the spook that still haunts
By NLD Editorial Board
Maoism of a True Type
Maoism in the imperialist centers is run by those from the white oppressor nation who use it as an identity, obscure the essence of internationalism by treating it dogmatically and subordinate revolution to the interests of the oppressor nation. To be sure, there are many oppressed nation Maoists within the u.s. empire; however, the neo-colonial relationship within the centers of imperialism gives the oppressor nation leadership over the Maoist movement. This is a revisionist tendency of Maoism. All the while, Maoism is a leap in the understanding of proletarian nationalism and applies to the era of imperialism in general and, as the book “False Nationalism, False Internationalism” (FF) explains well, the u.s. empire in particular.
The Black nation and all oppressed nations within the u.s empire carry the revolutionary initiative and, in this way, the primary contradiction in the u.s empire is imperialism between oppressor-oppressed nations. This understanding was hard fought for by the oppressed nations' communists in contradiction with incorrect theory that manifested within the 1st to 3rd Internationals. Many Black people caught in the 2020 rebellion without a vanguard found themselves coming into sharp contradiction with the oppressor nation and their vision of “allyship” from the liberals, “solidarity” from the anarchists and “internationalism” from the white communists.
It all amounted to the same thing; neo-colonialism, because it meant the subordination of the Black nation's struggle to the leadership of the white nation. Without a correct analysis of this contradiction, the Black immediate vanguard was caught falling into bourgeois nationalism that neglected class distinction and thus the leadership of the proletariat or into blind/false internationalism welcomed by the oppressor nation; both alienated them from the revolutionary Black proletariat. The Editorial Board speaks from a place of practice and we are sure Black people who have engaged seriously in communist struggle will feel us when we share our line on the need for true nationalism and true internationalism a.k.a proletarian nationalism. This understanding first came into sharp focus when a couple of us revisited FF and found that its analysis on the historical significance of nationalism to internationalism and how this dialectic has manifested within communist practice-theory within the u.s empire. Here we are calling for Black Maoists in particular and Black radicals in general to read the introduction to FF1 because we see how important it is for Maoism to recapture a revolutionary path within the u.s empire and struggle against a revisionism that plagues every sect of Maoism; negating the internal decisiveness of nations within the era of imperialism and thus the need for proletarian nationalism. The first piece we are publishing in our journal is a summation that utilizes the above understanding, applying it to revolutionary practice and coming to a correct analysis on the significance of proletarian nationalism. First we would like to layout what proletarian nationalism is, its development through the Internationals, the significance of FF to an understanding of the dialectic between nationalism-internationalism, and a much needed critique of white Maoism.
The Development of Nationalism and Internationalism: In continuity and rupture from Marx to Mao
Right from the start of the 1st International there was a theory for the future that has been proven incorrect through revolutionary practice. From Marx to Lenin there was a particular stagist application of historical materialism where it was theorized that the oppressor nations, being advanced capitalist countries, would have the most advanced proletariat. The proletariat of oppressor nations like Britian, France, Germany, and the Tsarist Russian empire2 were expected to have socialist revolutions first that would ultimately lay the ground for the resolution of the national question, preserving the positive aspects of capitalism with its productive forces being used towards socialist aims and imperalist relations being overcome through proletarian internationalism. Given this theory, the revolutionary initiative was placed in the hands of the oppressor nations' proletariat. They became the primary aspect of socialist revolution, with the oppressed nations playing a secondary role and expected to gradually move towards socialism with the assistance of the oppressor nations. Although Lenin developed nationalism and internationalism through assessing his material conditions in Russia and in struggle with the social chauvinists of the 2nd International, he still preserved this theory within his application of scientific socialism. Lenin made great contributions to the importance of the complete (yet conditional)3 self-determination of oppressed nations as well as the difference between the nationalism of oppressor-oppressed nations, and he fought vigorously against the chauvinism within his nation and other oppressor nations.
