New Boundaries One March 1978 by Mickey Ellinger

NEW W

BOUNDARIES S

UNITED

&^X~& y"

PUERTO RICO

sO "HAWAII

0 13

Dotted lines show approximate North American boundaries after

imperialism is defeated and land returned to it3 rightful owners Large tracts of land south of our mark belong to other native peoples. Also the Virgin Islands, Samoa, Guam, the Panama Canal Zone and numerous Pacific Islands, all "territorial

possessions"of the US will be controlled by the indigenous peoples.

New Boundaries

Send Printed Material to:

MAR.

Send Letters to:

Dartmouth East

G. Smith Box 102 Lakeside

Nova Scotia, Canada

Martin

Box 2761

B2W 4R4

BoJ 1Z0

NEW BOUNDARIES

Table of Contents

New Boundaries, An Introduction

What Is Our Philosophy?

Marxist Errors on Natural Resources

Marxismâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Problematical Legacy

NEW BOUNDARIES, AN INTRODUCTION

Future battles will transform todayfs political map of North

America into new, more just, boundaries like those we depict.

Present borders reflect might, not right.

In North America and

world-wide, phrases like "advanced" and "less developed" nations

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

Imperialist countries, headed by the U.S., control and deplete

the resources of the world, making misery, starvation, genocide commonplace for the exploited peoples and degrading oppressor

peoples into living as parasites. the

To solve most current problems,

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 economies develop in balance with the needs of people and nature; world trade

be 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 their supporters.

Correct ideas will speed change while wrong ones are

greatly responsible for losses and setbacks suffered by the oppressed in past and present struggles.

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

dedicated to the process of change in human society.

For the

last century most revolutionaries have looked to the theories and experiences of Marx and Engels and their followers. Yet others have criticized them sharply. "Communism is not an ideology suited

for Black people, period.

Socialism is not an ideology fitted for

Black people, period, period," declared Stokely Carmichael, Black

Power advocate.

He continued, "Communism nor Socialism does not speak

to 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 condem nation applied to "revisionist" Marxism as practised in Russia and

China but not to all Marxism.

In this article, we reexamine the

problem in light of experiences since then.

We turned to the Marxist movement drawn by its history of action and accomplishments, by its avowed goal of changing the status quo.

We realized that the most crucial struggles in the world were for the liberation of oppressed peoples, so we stayed with the ideas of Marxism-Leninism which paid attention to these battles. Aspiring to be Marxist-Leninists we urged others to do so, believing that increased knowledge and understanding of Marxist-Leninist writings would lead to greater success for the oppressed peoples and increased support for them from the oppressor nations. Through these years we learned from a U.S. newsletter entitled

Hammer & Steel which always tried to evaluate ideas, individuals, and current events in light of their contribution to victory for

the oppressed peoples.

Consistent backing of national liberation

differentiated Hammer & Steel from other Marxist-Leninist publications, and over the years led to its separation from and struggle against various individuals, groups and ideas which in practice continued support 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 a

homeland in the Black Belt, Afro-Americans form a seoarate nation

oppressed within U.S. boundaries.

Longtime victims of genocidal

attacks, their danger has increased because of neglect and betrayal by 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, out of print.

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

Yet attempts to win non-left white support for Blacks taught us the vast extent of white supremacy among our people.

Unsuccess

ful struggle to change U.S. Marxist demands for Black-white integrate into support for the right to secession demonstrated the sell-out

of our left.

Attempts to discuss these topics with China and

Albania eventually taught us the reluctance and inability of the

socialist camp to fight imperialism on this vital front.

Consistently, Hammer & Steel spoke out in favor of national liberation and against the theories of Marxist-Leninists. Specifically, Hammer & Steel called for the break-up of imperialist boundaries, 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's liberation" 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 peoples by the USSR since Stalin's death.

They called for the destruction

of the State of Israel as the only way to defend Palestinians' right to their land.

Our grasp of these positions, proven sound

by 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 becomes

stronger, producing military and economic defeats for the oppressed in great number while leftist movements provide no explanations or solutions.

The question arises:

are there some basic errors

in Marxist philosophy which make its followers into vacillating allies at best and, at worst, outright opponents of the oppressed peoples? The real world calls for such a reassessment of Marxism. We found it useful to compare U.S. imperialism with German

imperialism before World War II. Like the U.S., a powerful imperialistâ&#x20AC;&#x17E; Germany had working and middle classes whose great majority supported their ruling class's aggression. They were "led" by a left that mostly failed to understand the support, to prevent the aggression, or to save

itself.

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

Members of oppressor nations who call themselves MarxistLeninists refuse to expose and correct chauvinism in their own people. workers.

Instead they urge "unity" between oppressor and oppressed They continue to develop these theories supported by

Marxism'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 larger industrialized states of Western Europe. They regarded large industrialized nations as essential to world progress. Though they decried national oppression, Marx and Engels had little

sympathy for the demands of small nations.! They (Marx and Engels) ignored completely the greatest The Haitian

revolutionary event of the 19th century:

revolution of 1804. Haiti, where the Black masses triumphed over aryan oppressors.2

1Soulbook3 Volume 3, Number 10, (Spring, 1975), p. 40, P.O. Box 61213, Los Angeles, Calif. 90059, USA.

2Ibid., p.7.

With these ideas in mind, we read Accumulation of Capital1, Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernisation and reread Capital. We studied the topic of natural resources, wealth and land.-looking for theoretical support in Marx's economic work for the right of people to control their own land. The lack of such key material from 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.

the liberation struggles are inevitable, so is the development of international assistance both theoretical and practical.

Such

aid will begin with efforts to exchange experiences and ideas, support and criticism. the

articles

We hope to contribute to such efforts in

that follow.

in the following article we discuss the basis of our political orientation.

Rosa 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-

WHAT IS OUR PHILOSOPHY?

We need a correct, consistent philosophical viewpoint from which to develop our critique of Marxism. Our study begins by reaffirming dialectical materialism and the general framework of historical materialism as developed by Marx and Engels.

It describes how

Marx and Engels used historical materialism wrongly. They placed their main hopes for revolution on the workers in industrialized nations and condemned the oppressed colonial peoples to a secondary role.

Developments have taken a different turn.

The main revolutionary

force has turned out to be patriots from all classes of oppressed

nations opposed to domination of their national resources by imperial ismâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;especially U.S. imperialism.

