Nationalism Vs. Internationalism

[New Tet]

What is the basic difference, if any, between "nationalism" and "internationalism" as defined by socialist theorists beginning with Marx?

[Rjevan]

I think this rather belongs in Learning, but well. Obviously there is a difference between "nationalism" and "internationalism" as the two different terms suggest. ;)
While nationalism usually means that you are stressing out your nationality, i.e. culture of your home country, patriotism, etc. and the state or the ethnicity of your country is outlined, internationalism wants to unite the "workers of the world". Patriotism is regarded as tool of the ruling class and wars against other countries are led by the imperialists and bring profit for the capitalists but the workers have to fight and die, so they should realise that it's not their nation that counts but their class.

This summs it up quite nice:
"Socialists are internationalists. Whereas nationalists believe that the world is divided primarily into different nationalities, socialists consider social class to be the primary divide. For socialists, class struggle--not national identity--is the motor of history. And capitalism creates an international working class that must fight back against an international capitalist class."

It's from a long article about Marxism and Nationalism (http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/marxism_nationalism_part1.shtml). I hope this helps you, if you have any further questions about this, just ask.

[New Tet]

I think this rather belongs in Learning, but well. Obviously there is a difference between "nationalism" and "internationalism" as the two different terms suggest. ;)
While nationalism usually means that you are stressing out your nationality, i.e. culture of your home country, patriotism, etc. and the state or the ethnicity of your country is outlined, internationalism wants to unite the "workers of the world". Patriotism is regarded as tool of the ruling class and wars against other countries are led by the imperialists and bring profit for the capitalists but the workers have to fight and die, so they should realise that it's not their nation that counts but their class.

This summs it up quite nice:
"Socialists are internationalists. Whereas nationalists believe that the world is divided primarily into different nationalities, socialists consider social class to be the primary divide. For socialists, class struggle--not national identity--is the motor of history. And capitalism creates an international working class that must fight back against an international capitalist class."

It's from a long article about [link]. I hope this helps you, if you have any further questions about this, just ask.

Thanks for the answer to my question which, at least in my mind, brings up a second one: Should socialists support pro-independence movements in countries such as Puerto Rico, etc. even if they (the movements) are dominated by nationalist or non-socialist elements?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Should socialists support pro-independence movements in countries such as Puerto Rico, etc. even if they (the movements) are dominated by nationalist or non-socialist elements?

The national question and the meaning and importance of internationalism is a very fundamental question for revolutionaries and the workers movement as a whole, if not the fundamental question.

Trotskyists and the like will quickly draw a line between the 'Nationalism of the oppressed' and the 'Nationalism of the oppressor' in order to support the 'right of nations to self-determination' and 'anti-imperialist' movements.

Others, namely the communist left as well as certain anarchists have correctly reject this position, viewing all nationalism as equally pernicious and support for 'national liberation' movements as anti-working class and an attempt to tie the interests of the proletariat to the national bourgeoisie, that is, sacrifice class unity in favour of having workers butcher one another.

Since I'm sure Leninists will recommend you "Imperialism...", "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination", etc. If you havent read them already, you might want to try "The National Question (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm)" by Luxemburg or something that looks at the issue in its historical context throughout the workers movement and its meaning today: "Nation or Class (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/nationorclass)" from the ICC.

Maybe you could tell us your own thoughts on this issue?

[Ismail]

As Lenin said, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. By advocating the weakening of imperialism (and its best friend, neo-colonialism) you are by extension advocating the weakening of capitalism, especially in countries who rely more on imperialism. (E.g. the USA) Since most capitalist states rely on the USA (and/or other capitalist states) for aid anyway, hurting imperialism also hurts them and allows for more progress in those nations to be made as living conditions deteriorate.

As for nationalism versus internationalism, all Communists are internationalists. We are against claims of "regional/national" socialism that ignore or blur class struggle, or justify 'market socialism' but we obviously accept that revolution and the construction of socialism will have differences in each country and that a few stages may be necessary until the socialist stage. (Bourgeois-democratic revolution in reactionary bourgeois dictatorships, anti-colonial revolutions, etc.)

As Stalin noted (Problems of Leninism, 1937. P. 134.):

The final victory of Socialism is the full guarantee against attempts at intervention, and that means against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration can take place only with serious support from outside, only with the support of international capital.

Hence the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries, and still more, the victory of the workers in at least several countries, is a necessary condition for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for the final victory of Socialism [worldwide.]Self-determination is of the utmost importance when it comes to a side unsure of supporting socialism due to feelings of chauvinism against them. The Soviet Union would not have even existed had Lenin not respected the desires of Central Asian peoples, the Ukrainians, etc. to have at least formal self-determination. By denying self-determination, all it does is invite national chauvinism, and this is actually what the Soviet Union turned into by 1970's, a Russian-dominated state that treated other areas as colonies. Seeing this, it wasn't hard for nationalism to develop among the various ethnic groups, and even the Russians themselves who felt that other ethnic groups were "holding them down" (!).

So basically, nationalism is tolerable if it stresses national independence against imperialism, colonialism and/or chauvinism, such as in the DPRK today.

It is not tolerable when it leads to blatantly anti-socialist views and is used to distort socialism. For example, Phnom Penh radio broadcasted an appeal to "purify our armed forces, our Party and the masses of people... in defence of Cambodian territory and the Cambodian race.... One of us must kill 30 Vietnamese... two million troops would be more than enough to fight the Vietnamese, because Vietnam has only 50 million inhabitants...." (See: http://www.aworldtowin.org/back_issues/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm)

[Niccolò Rossi]

By advocating the weakening of imperialism (and its best friend, neo-colonialism) you are by extension advocating the weakening of capitalism

What does a 'weakening of imperialism' mean? How does one advocate the weakening of imperialism? Why does a weakening of imperialism mean a weakening of capitalism?