However, because Lenin preserved the theory from Marx in regards to the primacy of the oppressor nations' proletariat, even within the 3rd International and despite great effort, chauvinism flourished and oppressed nations' revolutionary potential was subordinated to the reactionary oppressor nations. It must be understood that the decline of imperialism was not clear to Marx or Engels in their era, and this is why they misunderstood the revolutionary role of the oppressed nations and the reactionary role of the oppressor nations entire class structure. This is why they were unable to fully grasp national structure in its most developed and thus declining stage; imperialism. Lenin was able to understand imperialism, but was still in continuity with Marx in regards to the principal role of the oppressor nations. Lenin himself thought that revolution would first take place in the capitalist oppressor nations as well, only to be surprised by his backward oppressor nation being at the vanguard of socialist revolution. The Chinese Revolution was a battleground itself for the struggle around reversing this theory to see to it that the advanced oppressor nations will lose their reactionary and chauvinist orientation when the oppressed nations save them by destroying the exploitative foundation of the advanced countries economic life; radically changing it.4 Maoism was where nationalism and internationalism ruptured with this particular incorrect theory and advanced scientific socialism in this regard (among many others).
Maoism and the Universal Principle of Proletarian Nationalism
The Chinese Revolution implemented and further developed dialectical materialism into the law of contradiction; the unity-struggle of opposites, its primary and secondary aspects, and the important understanding that the internal is decisive. One such application of this law is on the contradiction developed through the Chinese Revolution; between nationalism and internationalism. Through Mao’s experience of dealing with imperialism as a semi-feudal oppressed nation which was also dealing with the external force of the USSR giving incorrect leadership through the Comintern5, he was able to more fully develop the theory of proletarian nationalism;
Can a Communist, who is an internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but must be. The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions.6
Mao explains that the patriotism of oppressor nations means bringing about your own nations defeat, while patriotism for the oppressed nation means defeating the oppressor nations through proletarian nationalism;
For only by fighting in defense of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and achieve national liberation. And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and other working people to achieve their own emancipation. The victory of China and the defeat of the invading imperialists will help the people of other countries. Thus in wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism."7
This isn't some quick quote from Mao that is being exploited by us to meet some bourgeois nationalist end. It can be seen throughout the Chinese Communist Party's revolutionary practice internally and externally, nationally and internationally; and was decisive for their victory. The significance of the internal being decisive is primary in the reasoning for nationalism. It is a matter of dialectical materialism. Here is a great leap in scientific socialism developed within Maoism; proletarian nationalism. The application of the theory and practice used by the CPC to the conditions of various oppressed nations who built genuine proletarian nationalist movements is what consolidated into what we now understand as Maoism; through past revolutionary movements like those of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the Communist Party of Peru.
The founding of this universal principle was hard won going all the way back to the 1st International and the struggle to understand nationalism in relation to internationalism. Proletarian nationalism isn’t revolutionary nationalism or third-worldism, but the application of scientific socialism that can be seen today in the revolutionary movements of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and the Communist Party of the Philippines. This principle is something completely lost to the white Maoists of the imperialist centers because it does not benefit their dogmatic application of scientific socialism that serves to continue their neo-colonial relationship with the oppressed nations under them in the u.s. empire. Lenin would have identified and described the white Maoists of today by saying that we need to,
declare that a socialist of an oppressor nation who does not conduct both peacetime and wartime propaganda in favour of freedom of secession for oppressed nations, is no socialist and no internationalist, but a chauvinist.8
White Like Mao?
The essence of the error of white Maoists is that they utilize Lenin's work on the national question dogmatically and one-sidedly, while Mao's advancements on nationalism are not touched at all. Lenin was clear in describing the conditions in which internationalism was possible and defined distinct responsibilities of the oppressor and oppressed nations proletariat. They treat Lenin as gospel when he states the need for the unity of nations under one party within a given state, while completely ignoring Lenin when he says,
The proletariat [of the oppressor nations] must demand the right of political secession for the colonies and for the nations that 'its own' nation oppresses. Unless it does this, proletarian internationalism will remain a meaningless phrase; mutual confidence and class solidarity between the workers of the oppressing and oppressed nations will be impossible9 (our emphasis).