It is by denying this fact and

following Marx that contemporary Marxists have turned into supporters of the status quo.

As past proponents of Marxism, we attempt a contribution to revolutionary 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 historical materialist 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 1

Joseph V. Stalin, History of the Communist Party of the Soviet

Union (Bolsheviks); Short Course, International Publishers, New York, 1939, p"."105-131.

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. some cases.

Dialectics and "common sense" overlap in

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.

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

turn into its opposite.

But common

imperialism will

This requires a more formal understanding

and conscious application of dialectical materialism.

In fact, the common sense approach says that U.S. imperialism will remain strong and that it is best to adapt to it rather than oppose 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 world as an interconnected, united whole, in which everything is moving

and changing.

Change is not random but reflects contradictions

between 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 are weak.

Yet their gradual development will progress to leaps forward

and eventual victory.

Today, we cannot predict whether this

transformation of quantity to quality will flow from a world

war weakening the imperialist system, from a series of "local" guerilla wars, or from other events.

We can, however, use the

dialectical method to forecast the end of the imperialist system.

The principles of dialectics are drawn from nature and observed in history.

Applying the dialectical method means

studying the internal contradictions in events. Further, dialectics is truly revolutionary since it focuses on development and change. Yet conforming to the dialectical method is no

guarantee of useful discussion or an advance in theory.

The results

of such discussion or theory must be tested for more than their

formal recognition of contradiction. predict objective events?

Can the theory explain and

Can it be used to influence events,

to change the world? Why Materialism?

We believe the world is material; that there exist objective

laws outside man's mind (or "God's will").

A materialist judges

theory in relation to that material world.

Correct theory can

predict and influence events.

In turn, it is events, social

developments, which are mainly responsible for the development (and sometimes the lack of development) of ideas:

Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch

form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must therefore be explained, instead of vice versa as had hitherto been the case.

In brief, materialism means that society is the main influence

on ideas but dialectics tells us that ideas bear an important, secondary influence on society. For this reason, we are strict about the preservation and development of our theory.

Study of the

role of ideas in history shows that theory can become a material

force. It follows that the test of scientific theory must be its predictive power and the possibility of using the theory to speed historical developments. As a result, we need to update the theory constantly 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.

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 antago nistic aspects of the mode of production.

Productive forces, the

leading aspect, are the inputs into production

capital

land, labor,

organized into a system by the relations of production.

For example, different relations of production distinguish socialism

in the USSR before World War II (state ownership of capital) from capitalism (private ownership of capital). As developed by Marx and Engels, historical materialism focuses on the contradiction between relations of production

(ownership) and productive forces.

Once a given social system

has reached a certian point in its development, its relations of production begin to restrict further development of the productive forces, leading to its replacement by a new and more efficient

system.

We take from historical materialism its focus on relations

of production and productive forces.

We question its application

by Marx and Engels who violated dialectics by looking only o.t

Europe when using their framework to study the transition from capitalism 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 profits remaining from sales of products after wages and other costs are

deducted.

For Marx, the contradiction between the relations of

production and the productive forces hinged on the appropriation of surplus value.

the class struggle

The contradiction over surplus value produced

the central contradiction according to Marx

and Engels.

As the world market expanded and brought with it increasing

10.

scale of production, Marx foresaw that capitalism would tend toward

increased need for raw materials- and lower wages. The former would lead to a spreading of capitalism while the latter transformed the working class into its gravediggers. By continuing Ricardo's labor theory of value Marx was able to make surplus value the source of

capital's might and the class struggle the driving force in history. He looked for expansion of surplus value as the source of increased profits.

Mgrx's view was rooted in a valid philosophical system which we reaffirm. His economic analysis uncovered and dissected the contradiction between two important productive forces labor and capital and the resulting class struggle. Yet his view was

restricted by his times. Great though his knowledge was, both of history and of the events of his day, it failed to encompass obvious developments outside Europe and North America, developments little influenced by the labor theory of value. For example, when Marx and Engels studied the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe, they focused on one important feature the factory system. They traced its development and its impact on rural life the enclosures. In Volume I of Capital, Marx lays bare the contri bution of landstealing in England and Scotland to primitive accumu lation of capital for factories.1 But the wealth generated from the slave trade in the colonies receives almost no attention. When he does write on the colonies, Marx views them as a net drain on

Europe's wealth.2 In fact, the colonial and slave systems probably contributed more heavily to the early accmumlation af capital and to the defeat of feudalism in Europe tfVan did low wages. Appropriation of resources from all over the world is the

key to the wealth of the imperialist countries today. As long as wealth from the oppressed nations supports high living standards for workers in imperialist nations, the class struggle between labor ÂąKarl Marx, Capital, Volume I, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 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 a mere 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 in

Europe as capitalism expanded, Marx indirectly participated in economic and cultural developments bought at the expense of the colonies.

He tended to see other parts of the world as permamently

auxiliary to Europe

For him,

whether Europe be capitalist or socialist.

the main battlegrounds were Europe and North America,

the main protagonists, capital and labor. In different degrees, Lenin, Stalin and Mao advanced somewhat over Marx and Engels in applying historical materialism outside

Europe.

On the positive side, they recognized that capitalism

develops unevenlyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;leading to a contradiction between imperialism

and national forces (including capitalists) in oppressed nationsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; the 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 objectively

on the side of imperialism when it came to the colonies.

It is an

unfortunate fact that the present treatment of national liberation forces as auxiliary to "socialism" in Russia and China is based not on revising but on following Lenin and Stalin.

In today 's world the contradiction between labor and capital is, along with every major development, influenced by the main contradiction between finance capital* headed by US imperialism, and the peoples from whose territory it draws its oil and other vital raw materials.

For the imperialist system (relations of

production) has restricted the production of food and basic

necessities on their land (productive forces) driving these peoples either to resist imperialism or to become victims of

genocide.

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 of development differ from those of the West.

In answering these

questions, Marxists have almost always neglected the national and stressed the class aspects of developments in oppressed nations. By freeing historical materialism from its crippling focus on class struggle we promote future answers

answers to the status-quo

Marxism of Moscow and Peking. So by returning historical materialism to its original general

interpretation, we develop a theory which is valid today and of service 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 oppressed versus imperialism, as key in applying historical materialism.

13.