Where has national liberation ever weakened imperialism? I think the history of the 20th Century has shown revolutionaries very clearly that national liberation, anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism are perfectly, and in many instances, the best weapons of imperialism.


Since most capitalist states rely on the USA (and/or other capitalist states) for aid anyway, hurting imperialism also hurts them and allows for more progress in those nations to be made as living conditions deteriorate.

So weakening imperialism leads to a deterioration of living conditions which lead to progress (greater revolutionary potential, ie. social discontent)? Why not also support the bourgeois austerity and attacks on the working class? Cuts to the social wage, reductions in spending on health, education and infrastructure, increased working hours, roll back in conditions (minimum wage, sick pay, holidays, pensions) and tightening of civil liberties would all surely mean a deterioration of living conditions and increased revolutionary potential, no? Why would socialists not also support these measures?


As for nationalism versus internationalism, all Communists are internationalists.

All communists are internationalists. Not all communists are communists.


We are against claims of "regional/national" socialism that ignore or blur class struggle, or justify 'market socialism'

Agreed.


but we obviously accept that revolution and the construction of socialism will have differences in each country and that a few stages may be necessary until the socialist stage. (Bourgeois-democratic revolution in reactionary bourgeois dictatorships, anti-colonial revolutions, etc.)

This on the other hand is stageist nonsense which serves to hold back revolution and tie the interests of the ruling class with those of the exploited. Today capitalism is a decadent social system which has generalised itself globally. Nowhere are bourgeois-democratic revolutions still on the agenda.


So basically, nationalism is tolerable if it stresses national independence against imperialism, colonialism and/or chauvinism, such as in the DPRK today.

It is not tolerable when it leads to blatantly anti-socialist views

This is contradictory.

[Ismail]

What does a 'weakening of imperialism' mean? How does one advocate the weakening of imperialism? Why does a weakening of imperialism mean a weakening of capitalism?Weakening imperialism means that the various countries that most of us would label neo-colonies (e.g. 90%+ of Africa) are freed from foreign influence. Imperialism is used to improve living standards in the exploiter countries, so in this case living standards in the US (for example) would go down, the labor aristocracy would thus also suffer and reformist unions, etc. would become increasingly discredited.


Where has national liberation ever weakened imperialism? I think the history of the 20th Century has shown revolutionaries very clearly that national liberation, anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism are perfectly, and in many instances, the best weapons of imperialism.It weakened imperialism in many places. Africa is an obvious example. However, neo-colonialism has replaced outright colonialism in basically every single state in Africa today, as a result they continued to be exploited by imperialist powers. Anti-imperialism is still popular though as an ideology in Africa, and some leaders even had to be faux anti-imperialists. (E.g. Mobutu, Traoré)


So weakening imperialism leads to a deterioration of living conditions which lead to progress (greater revolutionary potential, ie. social discontent)? Why not also support the bourgeois austerity and attacks on the working class? Cuts to the social wage, reductions in spending on health, education and infrastructure, increased working hours, roll back in conditions (minimum wage, sick pay, holidays, pensions) and tightening of civil liberties would all surely mean a deterioration of living conditions and increased revolutionary potential, no? Why would socialists not also support these measures?I fail to see how fighting exploitation in an African country by an imperialist power, and the profits and goods being unable to go from that African country to workers in the imperialist country in an exploitative manner, can be compared with socialists fighting for the removal of the reformist gains of the workers in said imperialist countries.

The former either results in workers in these countries demanding that imperialism comes back, or (I'm going to assume far more likely) a greater acceptance of socialism.


This on the other hand is stageist nonsense which serves to hold back revolution and tie the interests of the ruling class with those of the exploited. Today capitalism is a decadent social system which has generalised itself globally. Nowhere are bourgeois-democratic revolutions still on the agenda.The goal of being content with a bourgeois-democratic revolution is pretty much over today, yes, hence why these revolutions can be turned to socialist ones. A bourgeois-democratic revolution generally presupposes progressive forces in a country anyway.


This is contradictory.No it isn't. Denying or supporting class struggle are two very separate things, I don't see how nationalism directed against imperialism in a socialist states means class struggle (or socialism) ceases to exist. When nationalism justifies things (e.g. "this is X Socialism for our people") then that is when it degenerates into revisionism.

Of course when I say nationalism in the non-revisionist case is tolerable, I don't mean that I support it, simply that I can understand it being used. As noted, nationalism is a bad thing since it can quickly degenerate into making society a "national" (class conciliation) one, etc.

Albanian nationalism for example worked well, it never developed its own "brand" of socialism, it never denied class struggle, and Radio Tirana would often quote other international Communist journals, it broadcasted itself in various languages calling for the overthrow of various states where Hoxhaists were prominent (e.g. West Africa, Ethiopia, both German states), etc.

Of course even then nationalism had adverse effects.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Me thinks maybe this topic has moved slightly away from the question of Nationalism and Internationalism and onto the question of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism. Of course the two are inexplicably linked so I don't see the harm in continuing the discussion, but I think we ought to make sure it doesn't move too far away from the OP.


Weakening imperialism means that the various countries that most of us would label neo-colonies (e.g. 90%+ of Africa) are freed from foreign influence.

This doesn't answer the question. Why would the freeing of African neo-colonies from foreign influence mean a weakening of imperialism? In what sense has imperialism been weakened?

Maybe however this crosses over into a broader and more fundamental question of what is imperialism? But I think maybe this is another topic for another thread


Imperialism is used to improve living standards in the exploiter countries

This is a rather strange thing to say (something which the ambiguity of the statement does not help). Do you think the ruling class is motivated by and has improved living standards in mind when it pursues it's own imperialist interests?


It weakened imperialism in many places. Africa is an obvious example.