They take the incorrect line of the primacy of oppressor nations over oppressed nations and ignore its historical irrelevance while only half-listening to Lenin on the things he was actually correct about; thus implementing internationalism in a way that is intended to dominate oppressed nations. Proletarian nationalism shares the desire and goal of "integrating" with other nations in order to move towards communism. However at this stage in imperialism integrating the Black and white nation requires secession to make that possible; as Marx understood the same need existing between Ireland and England.10 Maoism is then utilized by some white "revolutionaries"11 as an identity where their subjective beliefs and adherence to communist ideology is supposed to somehow negate their objective position within the imperialist contradiction. What distinguishes white Maoists from other communists sects whites engage in is the former uses the Maoist identity to "integrate with the masses" and "organize the advanced" in order to "massline" and find the proletariat; which just so happens to be the masses of the oppressed nations. History has shown that movements within the u.s empire have been most revolutionary when nationalist and most reformist when "internationalist." FF is a book that clears away the neo-colonial stain these white Maoists attempted to place on scientific socialism; it's a book that brings proletarian nationalism into sharper distinction. The u.s oppressor nation Maoists think they can "avoid the difficult challenges within its own non-revolutionary society by becoming political parasites on the oppressed nations."12 They refuse to implement what Mao defines as "patriotism" on the part of the oppressor nations and bring defeat to their own nation; this being their role.
False Nationalism, False Internationalism: The correct theorization of proletarian nationalism applied to over a century of communist struggle
The people behind "False Nationalism, False Internationalism" are still a mystery, but there is no question as to the correctness of their theories and the conclusions they come to; paving a way forward through a vigorous summation of the past. Within the u.s empire this book tackles Black revolutionary organizing going from the African Blood Brotherhood in the early 20th century all the way to the logical endpoint of the incorrect lines of the 1960's that manifested in the insanity that was The Revolutionary Armed Task Force of the 1980's.
The through-line throughout this time for the Black nation within the u.s empire was its dialectical engagement with false nationalism and false internationalism and how this fits into the broader two-line struggle between socialism vs neo-colonialism. False nationalism is defined as a
trend of nationalism that prioritizes nation over class. These politics are only concerned with making sure that an organizing space has a body of people who are all the same race and/or national identity. The absence of class politics will always result in a bourgeois deviation.13
While the current main form of false internationalism is “[t]his view that white people are the answer to the problems of the oppressed nations”14 which is neo-colonial and Eurocentric. Going further FF explains;
While false internationalism involves deception, it is more than a trick. It is a class alliance between petty-bourgeois and lumpen opportunist elements from both oppressor and oppressed nations. Misleadership and continued dependency on the oppressor nation is promoted, against the interest of the oppressed. And the collaboration is concealed under the label revolutionary 'solidarity' or internationalism.15
All this immediately becomes palpable to any serious Black revolutionaries who attempt to analyze and summarize their practice within sites of rebellion and revolutionary organizations.
SouSou: Sharing a summation and a call-to-submissions
Here we would like to share a summation by a group named BAR that takes proletarian nationalism as a theoretical departure from tired white Maoism of the u.s empire, along with the developed understanding from FF, coming forth with an insightful summation of 2+ years worth of Maoist organizing experience. Called "What Nationalism? A Critical Analysis and Summary of the BAR experience” the summation shows how the insights from FF continue to remain relevant today and will remain so until we correctly apply Maoism in general and proletarian nationalism in particular. If you see some theoretical gaps within this here document from the Editorial Board, they may be filled when reading BAR's summation.
We encourage readers to take FF and use it to theorize and make a summation on your practice in the past years, as BAR has done. See for yourself if its insights bear theoretical clarity; all this internet squabbling will only be squashed through revolutionary practice. It is up to Black Maoists to use the theories developed in Maoism in general and FF in particular vs. the white Maoists theories and other forms of revisionism; and apply it to history, their material conditions and practice in order to identify what is correct. We will share the introduction to FF as we find it a good entry point into understanding proletarian nationalism. And if any Black person or organization takes this call on, please send us your summation; we are interested in unity and struggle on the subject.