MARXIST ERRORS ON NATURAL RESOURCES

During 1972, the people of the U.S. consumed approximately 30 barrels of oil per capita; the people of India consumed about 3/10 of a barrel per capita.

About 39$ of the oil consumed in the U.S.

was producedpother countries:

Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and

The 61% produced within U.S. borders was taken almost

Iran.

exclusively from land rightfully belonging to either the AfroAmerican people (U.S. Black Belt) or to Mexico.

Now the U.S. is

attempting to extract large amounts of oil from Native Peoples' land in northern North America.

These few facts illustrate how unjust and unequal is the

consumption of oil in the world. the picture is the same:

For most other kinds of wealth,

The U.S. and a handful of other indus

trialized 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 Native

Peoples 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 between

productive 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 errors committed by Marx and scrutinize Lenin's contribution in the same manner.

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

14.

What Marx Did and Did Not Say

Marx, with Engels' support and collaboration, built his economic theories on what he found positive in the ideas of such economists

as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Marx went further than they didâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; taking a position against capitalism and calling on workers to organize and overthrow it. To support his position, Marx undertook

what he believed was systematic and scientific analysis of capitalist production centered on the "labor theory of value" of David Ricardo.

Marx's theory provided a useful contribution to economics, a description of the creation of value by human labor under capitalist production, including analysis of surplus value. Marx's definition of value is found in the first volume of

Capital. It can be summarized as follows: capitalist production is organized to produce "commodities". A "commodity" is a thing produced by human labor that has value for someone; moreover someone must be willing to exchange something for it.

If it is to be

exchanged, it must have some measurable value that governs what and

how much one gets in return. That exchange value is determined by the amount of labor expended in its production.

In the Marxist

scheme, "value" is synonymous with "exchange value"; anything not a product of human labor is considered to have no value.

Marxism states that the value of commodities a worker produces is 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 is able 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 the commodities produced by the worker.

Despite these important advances, Marx's treatment also

resulted in some major theoretical errors that belie his "scientific" approach.

These arose mainly as a consequence of his almost

exclusive concern with capitalism as it developed in Europe. Capital 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, as important to his economic scheme.

Marx actually supported English colonialism in India.

He was

guided by his "labor theory of value" which implied that the proletarians in Europe and the U.S., working under advanced capitalist conditions, were mainly responsible for the ever-increasing wealth and capital accumulation in Europe and the U.S. English rule of India as a "civilizing" force:

So Marx justified English colonial

rule would develop an Indian proletariat and middle class which

could constitute a market for English goods, thereby breaking the

feudal bonds and allowing capitalism to flourish in India.

In effect, Marx treated capitalism as a strictly European

phenomenon. colonies.

However, Europe accumulated great wealth from the While European labor played an important historical

role 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 of South America, populating these areas with people of European descent.

Evidently Europe wanted land and resources badly enough

to 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 to the

other main

sourceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;land.

'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 it has no value (since it is not the product of human labor). Let us remember that Marx used the term "value" Interchangeably with the

term "exchange value". (The latter term is a theoretical tool he defined to measure the amount of one commodity that can be exchanged for another). According to the labor theory of value, over the long run, commodities embodying the same amount of labor should exchange equally.

This all seems theoretically sound until we consider land.

Since land has a price, and virtually everything people use is derived from land, then to some degree, exchange value is not determined solely by labor but by land as well, so that in the Marxian sense, land has value. The exchange value of any commodity is composed of a certain part labor and another part land; we are not 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 the

labor used is highly-paid U.S. labor. The capital is drilling and piping equipment manufactured in the U.S. Therefore, according to the labor theory of value, all the value of the oil is produced by U.S. labor. A certain price is paid to the government of Iran for the oil. In Marxist theory this can only be considered rent. Marx said rent is part of the surplus value produced by labor which is expropriated by the landlord by virtue of his monopoly on land. Thus from the Marxist point of view it is correct to say that the government of Iran exploits U.S. workers. To the small extent that the money benefits the peasants and workers of Iran, the whole nation of Iran exploits U.S. workers. This is the attitude of the U.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 because

the 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 shipping it to the U.S., the U.S. becomes richer. Of course Iranians have some money which they can spend in the world 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, should

restrict our concept of value to "exchange value".

For if we seek

to explain the role of natural resources today, the labor theory of value is unsatisfactory.

It is true that many natural resources

are worked into finished goods by industrial labor.

But It is

also true that many, like petroleum or foods, are transferred to industrialized countries and consumed with little labor

intervention. The point Is that the acquisition and accumulation of these resources, and not labor, produced much of the wealth in the advanced capitalist countries. Use Value

In Marx's time, his emphasis on exchange value had some application to Europe and the U.S. where capitalism had matured. In the rest of the world, where capitalism was present in limited forms, if at all, the concept of exchange value had little relevance.

Such is still the case today where feudalism survives

in many parts of the world and subsistence farming prevails.

to limit "value" to "exchange value" as Marx did, implies that

millions of people do not contribute any value and that their most important possessions have no value. Since it is the oppressed peoples 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 him with 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: of a thing makes it a use value".

This view enables us to assign

value to the important things that Marxism belittles :

land.

"the utility products of

This is not a rejection of exchange value (with the alterations

we propose), but rather an enhanced emphasis on the other important kind of value.

We must also propose an alteration to Marx's stated view in Capital 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 no p

difference."

Contrast this with the following excerpt from the

speech at Marx's graveside by Engels, "...mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before it can pursue politics,

science, art, religion, etc."

We believe the latter to be the more

accurate 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 to satisfy wants springing from the stomach, whereas the oppressor peoples, accumulating most of the world's use values, are able to enjoy many that spring from both stomach and fancy.

For. .example, we would say that oil and gas, most of which goes to the industrialized countries, usually satisfy a want springing from a fancy when used to power cars there.

They would have much

greater 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 peoples

will 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 national

liberation needs will serve to produce the basic necessities of existence 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 the Indians and importing slaves to raise a cash crop for export.

Of these, one of the largest is the Black Belt of the southern U.S.

Black Belt cotton contributed mightily to the growth of

capitalism in England and the U.S.

When Marx noted imported cotton's vital roll in the textile industry,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 England fattened he declared non-existent.

Yet, the industrial system

of that day. capital and labor, could not function without colonized 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 had won the war, Marx had little more to say, even though Blacks were still fighting for land, education and political power in the South.