Your next quote would indicate otherwise.


However, neo-colonialism has replaced outright colonialism in basically every single state in Africa today, as a result they continued to be exploited by imperialist powers.

I think this tells us something about anti-imperialism in Africa, namely that anti-colonialism and self-determination where perfectly compatible with world imperialism and directly helpful to this-or-that nation's imperialist ambitions.


Anti-imperialism is still popular though as an ideology in Africa, and some leaders even had to be faux anti-imperialists. (E.g. Mobutu, Traoré)

The persistence of anti-imperialist ideology in Africa shows how very effective it is in its role of mystification and tying the proletariat to the national bourgeoisie. I think it was/is a little more than 'some' of the native ruling factions who were/are 'faux anti-imperialists'. Matter of fact I would say it is impossible today for any faction of the bourgeoisie to be anti-imperialist.


I fail to see how fighting exploitation in an African country by an imperialist power, and the profits and goods being unable to go from that African country to workers in the imperialist country in an exploitative manner, can be compared with socialists fighting for the removal of the reformist gains of the workers in said imperialist countries.

Firstly, it is not only what you do say, but what you don't say that is interesting here. Whilst you note that anti-imperialism in one-or-another African nation is a fight against foreign exploitation, you don't note that it was also a fight for black exploitation by black bosses.

Secondly, you identify the working class of the oppressor nation as the beneficiary of imperialism ("the profits and goods being unable to go from that African country to workers in the imperialist country")! I think this shows a clear lack of understanding of what imperialism is by any definition.

Finally, I make the comparison I do because the logic for supporting both is the same (atleast for you that is, I've seen different Leninists justify their position on the national question in a whole different number of different ways).


The goal of being content with a bourgeois-democratic revolution is pretty much over today, yes

I would say it is completely over. Capitalism is today a decadent mode of production. Of course this is a matter of class perspective.


hence why these revolutions can be turned to socialist ones.

Heres another interesting argument made by supporters of anti-imperialism. Support the struggle, lead the struggle, win the struggle to socialism. Of course we are yet to see where this tactic has proven successful, let alone not ended up in the masacre of workers and communist militants.


A bourgeois-democratic revolution generally presupposes progressive forces in a country anyway.

Today the bourgeois-democratic revolution is off the agenda of history. The bourgeoisie is no longer a progressive or revolutionary force.


I don't see how nationalism directed against imperialism in a socialist states means class struggle (or socialism) ceases to exist.

That's a matter of whether you want to call North Korea a socialist state! However, whether or not you do, nationalism always mean subsuming the class and the fight for socialism to the fatherland and it's defence.

[Ismail]

This doesn't answer the question. Why would the freeing of African neo-colonies from foreign influence mean a weakening of imperialism? In what sense has imperialism been weakened?Because, sans outright invasion, it would no longer be able to exploit the country.


This is a rather strange thing to say (something which the ambiguity of the statement does not help). Do you think the ruling class is motivated by and has improved living standards in mind when it pursues it's own imperialist interests?At about the same rate as they care about using reformism to "calm down" the proletariat.


Your next quote would indicate otherwise.It weakened imperialism then, and it obviously wasn't for long.


I think this tells us something about anti-imperialism in Africa, namely that anti-colonialism and self-determination where perfectly compatible with world imperialism and directly helpful to this-or-that nation's imperialist ambitions.I'd say it was more like these anti-colonialists were generally not socialists, or whatever socialists did come to power were thrown out relatively soon after. Of course, these were 'socialists' in the "left of social-democracy" sense, not necessarily Marxist sense.


The persistence of anti-imperialist ideology in Africa shows how very effective it is in its role of mystification and tying the proletariat to the national bourgeoisie. I think it was/is a little more than 'some' of the native ruling factions who were/are 'faux anti-imperialists'. Matter of fact I would say it is impossible today for any faction of the bourgeoisie to be anti-imperialist.There is always a national bourgeoisie and comprador bourgeoisie, although the former would probably not be able to hold onto power without outside aid or without trying to have imperialist ambitions of its own vis-à-vis other African states, in which case nationalism or even so low as tribalism would be used to shore up support for a reactionary cause.


Firstly, it is not only what you do say, but what you don't say that is interesting here. Whilst you note that anti-imperialism in one-or-another African nation is a fight against foreign exploitation, you don't note that it was also a fight for black exploitation by black bosses.All the better for workers in these countries to stop focusing on national liberation (now that it has been achieved in this scenario) and to instead focus on socialist revolution.


Secondly, you identify the working class of the oppressor nation as the beneficiary of imperialism ("the profits and goods being unable to go from that African country to workers in the imperialist country")! I think this shows a clear lack of understanding of what imperialism is by any definition.It should be seemingly obvious that imperialism accounts for much of the standard of living in 'first world' countries. Sweatshops are an example.


Today the bourgeois-democratic revolution is off the agenda of history. The bourgeoisie is no longer a progressive or revolutionary force.The national bourgeoisie can be temporarily progressive in these situations (coalitions with more progressive forces against the comprador bourgeoisie and oppressor nation, etc.), but that's the time when Communists organize and prepare for the inevitable reaction after the national bourgeoisie settles in.


nationalism always mean subsuming the class and the fight for socialism to the fatherland and it's defence.Nationalism is generally used by socialists as a way of shoring up support, not as a primary thing to lead society. When it gets to be a primary way of accomplishing things (which it is in danger of becoming in the DPRK) then it becomes reactionary. As noted, nationalism in socialist cases is generally against national chauvinism from another group.

I think that nationalism will generally erode itself in places like Africa in favor of Pan-Africanism, etc. due to progressive forces.

Just curious, what's your stance on Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev?

[PeaderO'Donnell]

From Monkey Smashes Heaven.