Footnotes:
1 The introduction to False Nationalism, False Internationalism can be found on our website.
2 There is a fundamental difference that can explain why Russia had a socialist revolution and the Western European oppressor nations didn't; the difference was between backward oppressor nations and advanced oppressor nations. Between those nations that hadn't yet had a bourgeoisie democratic revolution that consolidated capitalism and those which did. The Russian Tsarist empire was unable to mitigate the contradictions within its own nation unlike the advanced oppressor nations. Lenin's application of internationalism must be understood through this lens; Lenin himself was always speaking of applying scientific socialisms to your conditions. In a later piece this and the theory-practice of nationalism and internationalism will be given a more thorough historical materialist analysis with quotes abound. Don't forget to smash that subscribe button dudes.
3 The conditions Lenin placed on whether or not nations are correct in asserting their self-determination ranged from its contribution to the international proletariat to whether it was merely a proxy for imperial interests. Suffice it to say the Black nation within the u.s empire fits the bill.
4 This is counter to what Lenin theorized when he said, "These prejudices are bound to die out very slowly, for they can disappear only after imperialism and capitalism have disappeared in the advanced countries, and after the entire foundation of the backward countries’ economic life has radically changed. "
5 There is a reason the CPC didn't create a 4th International (Trotsky's attempt aside), as it didn't want to recreate the mistakes of the Comintern among other reasons. An International is still needed, but one that must develop in line with proletarian nationalism so as not to engage in false internationalism.
6 Mao Tse-Tung, "The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National Wars" in Mao Collected Works: Vol.2, (Paris: Foreign Language Press, 2021), 196.
7 Ibid.
8 V.I. Lenin, "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination," in Lenin Collected Works: Vol.21, (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974), 412.
9 V.I. Lenin, "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination," (Paris: Foreign Language Press, 2022), 141.
10 A quote from Marx on the question of Ireland can be found in V.I. Lenin, "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination," 107. "I have done my best to bring about this demonstration of the English workers in favor of Fenianism...I used to think separation of Ireland from England impossible. I now think it inevitable, although after the separation there may come federation." Marx and Lenin also understood that even the oppressor nations revolutionary movement is held back by their possession of oppressed nations.
11 For an example of identity politics in Maoist garb, look no further than the vanguard of this type; the journal "Kites." Their most recent publication that is supposed to be "summing up a century of communist leadership, organization, strategy, and practice in the United States" makes it clear that if that publication is looking to the past in order to understand the present, they are unable to accurately assess the past and even more so interpret what should be the task of the present. An example is them being unable to understand that the nationalist sentiment of the Black nation that galvanized the Garveyite movement was not a hindrance to communism, but actually an organizable force for revolution through the right of nations to self-determination as defined by Lenin and further a case for proletarian nationalism. If the Black nation could have they would have voted to secede; their sentiment proved their position as a nation. Lenin understood the communist party must take national sentiments seriously and that oppressed nations fighting national liberation struggles was a strength for socialist revolution. Instead they decide to make nationalism and proletarian revolution incompatible.
Those behind Kites refuse to explain what nations they belong to as they seem to see no point in it or that it is divisive or they will say it's for security reasons; whatever to get away from the matter. But in what they write, their class-nation commitments come through loud and clear; they are WHITE, white as hell. Their incorrect approach to national liberation struggles tells us they don't have proletarians from oppressed nations within their organization, save those they have selected to represent the oppressed nations in a false internationalist manner. They do have many good theoretical insights that seem to come from seasoned practice, but it all falls apart when applied using their false internationalism.
12 E. Tani and Kae Sera, “False Nationalism, False Internationalism,” 11.
13 As defined by the summation we are excited to publish; "What Nationalism? A Critical Analysis and Summary of the BAR experience”
14 Tani and Sera, "False Nationalism, False Internationalism," 3-4.
15 Ibid., 5.