarxism push toward sacrificing the oppressed and compromising withimperialism.

The partial truth of Marxism produced important revolutionary

successes in Russia and China. And Marxism became a very strong

ideological force in spite of blatant contradictions between

Marxist theory, socialist practice, and the needs of the oppressednations. These glaring contradictions and the ever-increasing

suffering of the oppressed peoples under imperialism will be the

impetus for an ideological advance beyond Marxism, an advance

heralding success in the struggle of the oppressed to controltheir own lands.