Marx and Engels and Nationalism
Marx and Engels certainly believed class struggles would prove to be of greater historical moment than the national conflicts which they witnessed erupting in Europe at the time. Moreover, they often considered that national struggles were antagonistic to the interests of the proletariat (confined as it was to a very few advanced capitalist countries in western Europe) insofar as they would either (a) distract the working class from its historic mission to socialize the means of production and end exploitation, (b) lend proletarian support to reactionary regimes, or (c) artificially maintain the existence of nations, which, as such, placed political fetters on proletarian internationalism.
However, it is not quite true that Marx and Engels never supported either side in a distinctly international conflict between two “reactionary” states. When Prussia and Austria came to blows in the 1860s, Marx and Engels regretfully backed the Prussian side, considering it comparatively more effective in creating the necessary conditions “for the national organization and unification of the German proletariat.” (1) Marx and Engels later decisively supported the semi-feudal Prussian side in the Franco-Prussian war, not for bourgeois chauvinist reasons, but primarily because they considered that the unification of the German nation, which this conflict had helped to advance, was a necessary stage in the creation of a centralized and “independent German working class movement” to confront the bourgeoisie proper (2). So much were Marx and Engels supportive of a Prussian victory (and against the advice of their compatriots living in Berlin who were understandably worried by the chauvinist sentiments being whipped up amongst the working class by the state) that Engels penned an anonymous pamphlet on tactics to be adopted by the Prussian Army. The pamphlet became famous throughout Germany and was widely believed to have been written by a high-ranking Prussian officer: it demonstrated the aptness of Engels’ nickname of “the general”.
Marx and Engels wanted to see the productive forces engendered by capitalism develop as far as possible so as to fully allow for their socialization by the proletariat. To this end, their primary focus in Europe and beyond was on supporting those national conflicts which might facilitate the destruction of feudal and pre-feudal social structures. Thus, Marx and Engels supported the “social revolution” which the British colonialist murder-machine had unleashed in India and that which Amerika visited upon Mexico. Although it is certainly the case, as Comrade Mao noted, that imperialism helped to demolish moribund feudal social structures in countries like India and China, it is equally beyond doubt that this process did not lead to the development of fully capitalist relations of production as Marx, Engels and several generations of Trotskyist and crypto-Trotskyist apologists for imperialism argue. Instead, it led to the retention of semi-feudal relations of production and bureaucrat and comprador capitalist dependency.
In Europe itself, Marx and Engels unequivocally supported Polish nationalism -then under a reactionary form of aristocratic government – against Russia on the basis that a unified and independent Poland would damage Russian Tsarist reaction and help to liberate the proletariat in the countries of the so-called Holy Alliance (Russia, Prussia and Austria) from feudalist monarchism. In any case, it is worth quoting Engels at length to make sense of his support for one nationalist agenda against another:

“There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historical development. These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution. Such, in Scotland, are the Gaels the supporters of the Stuarts from 1640 to 1745.
Such, in France, are the Bretons, the supporters of the Bourbons from 1792 to 1800.
Such, in Spain, are the Basques, the supporters of Don Carlos.
Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the residual fragments of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development. That this residual fragment, which is likewise extremely confused, sees its salvation only in a reversal of the whole European movement, which in its view ought to go not from west to east, but from east to west, and that for it the instrument of liberation and the bond of unity is the Russian knout – that is the most natural thing in the world.” (3)
At first blush, it is tempting to dismiss Engels arguments, and the violent rhetoric he employs, as anti-democratic, “Whiggish,” great-nation chauvinist or as unfairly Slavophobic. However, Maoist-Third Worldists strongly defend the idea, espoused by Engels, that a nation is not a primordial entity existing apart from the course of social struggles. Furthermore, although Engels was surely overly dismissive of the democratic and historic potential of some national groupings (for example, the national struggle in the Basque country is centuries-old and should be supported both for its democratic content and as a means of dividing the parasite First World) it is easy to understand his concerns. Neither Marx nor Engels properly foresaw the bourgeoisification of the “working class,” the creation of an ever-expanding labor aristocracy in the advanced capitalist centres of the world system. For Marx and Engels, viewing the social democratic struggles of an immiserated proletariat in Western Europe, the creation of capitalism predicated upon the demise of feudalism would usher in a new period of world history, a revolutionary history wherein systematic exploitation would be a thing of the past. Those social forces which they believed aimed to curtail the development of capitalism seemed to them anti-proletarian ones which, as dedicated communists, they were bound to oppose even with weapons provided by non-proletarian and even non-bourgeois classes, as in Poland.
Marx and Engels had a change of mind with regard to the issue of what Maoist-Third Worldists call oppressed-nation nationalism. The exemplary case of Marx and Engels moving from a position of proto-Trotskyism (where the fate of an oppressed nation was to be decided by the success of the revolutionary workers’ movement in the oppressor nation) to a position of proto-Leninism (where the workers’ movement in the oppressor nation is dependent on a successful national liberation movement in the oppressed nation) (4) is, of course, Ireland. Marx and Engels originally and for many years held the line of urging the English workers movement to help break the back of “their own” aristocracy and its reactionary hold over the British political system by agitating for the legal independence of Ireland (Britain’s “first colony” which illustrated that the “so-called liberty of English citizens is based on the oppression of the colonies”). However, after many years of watching the inaction, incompetence and outright treachery of the English labor movement in regard to Ireland, Marx and Engels decided that the English workers would not and could not achieve anything until the Irish people themselves had first demolished English landlordism on their home soil. Marx wrote:

“To accelerate the social development in Europe, you must push on the catastrophe of official England. To do so, you must attack her in Ireland. That’s her weakest point. Ireland lost, the British ‘Empire’ is gone and the class war in England, till now somnolent and chronic, will assume acute forms. But England is the metropolis of landlordism and capitalism all over the world.”
Marx and Engels, then, despite their long-running hostility to peasant movements as allegedly natural allies of the anti-communist bourgeoisie, had no qualms about supporting one in Ireland. Marx and Engels presciently concluded:

“A purely socialist movement cannot be expected in Ireland for a considerable time. People there want first of all to become peasants owning a plot of land, and after they have achieved that mortgages will appear on the scene and they will be ruined once more. But this should not prevent us from seeking to help them get rid of their landlords, that is, to pass from semi-feudal conditions to capitalist conditions.”
Moreover, Marx and Engels were well aware that the national liberation movement in Ireland was not simply a bourgeois movement against imperialism and landlordism but, rather, was “characterized by a socialistic tendency (in a negative sense directed against the appropriation of the soil) and by being a lower orders movement.”
It is fair to conclude that despite contradictory statements to be found in their work (especially in the Communist Manifesto, with its optimistic tendency to see the proletariat quickly bursting the fetters of national restrictions on peoples’ material and cultural development), Marx and Engels were not averse to supporting one side or another in a conflict over nationality if they thought it would advance the interests of the proletariat.
The Principal Contradiction in the World as that Between the First and the Third World
As Maoist-Third Worldists, we consider that the principal contradiction in the world today is the conflict between the Third World and the First World, that is, the conflict between the imperialist nations and oppressed nations. When we say that it is the principal contradiction, we do not, of course, mean that it is the only social contradiction, or that other social contradictions are not important. Certainly, the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat continues: in fact, it is precisely this conflict which has generated the principal contradiction. Class struggle has fundamentally shifted to the international level. And, Maoism-Third Worldism – the real 21st century communism – is the only movement in the world to adequately take account of this indisputable fact. Other contradictions – such as those between males and females, between the petit-bourgeoisie and the haute-bourgeoisie, between religion and atheism, between humanity and nature – still have social significance, and sometimes explosive significance at that. However, they are all overdetermined by the conflict between the imperialism of entirely parasitic nations and the resistance to such of exploited nations.
Capitalism, as a social system enduring for over four hundred years and gradually up to now encompassing the entire globe (apart from a few isolated enclaves of primitive communist tribal society still existing) has seen several contradictions come to the fore during its lifetime. In the early modern period, characterised internationally by many acts of colonial conquest and piracy, the principal contradiction in the world was that between the new social forces of capitalism and the decadence of feudalism. More than a century and a half later, the creation of an exploited proletariat in the capitalist heartlands made the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie prominent. The exploited European workers of Marx’s time had to struggle hard to retain some of the surplus value which was being daily extracted from their labor. A very large part of the value accruing to capital in the first half of the nineteenth century was the product of exploited metropolitan labor and a serious internal contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie arose thereby. So severe did this conflict of interest between the two major classes of capitalism become that Marx, Engels and their communist followers fully hoped and worked towards socialist revolutions occurring in their lifetime. However, due to the fact that the bourgeoisie was in the ascendancy precisely because of its domination and plunder of the land and resources of the colonies, it was in a strong position to buy off its own working class. As a result, the labor movement in the imperialist countries managed to blunt the domestic contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and guarantee for itself an increasingly large share in the spoils of colonialism. As capitalism advanced to become imperialism proper – the export of capital itself via corporate and banking institutions to create landless proletarian laborers in the oppressed nations – Lenin declared that conditions were being created for the “seal of parasitism” to be set on entire nations. In other words, the more capitalism (transformed into monopoly capitalism through the centralizing logic of capitalist competition) has come to depend on the exploited and super-exploited labor of workers in the periphery of the world system for its surplus value creation, the less the “working class” in the imperialist countries has constituted a motive force to resolve the contradiction between capitalism and socialism. A situation mostly, though certainly not completely, unseen by Marx and Engels has developed whereby the “labor” of the rich countries exploits the labor of the poor countries. In the imperialist countries, because of the influx of super-profits from the (neo)colonies, class conflict has become replaced by intra-bourgeois class alliance. As Emmanuel has written, with a view to the historical culmination of a process of international class struggle:

