Notes on the Economic Aspect of the National Question

by the Crusader Editorial Board

A common mistake in formulating a correct line on the national question in the U.S. is starting from the standpoint of philosophical idealism. Often, when the Black bourgeoisie is analyzed, they are simply defined by the ideas they have about the Black proletariat overall (classism) as the source of why they help facilitate exploitation and national oppression rather than their material and distinct relation to their proletariat (and other classes). By identifying a collection of individuals (Black celebrities) instead of the Black bourgeoisie overall, who are concentrated primarily in service sectors, well-meaning analyses often miss the forest for the trees.

In order for us to develop a correct synthesis on the national question, we need to start from the economic subjugation of the Black Belt first and then expound upon that with examples.

When Claudia Jones states that the Black Bourgeoisie “…is not an industrial bourgeoisie. It is not a big bourgeoisie; the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation never is; it is one of the results of national oppression that the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations is retarded by the oppressors”,¹ this is important because it’s part of the overall national oppression of Black Americans. The Black Bourgeoisie were restricted from developing industry by the American bourgeoisie at the transition from “free-market” capitalism to monopoly capitalism (Imperialism) in the 20th century, and were restricted to mostly service and light manufacturing industries.

The legal barriers were removed through the civil rights act but still exist in effect because the American bourgeoisie secured the monopoly on industry, meaning the smaller Black firms could not compete and accumulate capital. A lot of high-earning Black people can work in these companies and can be administrators or mid-level managers, but the Black Bourgeoisie as a class does not own these firms and are still restricted by the American bourgeoisie (for example, they face greater difficulty in taking out loans and securing finance capital), which is why they have must carry out their business primarily in the Black community with the Black proletariat and petite bourgeoisie.

The Black Bourgeoisie seeks to be just as expansionist and expand their market share as the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie, but they are unable to as they’re restricted and nationally subjugated by U.S. imperialism. That is why they either sell out and collaborate with U.S. imperialism or push to reform it to make it more equitable.

This is why it is crucial and more immediate to compare the Black nation/Black belt to the indigenous nations of this continent. The First Nations went through a similar process where pre-capitalist relations of productions were destroyed and indigenous people were forced into the proletariat/reserve army of labor/lumpen (with a small petite bourgeoisie), but the leaders of the First Nations received privileges in exchange for opening their lands to exploitation. There are indigenous capitalist enterprises and an indigenous bourgeoisie, but they are restricted from expanding by U.S. imperialism. Some nations such as the Diné have developed several capitalist enterprises,² but this did not change their character as distinct nations.
When it comes to analyzing whether or not the economy within majority Black areas is the exclusive domain and relationship of the Black bourgeoisie to its proletariat, the indigenous comparison is notable again. The Black bourgeoisie was not able to develop in the same way as the bourgeoisie of the oppressor nations unrestricted by monopoly capitalism. Some indigenous capitalist enterprises also employ lots of non-indigenous people, but some of the surplus value generated is reinvested in the nation overall and social programs (similar to when the Black bourgeoisie tries to “give back to the community”, albeit more formalized).

As a result in both cases, industry in both areas (reservations and majority-Black regions) remains underdeveloped or highly exploitative as American monopoly capital moves in to take advantage of the lower level of development.

When looking at the Top 100 list of Black Enterprise,³ and particularly at the industries by top employment, a lot of Black-owned firms exist as subsidiaries of larger American monopolies (conglomerate owners of several franchises, such as Jackmont Hospitality Inc. in Atlanta) or exist as feeder companies to larger American monopolies (automotive parts manufacturing, such as Global Automotive Alliance Corp. in Detroit).

The amount of industrial capital the Black bourgeoisie controls is minimal which is fundamentally at the root of self-determination. The Black and indigenous bourgeoisie are denied the means to be the exclusive exploiters of their respective proletariat and to retain a monopoly on exploitation within their nations.

Re-organizing production at monopolies which employ Black proletarians in large numbers (e.g. several companies in the logistics industry, or American monopolies in the Black Belt) on a socialist basis is concretely how we could exercise our self-determination.

Works Cited

1. Jones, Claudia, On the Right to Self-Determination for the Negro People in the Black Belt, https://thecrusader.news/2024/09/05/on-the-right-to-self-determination-for-the-negro-people-in-the-black-belt/ ↩︎
2. Evans, Mark et al., Self-Determination, the Right to Secession for the Diné (Navajo) Nation, Workers Herald, https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/rpo-dine.pdf ↩︎
3. Black Enterprise, The Nation’s Largest Black Businesses, ‘Employment Leaders’, https://www.blackenterprise.com/be100s/top100/#employment-leaders ↩︎