The semi-feudal sharecropper system was the result of

their setbacks.

After World War I, and especially since World War II, AfroAmericans have been forced out of the Black Belt

into the cities

20.

of the North and West. Marxists and others have emphasized that this was due to capitalism's need for labor and for a reserve army of unemployed. This hardly seems likely as immigrant labor and a fast-growing white population had always served before. The fact is that imperialism's export of capital, mechanized production in the Black Belt and made the Afro-Americans "surplus population" as far as the imperialists were concerned. Their presence on the land became a threat to imperialist control, so they were driven off. The pill was sweetened with some jobs and some welfare so that a violent struggle was averted. Marxists and others have pictured this mass migration as a step forward from feudalism to capitalism, from sharecropper to proletarian.

Marx did so in articles on the

Civil War in the U.S. and Lenin in his article, "Development of

Agriculture in the U.S."1 We consider it a step backward, removing Black population centers from Black Belt land.

Marxists consider land to have no value.

But U.S. imperialism

draws cotton, timber, soybeans, peanuts, iron, coal and oil from the Black Belt. Of these, oil is the most important both as a source of large profits and for its particular use value. Imperialism as it now exists requires large quantities of oil to avoid a massive breakdown 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 AfroAmerican nation because oil production requires even less unskilled labor than mechanized agriculture, resulting in more exile and greater pressures toward genocide.

The more capitalized agriculture becomes, the more dependent it becomes on oil companies' products and on the biggest banks as 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 imperialists o-ver Black Belt land.

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

21.

Marxists argue that present-day imperialism, like the capitalisr of Marx's day, needs a Black reserve army of unemployed. In fact, Afro-American unemployment is a byproduct of finance capital in the South.

Newspaper accounts of high abortion rates, forced

sterilization, murder in prisons and malnutrition are evidence that

U.S. imperialism is attempting to destroy this reserve army before it can become a Black liberation army. As long as they remain squeezed into extremely small areas of cities Blacks will be in

grave danger- of genocide.

They depend on U.S. imperialism for

food, water, clothing and shelter controlling neither land nor materials for providing their own.

The land of the Black Belt has great potential value for the Afro-Americans as well as for U.S. imperialism.

Not only can it

provide the personal necessities of food, water, clothing, and shelter, but the necessities for nation-building as well.

Land

is needed to set up rural base areas and to feed troops in the struggle against Imperialism.

Oil, coal, and iron will be needed

to 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 field in which many great thinkers have labored.

We believe that

clearing the land of imperialism requires clearing the theoretical field 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. would decline.

He predicted that capital accumulation combined with

technological change of the instruments of production (improved machinery) would tend to lower the rate of profit and level of wages in the long run.

Lower wages, coupled with the realization

among 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.

o *-*)

o M>

•d

4 ?T

ct 3CD

53 3*

S3 4 ?=r

P« P» CO

xi X3 4 CD CO CO

3 •

S Pi

ct P*

P«

P CO

p 3 P*

'd O

H P»

3 CO

p 3 Pi

4 P oq OQ

S M

o ct P«

3 01

CO •

'J0 O O 3 ct

^ P Pi P« o

pi \»

0 CO

•CJ 0

4 p. P P» P* CO

p \-> M

«<J

P. ct P» P. ct

CO 01

S o

*-i C era 09 pj 0

•P c 0 0 N 0

0 p.

p> CO

to «s

O p»

hi) O

31 p« CO

09 4 0

3 pi p* »-*)

P. H P«

3* 0

3 oq

4 0 0

3* P

< P-

^ O 0 CO

P p*

p* o

3* 0

O M)

B P«

P M P» 01

3 Pi

pi O

Pi 0

s: 3

< 0 M

O CJ P.

P 4

f 0

3 P-

p* p* H

1 •-t) o

c 3 Pi 0

P. P •d "d M P» 0 Cb

P 3 pi

3 Pi 0

p. CO ct

xi p ^ ct

C ct 0 X

Xi P»

3 0

p. CO

& •

P> o

3 Pi

p* o

ct P«

3 CO

•d

p. 0 CO

4 o

3 P CO CO

0 CO

4 p. CO

ct P*

3 0 \#

•

^ 30

P oq 0

H ct PCO

3 *-i p ct

3* P <J 0

P •d xi

p 4

o M)

•d

4 o M> P. ct

3* 0

p •-»>

P P* M 0 3

*-*3 O

d 3 M

£ 3 4

3 p.

P« 0 CO

•

•d p*

p «<J

3 ct

3* O

4 P p* p.

P •d p. ct

O ct

3* p.

3 cq p» o o

«< 0

P 4 CO

3 ct

3 0

P oq

4 3 0

p» p. CO

3 3*

M) O

*-i

CO CO

•

3 •d 0 p.

P« CO

3 CO

«*

ct 0

p. ct

p* p« CO

p. 0 CO

Pi 0

P Ct

3* O n

«».

^i> P P1

H 0

2 ct

3* 0

P 4 X •

3 •

3* P

•-3 3*

•

53 p oq 0

0 CO

p«

3 oq

3 Pi o

p •d

4 0

o W)

o •~b

tr o

P xi p* ct p» p. CO

<< ct 0

•

0 M

4 Pi

4 o

«<J

3 ct o

o p»

3 P* 0 01 \*

^) 0

P«

f-t) o

4 o 0 CO

p 4

CO «#

Ct 01

•d 4

<J 0 P*

o •d 0

C P. P

3 ct

•

3* 0

0 ct

0 ct p. 0 ct

0 ct

C 4

W c 4

3 o ct

^ 0 P« P» 1 0

p» ct

3* •-b 0

2 0 X 0

•d ct p. o

3 3

P 4 X CO

4 ct

CO ct p. H M

ct O

t-1) cr "=<!

3 X

v»

P •d p. ct p» p*

p«

3 3* 0

*S P1

p p*

m p*

3 ^

c 3 Pi 0

4 oq

C p CO

p»

ct O

P •CJ p. ct p« p.

ct 0

H 0 CO

3 0

3 •o n p*

4 P

=CJ

V P 3 m 0 CO

p xi p. ct

3* 0

3* P

c Pi

3 0 p.

p CO

n 0

•a •^

C-i.

0 CO

ct w

Pct

£ 3 ve

Pi «<

1 P«

•cJ

P»

3 CO

p. 01

c P3 3* C

M C 4 0

3 O

P 4 X p.