“When… the relative importance of the national exploitation from which a working class suffers through belonging to the proletariat diminishes continually as compared with that from which it benefits through belonging to a privileged nation, a moment comes when the aim of increasing the national income in absolute terms prevails over that of improving the relative share of one part of the nation over the other… Thereafter a de facto united front of the workers and capitalists of the well-to-do countries, directed against the poor nations, co-exists with an internal trade-union struggle over the sharing of the loot. Under these conditions this trade union struggle necessarily becomes more and more a sort of settlement of accounts between partners, and it is no accident that in the richest countries, such as the United States – with similar tendencies already apparent in the other big capitalist countries – militant trade union struggle is degenerating first into trade unionism of the classic British type, then into corporatism, and finally into racketeering.” (5)
Typically, this class alliance has taken the political form of white nationalism, whereby the various exploiting classes at the center of the world system seek to discriminate against and dispossess the poor masses of Asia, Africa, and Latin America by means of labor protectionism and closed borders on the social-democratic model or by outright and open white supremacist terrorism when the presence of large numbers of immigrant laborers or dispossessed nationals seems to threaten bourgeois super-wages.
Only on two occasions does the contradiction between imperialism and the (neo)colonies appear possibly subordinate to other contradictions. Firstly, in 1917, the workers’ revolution in imperialist Russia, by moving the struggle for the transcendence of capitalism onto a qualitatively higher stage, briefly made the principal contradiction in the world that between socialism and imperialism. Secondly, from 1941 to around 1944, the principal contradiction in the world was between socialism and imperialism. During these years specifically fascist imperialism was a bigger threat to national liberation and socialism than ordinary capitalist-imperialism. In neither of these two occasions could the oppressed nations of the world afford to remain neutral, since the defeat of socialism would certainly have meant greater and harder struggles against ascendant imperialism. Nonetheless, after supporting the world’s only socialist state became the duty of all progressive forces in the world and the USSR was secured against fascist subjugation, the principal contradiction quickly reverted back to that between oppressed and oppressor nations.
Nowadays there are no socialist states and no serious possibilities of national independence movements exploiting deep divisions within the imperialist bloc. Especially in the current era of whole-nation parasitism, the struggle for socialism and the struggle against imperialism is more than ever one and the same struggle.
Islamic Resistance and Imperialism in Iran
All of the above has an obvious bearing on the question of whether or not communists, as atheists and scientific materialists, should support groups in Iran and elsewhere that ostensibly base their struggles on Islamic doctrine.
Maoist-Third Worldists are uncompromising internationalists. We support democracy and socialist freedom for the world majority. We recognize that the only means of achieving these ends is through global people’s war. The form of struggle eventually requires the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Exploited Nations (JDPEN) over the imperialist First World. That means supporting any and every class, regardless of religion, “race”, or gender that can and must be rallied to the anti-imperialist cause.
Orientalists of the neo-conservative or so-called RIM variety, see the principal contradiction in Iran as that between a demonized “Islam” and a elitist “democracy.” They are to know nothing of the history of Iran, of its inspirational struggles against backwardness and imperialist domination, or of the far-sighted modernism that has inspired its revolutionary history. (6) The imperialist torturers, murderers and plunderers who sponsor the puppet religious fundamentalist and plutocratic regimes which surround Iran, and, especially, the racist settler state of Israel have no right to talk of the obvious shortcomings of Iranian democracy, which is advanced in comparison. Opponents of the Iranian state on the “left” must learn the facts of Iranian politics and popular consciousness which demonstrate that Islam is neither entirely progressive nor entirely reactionary in the context of the principal contradiction. Islam has historically developed in Iran and elsewhere as a religion of protest that is intrinsically uncomfortable in power. In face of the brutal repression of left socialists and nationalists in Iran by comprador capitalist interests – especially under the Shah Reza Pahalavi monarchy – Islam has provided a meaningful popular platform upon which petty-bourgeois clerics have challenged the flunkeyism of the ruling class. Islamism has often merged with the anti-colonial ideologies of nationalism and socialism, respectively representing the class interests of the peasantry, the proletariat and their intellectual champions. Within Iran progressive ideologies have emerged which (even whilst they are completely secular or hostile to clericalism) owe much to Islamic thought, just as Islamic thought has developed which owes much to modern nationalist and socialist thought.
The people of Iran in recent years have been split electorally between bourgeois and “liberal” parties representing in turn comprador complicity with imperialism’s predatory designs on the nation and a more pious but also more socialistic (in the sense Marx uses the word above) organization of the masses. President Ahmadinejad represents the entrenched state and military bourgeoisie of Iran, but he does so by making limited but quite powerful appeals to the class interests of the proletariat and lumpen proletariat. It is not only Islam that animates the latter’s political consciousness, but class consciousness and nationalist resentment towards imperialism.
The Islamic Republic as such certainly cannot provide a durable model for the necessary revolutionary struggle in Iran, since it does not properly address questions of class and is overly dependent on an often sectarian bourgeois clericalism. But it is equally certain that Islamism as a progressive state doctrine in Iran is justified as a defiantly conservative ideology by the threatening and potentially disastrous presence of imperialist militarism on its borders. This paradox is summed up by Dabashi:

“In Iran, we have a deeply flawed democracy. But it is a democracy. The ruling clerical elite is an entirely parasitical band of illegitimate and unelected theocrats – but they are integral to a political process that has generated a grassroots democracy. That democracy is riddled with flaws and constitutionally compromised by a number of undemocratic institutions definitive to the Islamic Republic; yet neither a king nor a dictator, neither an American emperor nor a Persian monarch, decides Iranians’ fate. People do.” (7)
Dabashi exaggerates the extent to which popular participation in the bourgeois electoral process constitutes democracy. New Democracy through People’s War is as essential to Iran’s liberation from the principal enemy – imperialism – as it is elsewhere in the Third World. But Dabashi is absolutely right to assert that the task of revolutionizing the Iranian political process is one for the Iranian people themselves – along with their oppressed Iraqi, Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian friends with whom their liberation is linked – as opposed to one for comprador Iranian expatriates, First Worldist social-fascists, or imperialist functionaries to attempt. Monkey Smashes Heaven reiterates here its committed support for the anti-imperialist strategy of all popular forces in Iran up to and including those at the head of the Iranian state itself.
Since we regard inter-imperialist rivalry as a potent force for consolidating fascism in the First World, Maoism-Third Worldism is in general not supportive of either side in such a conflict. The exception to this rule is when a geopolitical situation arises whereby the victory of one imperialist or group of imperialists is likely to weaken the stronger imperialists and create space for the victory of People’s War. However, since the conflict between imperialism and Iran is decidedly not an inter-imperialist one, this line is not relevant. Maoist-Third Worldists declare that any “left-wing” groups considering Iran as being imperialist are unscientific and reactionary enemies of the proletariat.
Death to the Great Satan, Amerikkkan imperialism!
Long Live the Victory of People’s War!
Notes:
(1) Engels to Marx, 25 July 1866.
(2) Engels to Marx, 15 August 1870.
(3) Engels, ‘The Magyar Struggle’.
(4) Maoism-Third Worldism does not in any way consider that the liberation of the Third World from imperialist bondage will advance the position of the proletariat in the imperialist countries at this time (a) because there is no proletariat in the imperialist countries and, relatedly, (b) because the “workers” in the imperialist countries will certainly suffer a massive loss of material income and white chauvinist pride as a result of the necessary world-historic defeat of the First World by the Third World.
(5) Arghiri Emmanuel, Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade (London, New Left Books, 1972), pp. 180-1.
(6) Hamid Dabashi,Iran: A People Interrupted (New York, The New Press, 2007).
(7) Hamid Dabashi,Iran: A People Interrupted (New York, The New Press, 2007), pp. 225-6.

