why i - as a black communist - uphold the union of soviet socialist republics. a long and detailed thread on black communism, nations right to self determination, stalin, harry haywood, and the black belt thesis

the black belt thesis [BBT] established the oppression of black americans as a national question of the utmost importance for revolutionaries in the US. the BBT is rooted in the conception of black americans by harry haywood and other communists of various nationalities

basing itself on the conceptions developed by lenin, and grounding itself in the soviet experience under stalin with oppressed nations, the theory holds that blacks in america made up not just a racial/ethnic group, but also an oppressed nation

the outcome of WW1 further alienated blacks from an already racist america, and many black intellectuals felt betrayed by woodrow wilson's post-war talks of "self-determination" that excluded black ppl, keeping colonial rule over black ppl in places like africa

meanwhile, the USSR - which was excluded from the versailles conference - was implementing self-determination of oppressed peoples within its borders and championing it worldwide. W.A. domingo, a radical black writer in new york, noted the following:

until 1921, american communists were locked in a sterile dogmatism that cut them off from black struggle, but thankfully the BBT was formally adopted at the 6th congress of the communist international (COMINTERN) under stalin's leadership in 1928

stalin embraced the black belt republic as a viable and promising solution to solving what was known as the "negro question". the COMINTERN also pointed out - and condemned - white chauvinism in the party ranks, demanding the party recognize black struggle

what followed from the BBT was that if black ppl made up a "nation" within the US, we also have the right to self-determination—the right to form our own nation-state in the south, as well as the right to secession—in the black belt republic [BBR]

after the overthrow of reconstruction, debt peonage in the south and the jim crow system further ingrained the super-exploitation of blacks in the black belt south as a dominant and enduring feature of US capitalism. the region in question represented an internal colony

although brought to the US from many different ethnicities and cultures, the unique experience of slavery overtime forged africans into a new distinct people. for haywood, this was not only cultural, but also had a geographic basis which is still alive to this day

so, any serious historical discussion of the BBT + decolonization should begin with stalin's 1913 work, marxism and the national question [MATNQ], as well as lenin's theses

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/30.htm

so how is a "nation" defined? MATNQ defines a "nation" as a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture

when creating a socialist state from the ruins of a multi-ethnic empire, there arises the particular problem of how to deal with ethnic and national conflicts. the soviets recognised this before they came to power, and had formulated a nationalities policy as early as 1913

In MATNQ, stalin outlines what constitutes a nation, so if we look at the SSRs in the USSR, you'll see they are divided along ethnic/cultural lines. In combatting russian chauvinism of the past, SSRs created a diverse + united socialist state w/ common rights & citizenship

the purpose of the SSRs was to allow different union republics to exercise regional autonomy in line with the wishes of the group that particular SSR represented. SSRs were also guaranteed the right to secede from the USSR, ensuring any SSR could secede and self-determination

these ideas weren’t just exclusive to the USSR either. china's autonomous regions maintain and follow a similar structure, equipped with autonomous regions that come with special rights and administrative privileges specifically reserved for ethnic minorities

fun fact: DPR-Korea also did indigenous landback. in fact, indigenous landback formed the very foundation of the DPRK’s liberation, a value the genocidal U.S. can *NEVER* acknowledge. the US would rather die than do such

the BBT was not developed out of any desire for racial separatism - haywood was committed to the idea of a united working class party. but he also realized only a party that bases itself on a life and death struggle against white supremacy could overcome the obstacles to unity

such a struggle was necessary, haywood argued, to earn the trust of the black masses and to break white workers away from ruling class ideology on the other. although the black belt republic never came to be and CPUSA abandoned the idea by the 30s, the idea still holds weight

following stalins death, CPUSA followed khrushchev’s policy of destalinization and “peaceful coexistence", and purged haywood from their ranks. long an admirer of mao, haywood was an anti-revisionist pioneer following the sino-soviet split

in 1957, he wrote "for a revolutionary position on the negro question", but it was unsuccessful at changing party direction. CPUSA became increasingly revisionist, and became even more alienated from black movements/groups like the black panther party [BPP] later on

black groups like the BPP saw places like china and mao zedong thought [MZT] as beacons in third world revolution, and were even supportive of the DPRK and juche, or "self reliance"

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/souls/vol1no4/vol1num4art1.pdf

it's absolutely no coincidence that CPUSA peaked when it was forced to recognize black struggle and engage with us headfirst and then dived headfirst into revisionism when it abandoned this line and purged itself of crucial advocates for it like harry haywood

while nazis were killing us, socialists were protecting us. east germany on trans rights was more progressive then than the country i live in now. likewise, the position of the USSR on nat'l self determination was more radical than anything the US has ever done for people like me

in short, i owe alot to socialism - capitalism has only tried to milk me or kill me, so which do you think im gnna be more loyal to?