3 O »-*

p xi p* ct

•d

0 0

ct p.

It* 0

o o

ct O

ct P«

o •-*

S Xi o p*

s; o

p« 0

«•

O p«

p* ct

0 |

«•

P p»

P P. CO

o o

4 pi

3 oq

ct O

3 3

p« o

p 4

0 o

p»

P« CO

"d P 4

p. CO

3 O ^i ct

3 Pi P cr O

P» O cr 0

*l 4

% n O o

P 4 X

P OQ

CO •

4 0

M, O

O n 0 o

•

P«

<! •* «<

i^r

0 P*

3 0

Xi *-i o *-*i

ct 0

Xi CO

^ o 4 M Cb

0 CO

ct 0

Xi P CO co

3 09 0

P< O 0

»i

P O M, Ct

3* h$

3 ♦a p 4 ct

o »-*>

o ct

3* 0

& 4 P*

<J 0

H) O

P. 3

«<!

»a 0

*-i Xi 4

ct p.

s! O 4

3 ^^

O cr

O t-b

Pi P* »-D •1)

*-i 0

O p« ct CO

ct O *-*> ct

4 O P*

c 3 ct

•

cr «<J

3 P.

3* O

P Xi

P xi o 0

4 CO

cr 0 ct 0 0

o M O P«

p«

o p» o

3 P-

0 o

pi 0 CO o

p. 0

3 Pi

3 o

P Xi ct

p H P« CO ct CO

cr 0

P* O

H P»

cr O

Xi xi 4

£ 3*

s: ^ i^r

•d

4 P* P« P.

CD 0

3 xs o CD

o ct p. O

P«

CD O

4 P

& o

P CO

3 H

33 4

3 P

ct p-

4 CD ^ H CD

xi Xi ** CO CO

Pi 1

P. Pi

•

O M O

H P«

3* P

3 p» H CD

P«

»-»> O

O ct

cr CD ct

4 p

4 ct

P 4 X V

M CD CO

3 P ct p.

3 CO

ct O

P»

*-i

\»

P ct

ct H.

Pi CD

3* CD

3* O

Xi xi 4 CD CO CO

4 CD

3* CD

0 p.

M xi 4 P*

M P*

»-*> P <

CD O

p»

P ct

f1 •-*

«!

O P» o

»-t> •-♦>

3 ••

4 p.

v»

P o P»

P* 3

•d

oq 3 pN CD

•d

CD ct CD

p. o

P» P« CO

p cr p. P»

P«

•d •d 4

P«

ct CO

pi CD

P 4

o H o P«

•d o P* P"

CD P«

>-*>

M M CD

•*

Xi •d

CO CO

p M P« p.

rCD P*

Pct

4 p H H

ct ct

o ^

s' CD

c •d ♦d o

4 ct 0)

»"*)

1 P»

3 ct H»

>i> O

P* Ct

CD CO 01

Pi V

3 oq

ct 3ct

ct P*

23.

Lenin, however, limited his own achievements through his unquestioning, uncritical attitude towards Marx's work.

Unfortunately, this undialectical approach has also been applied to Lenin's own work by many of his followers.

No matter how great

a man's capabilities or accomplishments, they cannot be above critical scrutiny and testing in practice.

Because of Lenin's

somewhat blind acceptance of Marx, his work itself reflected many of Marx's errors.

Lenin on Imperialism

Just as Capital was Marx's principal economic work, so

Imperialism was Lenin's.

There Lenin emphasized the qualitatively

new conditions of capitalism in its imperialist stage.

As the

explanatory notes state in Lenin's Selected Works, "Marx and Engels were not yet able to observe the special features of

the new epoch of monopolist capitalism (in other words, imperialism in their developed state.

It fell to the lot of Lenin to reveal

these peculiar features, to show the new and acuter forms the economic and class contradictions of capitalism developed in the

epoch of imperialism, how they transformed this epoch in the 'eve of socialism' and the epoch of proletarian revolutions, 2

and created all the necessary premises for this."

But as Lenin

himself taught, qualitative change is the culmination of many quantitative changes.

Lenin did not tell us what quantitative changes led to

qualitatively different conditions under imperialism. This was unfortunate because those changes were occurring during Marx's time and Marx either ignored many of them or explained them incorrectly. For example, Lenin viewed imperialist control of oppressed nations as harmful and called for their liberation. But that control resulted directly from the colonialism of Marx's era. Marx emphasized that colonialism was a beneficial influence in the colonies and spoke favorably of it on some occasions.

â&#x20AC;˘hr.I. Lenin, "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism", Selected WorksÂť International Publishers, New York, 1937, Volume 5.

^V.I. Lenin, Imperialism, p.3l6.

24.

Perhaps Lenin agreed with Marx that colonialism was beneficial in

the 19th century; or perhaps he felt it would be unwise to criticize Marx.

In any case it was a serious error not to criticize Marx.

Claiming that Marx could not have foreseen imperialism amounted at best, to a rationalization of his errors.

Lenin wrote:

"Free competition is the fundamental attribute of

capitalism and of commodity production generally." In actuality, nothing has been further from the truth. From its inception, capitalism has been characterized by exceptional force and violence to discourage free competition, particularly by the colonialist-

imperialist countries in subjugating and controlling the lands they conquered.

The native peoples of the Western Hemisphere, Africa,

or Asia have never had a chance to trade freely or to develop competitive industries while in the clutches of the imperialist powers.

The monopoly conditions Lenin described as characteristic

of imperialism grew out of the colonialist monopolies- of the "old" capitalism.

Although Lenin correctly recognized the ability of imperialism to bribe some of its workers, he seriously misjudged the extent of such bribery. Consequently, he retained the illusion of an imminent proletarian revolution worldwide. In Imperialism, we

read the following: "As long as capitalism remains what it is, surplus value will never be utilized for the purpose of raising the

standard of living of the masses in a given country."2 Lenin alludes to "the masses, who are everywhere poverty-stricken and underfed..." These dramatic but Inaccurate depictions of an Im poverished Western working class were designed to support Lenin's hopes for impending proletarian revolutions. For Lenin was wrong when he declared that imperialism will never raise the workers' living standards. He underestimated the mass transfer of raw materials and its impact on the Western workers who were able to

V.I.Lenin, Imperialism, p.12.

2V.I.Lenin, Imperialism, p.57. jV. I. Lenin, Imperialism, p.56-57.

25.

share in this plunder from the oppressed nations.

One need nnly

consider the many luxuries the white U.S. workers have:

cars,

homes, boats, and college educations for their children.

This

error can be traced directly to Marx, who was deficient in analyzing the economic effects of colonialism on.the European working class.

Taking the U.S. as an example, we studied real earnings

(adjusted for inflation) for manufacturing workers from 1909

(seven years before Lenin wrote Imperialism) through 1976. Reported In the table on page 26, our analysis shows that real earnings have gone up 300%. Imperialist Investment

Overconfidence in the revolutionary state of the European

masses led to a theoretical error on imperialist investments.

Lenin wrote:

"In (the) backward countries, profits usually are

high, for capital is scarce, the price of land is relatively low, wages are low, raw materials are cheap." Then, "the necessity of exporting capital arises from the fact that in a few countries capitalism has becomeâ&#x20AC;˘'over-ripe' and (owing to the backward state

of agriculture and the impoverished state of the masses) capital

cannot find 'profitable' Investment."2 The last statement contradic the first one:

it says that the imperialist countries cannot

find "profitable" investment "at home" because of the backward ness of agriculture and impoverishment of the masses. Yet the first sentence points out that the imperialists derive "super-

profits"from exporting capital abroad to the "backward" countries where agriculture is considerably more "impoverished". This is mainly due to the economic grip of imperialism which milks the natural resources, allies with feudal agricultural forces, and prevents the development of local industry.

Pursuing the question of capital export and super-profits, we know that Lenin, as a "disciple" of Marx, relied implicitly Lenin, Imperialism, p.57.

2Lenin, p.57.

-=r

•=r

•=t

•=r

O ON

t>O

rH O

rH ON CM

on LTN CM

CJ ^r CM

t— o CM

H CM

in rH

-=3"

CM H

CO rH rH

CM rH

rH rH rH

O O

•

ON CO

CO o

•H •P CO

bt-~ co •

a *»

-=r o vo

CO C^ •

rH •

rH O rH

CO CO •

•=r

cr\

CO rH O CO

O O •

CM CO

cm •=r •

ON in

.=r ^=r

O O •

•

CO -=r

VO •=r

VO CM •

CO -=T

CO •=r

CO O^

•

CO -=r

to •

•

CO CO

in CO

in in on

O in on

in •=r

o .=r on

in co on

o CO on

CT\ CM

ON rH

o CM o\

H on

ON o ON

vo ON rH

-P CO

B 3

C cd

<w o

H 0 O •H

o o

O rH CM

•

cd H

bO cd 0

C 0 43 M

•

in t— ON rH

•

CO •

C CO

C 73

cd X> 0

> ri

C 0

nH •=r

•

ON CO

0 M

bO C nH

Xi cd

fi •»

o 43

> cd Xi CO

0 M

ON O ON rH

bO cd

bO •H

•H

0 .

•d 0

bO C

0 CO

Xi 43

H in

•d

Xi 0 +3

o Ih Cm

H O

c o O

c nH

c 0

cd M

nH 43

t) Xi 43

nH 0

C cd

CO o t>-

0 rH

•d

vo t>ON

>s Xi

•»

-P O

•d 0 43 CO

•

ON CO •=r

rH « ft

w 0 •H

0 CO

CO o

•H •P CO nH 43

cd Sh

+3 CO

43 rH

rH rH

4^>

73 c pi

•H

bO nH

•d H

Xi Eh

73 cd

VO vo rH in CO

Xi Eh

Ovo ON rH ,^

B 0 +5 nH rH rH

o Cm

73 X>

•p

0 -P •H

C !3

P« P,

> M

3 CO

Cd rH Cm

0 4->

•

o o rH

S >s Xi

C O nH •P

B En

"in

•H

•d

73 cd

-P

t--

43 CO

^•:

4^>

o tH 43

tA 4-5

0 rH

rH rH

»s cd

•H

xi 0

u cd

O VO ON

nH 73

o rON rH

o on r-

rH rH

LTN

VO on rH

CD bC

O •=r

•

0 -P

o rH

3 T-3 ft

O c— on

o o

cd •P

o CO

bO C cd •H

•

C--

rH •«e-

0 0

bO C nH

o O

H 0 m

t— ON rH

•H

•d

•H

•

p. C CD P.

> cd < W

cd rH <D ^5

•H

O •P CO

u o

:s CO

o <M

c •H

c u a w

c£

0 0

bO cd U > <

CO nH

•H

<:>

•%*•

27.

On the labor theory of value.

We must assume that when he referred

to "super-profits", Lenin was thinking of "profits" in the Marxist sense

resulting from surplus value.

As we argue earlier, surplus

value 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 slave trade) shipped from the colonies to Europe. By the imperialist era, technological developments in the imperialist societies required oil and minerals above all and developed machinery for their extraction.

This shift meant the labor of the oppressed

peoples had less use for the imperialists than before. Products of labor took second place in importance to products of the land. U.S. government statistics on direct investment bristle with supporting facts.

For example, in 1975 we find overseas

investment divided between Canada and Europe (6l%) and the rest of the world (39$) roughly encompassing the oppressed nations. We look to manufacturing investment as a prime example of laborintensive sources of profits and to petroleum as land-intensive. For 1975, roughly half of the petroleum investment was outside Western Europe and Canada. At the same time, this oppressed area accounted for only 20$ of U.S. overseas manufacturing capital. In U.S. relations with oppressed peoples, products of labor take second place to products of land.

Lenin states that "under modern capitalism when monopolies

prevail, the export of capital" (from the imperialist countries)

"has become the typical feature"3.

Properly, emnhasis on the

results of capital exports suggest that today the typical feature has become the export of land values from the oppressed nations

to 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 oil

providing today's most striking example.

Emphasizing the essential

role of land values helps us to recognize the vital role of national liberation struggles and particularly the importance of land in these struggles.

While major leaders like Stalin and. Mao did make prominent political contributions to Marxism-Leninism, in the main they

practiced it as disciples, accepting the economic theories

uncritically.

For this reason, we have limited the discussion

of economics to Marx and Lenin. Conclusion

Our main points are: Marx's fundamental errors on colonialism and value influenced Lenin. As a result, instead of recognising the main contradiction, (between the oppressed peoples and imperialism headed by the U.S.), Marxist-Leninists place their greatest faith in the workers in the industrialized West.

For the last 30 years

however, the oppressed peoples have been in the forefront of the struggle 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, particularly

those in state power, are apologists for the status quo, objectively backing imperialism.

By taking what is positive from the economic

ideas of Marx and Lenin, criticizing what is harmful, and developing new answers to replace what is wrong, we hope to contribute to a new theory which will help the oppressed peoples defeat U.S.

imperialism and its ideological allies, the Marxist-Leninists. The following chapter discusses political and historical aspects of our legacy from Marxism.

29.

MARXISMâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;PROBLEMATICAL LEGACY

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

drawing on the general premises of historical materialism.

is the product of historical conditions.

Marxism

After capitalism developed

there was class struggle because the capitalist class did appropriate surplus value from proletarian labor.

However, Marxism was quite incomplete.

It was then the most

accurate analysis of proletarian-capitalist relations, but these were 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 and

slave) labor; 2) value from the land of colonized peoples. Further, there was a strong connection between the appro

priation of values from colonies and the appropriation of surplus value from the proletariat. Since Marxism did not recognize value from land at all and underemphasized the role of non-proletarian colonial labor, it presented a distorted picture.

This contra

diction accounts for both the successes and failures of Marxism

as a theory and guide to action.

Our discussion of Marxism's

role in history emphasizes the socialist revolutions in Russia and China and their relations with oppressed peoples. Marxism and the National Question

Through 1917

The world's first socialist revolution occurred not where

capital and the proletariat were most developed, but in Russia where capital was weak. Russian imperialism exploited the Russian

working class, but also the land (as well as labor) of other peoples; the land values that Marxism and Russian Marxists

30.

ignored did flow in the Russian empire.

World War I consumed

these values leaving Russian capitalists without the resources to forestall a revolution led by the impoverished working class.

class-struggle theory fitted the situation without reflecting it fully accurately. Marxism was able to lead the October Revolution. The October Revolution and the following economic development

provide a great historical example of the material gains possible for the masses when surplus value from proletarian and peasant labor is released for the social and personal use of the producers.

It showed the possibility of rapid economic development under central planning, demonstrating that the capitalist had become

obsolete as a necessary element in production.

The USSR proved

Marx's theory on these points.

While Marxism scored one big victory in the class struggle

arena, it limped along, pushed by events, on the national question. Because Marxists could not see that oppression of other nations

and peoples was the main source of strength of "their" European and North American imperialists in the class struggle, they viewed national demands as something subordinate, and possible harmful to the class struggle.

Within the limits of Marxist economics, national oppression

meant control by an oppressor nation's capitalists over value produced by labor in an oppressed nation.

This view tended to by

pass most nations and peoples of Asia, Africa, South and Central America, 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

recognizeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;surplus value from laborâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;because it was extracted mainly from non-proletarians not involved in class struggle.

Although colonial profits had existed since the origin of

capitalism, the "national question" received most theoretical attention when national divisions undermined proletarian solidarity

among 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 capitalist economy and other unifying attributes can enjoy'solf-determinatirn. .

"A nation is a historically evolved, stable community of language, territory, economic life and psychological

makeup manifested in a community of culture."2 We 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 fits

imperialist nations—U.S. whites, Russians, English, French,Germans, Italians, Japanese, and the dominant Han nation of China.

This group (by monopolizing the values from the oppressed's

land) robs them of the opportunity to develop their own unified and diversified economies.

Only by seizing political and economic

control of their land can the oppressed nations develop powerful economies capable of providing for their people and fulfilling

Stalin's definition.

Contrary to Stalin's work, peoples who meet

the other criteria of his defin±t±rn9but lack a capitalist economy, have the right to match action to their anti-imperialist aspirations Marxism and the National Question—1918 and After The 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 was executing the class struggle.

After it succeeded in the USSR,

a new main problem developed—strengthening 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 ally than 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, Foreign Languages 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 different

things."1 In 1918, he wrote, "Thus the October Revolution, by establishing a tie between the peoples of the backward East and of the advanced West, is ranging them in a common camp of struggle p

against imperialism."

In 1918 and 1924 (Foundations of Leninism), Stalin accuses

Kautsky and the Second International of limiting discussion of the national question to European nations. Lenin and Stalin them selves did just that before the October Revolution. As dialectical materialists, they should have credited their recent political experience 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 right of self-determination for imperialism's colonies.

The shift on the national question produced some ideas which

contradicted basic Marxism.

Originally, Marxism's view was; "The

proletariat has no country." But to establish the USSR, Lenin, and Stalin had to reverse their earlier opposition to federalism and draw internal boundaries to create national republics. Stalin's (1924) statement supporting the Egyptian bourgeoisie and the Emir

of Afghanistan against imperialism properly tends to negate his ideas of 1913 that class struggle is the main task in every nation; that only industrialized, capitalist peoples have the right to self-determination. Similarly, the presentation of three major contradictions (working class vs. capitalists, imperialism vs. oppressed, imperialist vs. imperialist) tends to blur Marx's focus Joseph V. Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954, p.34.

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

3Joseph V. Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, International Publishers, 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 colonialism

in many instances, on the theoretical front, Lenin and Stalin opposed all national oppression by imperialism.

No Marxist pursued the national, question to discover the true

mechanics of national oppression and bribery of the oppressor 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-cut

theoretical changes in Marxism, but contradictions within it. Lack of better Marxist theory on the national question made

Marxism the failure it is today, but the post-1917 positions— contradicting previous Marxism—played an important role among nationalists of oopressed nations.

For the first time a state

proclaimed opposition to all national oppression, making major improvements in the lives of oppressed nationalities within its borders.

For the first time, an established government set up

an international organization to aid national struggles and offered a 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 national

liberation struggles—national oppression did—and its theory tends to exclude national struggles as a force.

But Marxism was

"right for the wrong reasons"; it offered hope and organization at a time when many oppressed nationalists were ready to respond.

From this hope and organization came the Marxist-led struggles which reached their height in many oppressed nations in che decade following World War II.

On the other hand, the errors of Marxism and the USSR's

failure to correct them also help to explain why U.S. imperialism was able to defeat most of these struggles. In the name of proletarian unity, the Soviet leaders gave

priority to a strong central economy.

The USSR would have been

stronger had it encouraged its formerly oppressed nations and

34.

peoples to develop their own national economies, placing their products at the disposal of other national struggles.

Such an

emphasis might have prevented the development of the present

imperialist economy. The CPSU leaders attempted to end national oppression as they understood itâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;revolving around surplus value. They used proletarian power to resolve class questions against

both the Russian capitalist and feudal powers, and against capitalist and feudal exploiters among the oppressed. The surplus value released brought material and social gains to the oppressed, as well as to the Russians.

Yet autonomous political forms and a raised standard of living do not constitute national self-determination.

There was nothing

in Marxism to prevent Russian economic planners from continuing the imperial pattern of using crops and power from the oppressed to supply Russian industry. The Russian proletariat took credit for the value of the oppressed lands' contribution to production, in appearance subsidizing the oppressed Republics while the

oppressed really were subsidizing Russian industry. The oppressed took the best alternative in joining the USSR. But, using Marxism, the USSR could not solve the problem of their economic relations with Russia.

Marx was in error when he wrote that capitalism from Europe

could develop capitalism in the colonies. Hence, it was impossible for the Russian working class to use his theory to develop industry in its oppressed Republicsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the values from the land cannot be in two places at once. If they are developing Russian industry they are not there for the oppressed peoples.

Even when industry in the USSR was established outside Russia for military or economic reasons, it was still part of the centrallycontrolled system using power and land values from oppressed nations in Russian industryâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;in this case the Russian workers came along with the factory. The increased Russian population in some oppressed Republics ran counter to the USSR's attempts to develop oppressed 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 suppliers of raw materials and buyers of finished goods with little industrial base 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 as

imperialismâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;obtaining raw materials, trading in the international market which favors big industrial economies.

At this point the interests of the USSR and the oppressed began to diverge. When the USSR was struggling to exist against

imperialism, it weakened imperialism and helped national liberation

in spite of its Marxist, wrong, orientation toward class struggle in Europe and North America and toward its own economy. Later, however, the same USSR-first policy justified peaceful economic competition and summit diplomacy with imperialist powers. It

strengthened Imperialism and directly attacked oppressed peoples, as in the creation of Israel.

The United Front Against Fascism, World War II and the 1950's exhibit contradictory tendencies.

The earlier efforts of the

USSR on the national question bore fruit, especially in China. On the other hand, the USSR moved into the ruling circle of an imperialist-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 material stake in the status quo and in theories which justify it. The titles of Stalin's main writings of those years indicate post war Soviet interests:

For Peaceful Co-Existence, Economic

Problems of Socialism in the USSR.

A third, Marxism and

36.

Linguistics . discussed language issues in the USSR without mentioning

the 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 and

the international Communist line.

Today, through the limitations

of Marxism, these leaders, their parties and their line are part of the roadblock to a new anti-imperialist ideology. As a major power, the USSR has helped a handful of Marxist and non-Marxist leaders take power in oppressed nationsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Cuba, Chile,

Bangladesh, Vietnam and Angola are major examples.

These countries

have various forms of government and different kinds of diplomatic relations with the U.S. and the USSR.

In every case, their economic

oppression remains.

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

Marxism and China

From the long history of Marxism in China, we distill four important reasons. 1) The shift on the national question after the October Revolution led Lenin, Stalin, and Mao to agree that imperial ism, not internal capitalism was China's main enemy. 2) The dominant Han nation had a proletariat, petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie and according to a Marxist view on the national question, they had a right to self-determination. 3) Imperialism oppressed the Hans mainly through trade and industry, wringing surplus value from peasants and proletariat in a dozen different ways; Marxists could understand this process. The Hans' own economy was an exception

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

, Economic Problems of Socialism In the USSR, Foreign Languages 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-

tive role in China.

But this is also why Chinese urgings of other

«a

oppressed to emulate them will lead only to setbacks.

4) Finally,

the USSR supported China more than it did any other oppressed outside its borders—partly 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 and

building 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 in the world.

The USSR was a world power with industrial might and

diplomatic and cultural relations with imperialism.

China's

economy 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 force—the industrial working class or oppressed nations—and what attitude to take toward U.S.

imperialism?

The leaders of the Peoples' Republic of China never did

renounce the Moscow Statement of i960 (8l-Party Statement), a

class-struggle document.

In 1963 they issued a statement in

Mao's name confusing the Afro-American liberation movement with class 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 economy developed further.

The Communist Party showed no advance over

Marxism on its policy toward the oppressed peoples within China who 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 point— a political line aimed at developing the Han economy and coming to terms with U.S. imperialism supplanted support to the oppressed.

The Cultural Revolution ended ideological developments in China

38.

which contradicted Marxism.

At their best, the Chinese Communist

leaders 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 Emancipation

in I863 entirely from the perspective of the class struggle in the big capitalist economies of England and the USA.

Slave labor and

Black Belt land were the actual productive forces over which the

Civil War was fought, but Marx was not equipped to see the bearing these forces had on English and U.S. capitalism.

An independent

Black economy in the Black Belt would have weakened U.S.

capitalism. opposite.

and English

A Black Belt dominated by U.S. capital did just the After the Civil War, Marx and U.S. Marxists made no demands

for Black control of the Black Belt because they could not see a large 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 International declared the Afro-Americans an oppressed nation in the Black Belt.

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

There is no doubt that between 1863 and 1929 the Afro-Americans

developed a larger bourgeoisie, petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat. To that extent the Afro-Americans "became" a nation. main problem is with Stalin's definition of a nation.

However, the In the absence

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

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

Communist International, The 1928 and 1930 Cominterm Resolutions on the Black National Question in the United States, Revolutionary

Review 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 its

destruction.

Thus, becoming eligible for nationhood under

Stalin's definition was a pyrrhic victory.

There is a great apparent change from Marx in the l860's who 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

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 International resolution and practice by U.S. Marxists had no choice within Marxism 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^&es advance on the Afro-American question to the point of breaking

with Marxism.

In the main, it misled by applying Marxism on

value and Stalin's Marxism and the National Question. Conclusion

Marxism, partially valid as it was, was a major advance in philosophy, 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-vis the imperialists and the oppressed.

All the gaps and errors in

Marxism push toward sacrificing the oppressed and compromising with imperialism.

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 oppressed nations.

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 control their

own lands.