[robbo203]

As Lenin said, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. By advocating the weakening of imperialism (and its best friend, neo-colonialism) you are by extension advocating the weakening of capitalism, especially in countries who rely more on imperialism. (E.g. the USA) Since most capitalist states rely on the USA (and/or other capitalist states) for aid anyway, hurting imperialism also hurts them and allows for more progress in those nations to be made as living conditions deteriorate.


Like many of his other ideas e.g. his absurd notion of a bribed labour aristocracy, Lenin´s theory of imperialism is plainly false and misconceived. Imperialism in a capitalist world is a zero sum game. Fighting one imperialism merely facilitates the emergence of another. You dont weaken capitalism by advocating national liberation struggles, you actually strengthen it and you reinforce its nationalist ideology along with the perncious myth that the workers (or indeed peasants) and capitalists have a common identity and common interests. Imperialism at the end of the day is an extension of nationalism which inevitably takes the expansionist logic of capital beyond the boundaries of the nation state. To imagine that you can have capitalism without imperialism is naive. The only way to effectively fight both is to oppose all nationalism including the nationalism of the so called national liberation movements

[Ismail]

I fail to see how, for example, Greenland can be imperialist, or Togo. The latter can give a helping hand to imperialism if under a reactionary government (e.g. Togolese troops with British backing go into Ghana to help overthrow the government or whatever), but not be an imperialist power. It isn't like we're talking about Norway vs. Sweden or Germany vs. Russia (better described as inter-imperialist rivalry if such conflicts were to flare up), we're talking about Zimbabwe vs. the UK or Bolivia vs. the US.

[robbo203]

I fail to see how, for example, Greenland can be imperialist, or Togo. The latter can give a helping hand to imperialism if under a reactionary government (e.g. Togolese troops with British backing go into Ghana to help overthrow the government or whatever), but not be an imperialist power. It isn't like we're talking about Norway vs. Sweden or Germany vs. Russia, we're talking about Zimbabwe vs. the UK or Bolivia vs. the US.


All states are manifestly or latently imperialist - yes even little Togo. Given tthe right circumstances it could easily change from being latently to become manifestly imperialist. Its just that in an imperialist world of capitalism there is a distinct pecking order. So called anti imperialist struggles are often just about the place of one´s "nation" in this order - reshuffling the cards in the pack to use a mixed metaphor. The top dogs still get to be the top dogs and the utter naivete of those who advocate national liberaion struggles is to imagine you can have a capitalist world wihout imperialism. Like all reformists they are fighting the symptoms and not the disease

[Ismail]

Except we don't claim that anti-imperialism will eliminate capitalism, we just recognize that imperialism keeps major capitalist states running. Once the anti-imperialist struggle in a nation is complete (which presupposes progressive and communist forces in these countries working against imperialism), focus can then be made on the nation itself. Besides, if a nation is dominated by another, imperialist power, and there's a popular movement calling for economic, social, etc. independence from said power within said nation, what do you say to them?

What if, say, a very reactionary government took power in the UK in the 60's and did things like recognize Rhodesia and send supplies or troops to suppress ZANU and ZAPU? Or South Africa in the 80's gives 'independence' to a white-ruled South-West Africa (Namibia) supported by American and/or British troops in the "struggle against Communism" (SWAPO and the MPLA)? Would Zimbabweans be wrong to fight against the Rhodesian government in the name of securing their own country? Would Namibians be wrong to fight against the South-West African government too?

Those would probably never happen, but still.

Also, tell me how Togo is imperialist.

[robbo203]

Except we don't claim that anti-imperialism will eliminate capitalism, we just recognize that imperialism keeps major capitalist states running. Once the anti-imperialist struggle in a nation is complete (which presupposes progressive and communist forces in these countries working against imperialism), focus can then be made on the nation itself. Besides, if a nation is dominated by another, imperialist power, and there's a popular movement calling for economic, social, etc. independence from said power within said nation, what do you say to them?.

But it doesnt work like that. It cant work like that. You cannot say lets deal with imperialism first then we can go on and deal with "the nation". Imperialism is an aspect of global capitalism and all nation states are embedded within and are part of this global system. You get rid of , or weaken, one imperialist power and another will pop up and takes its place. Is a zero sum game like I said.

You are also not seeing the wood for the trees. Anti-imperialist struggles for the most part, reinforce local capialism rather than weaken it. They reinforce it by promoting a nationalist ideology

What would I say to a social movement wanting eto be economically independent from an imperialist power.? I would say to them this is an irrelevant and pointless objective. In global capitalism production is a socialised affair. We are all interdependent now. Capital is truly inernational. Autarky is a pipedream. What such a movement would be talking about I guess, is local control over the means of production by the local capialist class. This too is irrelevant . But this is what national liberation struggles are all about - supporting your homegrown capitalists against the foreign capialists and what happens when the national liberation struggle has been won. One of the first things these newly "liberated" capitalist states do is to plead for foreign investment! So much for the struggle against imperialism



What if, say, a very reactionary government took power in the UK in the 60's and did things like recognize Rhodesia and send supplies or troops to suppress ZANU and ZAPU? Or South Africa in the 80's gives 'independence' to a white-ruled South-West Africa (Namibia) supported by American and/or British troops in the "struggle against Communism" (SWAPO and the MPLA)? Would Zimbabweans be wrong to fight against the Rhodesian government in the name of securing their own country? Would Namibians be wrong to fight against the South-West African government too?

Those would probably never happen, but still..

The enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend. You give the example of Zimbabwe. This exacly demonstrates my point. Zimbabwe under Mugabe has been a vicious tyrannical capitalist regime. Your argument seems to suggest hat we have only two options - to support a British government backing Rhodesia or align ourselves with the thuggish capitalist oufit that is ZaNU: No we dont have to. We can quite easily say "a plague on both your houses"! We can say the choice between continuing wih colonialism or working for national "liberation"is a non-choice, an irrelevance. That is a squabble between capitalists. Let them fight it out. The blood of workers is not worth shedding in the cause of determining who is going to exploit them



Also, tell me how Togo is imperialist.

As I said it can be latently imperialist which means the potential for imperialism always exists if not the acuality

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Like many of his other ideas e.g. his absurd notion of a bribed labour aristocracy,


Just how is it absurd?

The reality of a bribed labour aristocracy was first noted by Karl Marx and not by Lenin. It has obviously become a much more important factor since than.

But for someone who believes that defending your working class or small farming community from fascist death squads and colonial brutality isnt worth a dog's piss...

Opposing the colonial and comprador forces in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and India is the first task of the working and small farming classes there because they are clearly the main enemny, the struggle against the western oppressor is the main form the class struggle takes in these countries. That doesnt mean that they should not assert their independence from the bourgious forces opposing the west in every way possible.

The writings of James Connolly explain this much better than I could ever do.

[Ismail]

You are also not seeing the wood for the trees. Anti-imperialist struggles for the most part, reinforce local capialism rather than weaken it.Generally in many of these states, neo-colonialism has it so much of their livelihood is dependent on what outside, imperialist nations want them to do. Also I'd rather have a bunch of weak local capitalist states than a huge one which is able to dominate huge swaths of states and become a superpower doing so.


They reinforce it by promoting a nationalist ideologyActually, in that case nationalism is used to justify imperialism, not "we should be free!" Like in the US, nationalism is strictly reactionary, it serves no other purpose. In Togo, it could be used to justify national independence against neo-colonialism. (Generally more would be accomplished with Pan-Africanism, though)


What would I say to a social movement wanting eto be economically independent from an imperialist power.? I would say to them this is an irrelevant and pointless objective. In global capitalism production is a socialised affair. We are all interdependent now. Capital is truly inernational. Autarky is a pipedream. What such a movement would be talking about I guess, is local control over the means of production by the local capialist class. This too is irrelevant . But this is what national liberation struggles are all about - supporting your homegrown capitalists against the foreign capialists and what happens when the national liberation struggle has been won. One of the first things these newly "liberated" capitalist states do is to plead for foreign investment! So much for the struggle against imperialismYou could say to them that such a struggle is irrelevant, but then they'd probably just ignore you. Interdependence is occuring, but does that justify imperialism? Plus not all interdependence is a result of capitalism. African unity is etching forward, and what about the European Union?

Also national liberation struggles are generally led by progressive forces, so instead of foreign investment from the UK, it would be more like Togo asking Mali or something for aid.


The enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend. You give the example of Zimbabwe. This exacly demonstrates my point. Zimbabwe under Mugabe has been a vicious tyrannical capitalist regime. Your argument seems to suggest hat we have only two options - to support a British government backing Rhodesia or align ourselves with the thuggish capitalist oufit that is ZaNU: No we dont have to. We can quite easily say "a plague on both your houses"!No, there are two choices: either passively accept British imperialism (and Rhodesian white supremacist domination) or support a popular and progressive movement for Africans to take control of their own land. It wasn't until this year and the last that Mugabe finally had to work closely with the British after Tsvangirai became Prime Minister. There is no magical third choice. If you advocate Communism then you will probably be pushed into the anti-colonialist movement if anything since the Smith government wasn't exactly friendly to Communism. Either that or you would be ignored because the people have no reason to support Communism since they associate it with a bunch of guys did nothing to help in struggle.

I'm fairly sure you regard Mugabe as less of a bastard than Ian Smith, right?


We can say the choice between continuing wih colonialism or working for national "liberation"is a non-choice, an irrelevance. That is a squabble between capitalists. Let them fight it out. The blood of workers is not worth shedding in the cause of determining who is going to exploit themExcept workers generally involve themselves in these struggles. Weren't most anti-colonial rebellions caused by workers themselves? Unions generally didn't have very good experiences under colonialism.


As I said it can be latently imperialist which means the potential for imperialism always exists if not the acualityI'm sure in the year 5000 we may just have a device that can modify the contents of an apple and transform it into an orange, but that's of little relevance to us. Sure, Togo can become an imperialist power in its own right, but we can safely predict that isn't going to happen any time soon.

You seem to assume that capitalist states are inherently imperialist. They are only imperialist if they have ample opportunities for exploitation in other countries and have a bourgeoisie whose profits would be better made in imperialism than in home industries. Togo does not have either, so saying that it is "latently imperialist" makes no sense.

[Niccolò Rossi]

At about the same rate as they care about using reformism to "calm down" the proletariat.

Imperialism is not a conscious policy merely chosen by this or that national capital. It corresponds to the economic mechanisms of capitalism, to quote Luxemburg:


"Imperialism is not the creation of any one or any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all it€ relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will." (The Junius Pamphlet)


It weakened imperialism then, and it obviously wasn't for long.

If you assert that it did maybe you can evaluate the legitimacy of your conclusion that it would lead to a weakening of capitalism, a deterioration of living conditions and "progress in those nations"?


All the better for workers in these countries to stop focusing on national liberation (now that it has been achieved in this scenario) and to instead focus on socialist revolution.

Interesting then that Trotskyists, Maoists and all other variety of Marxist-Leninists still found it necessary to support these movements.


The national bourgeoisie can be temporarily progressive in these situations (coalitions with more progressive forces against the comprador bourgeoisie and oppressor nation, etc.),

As I said above. Capitalism is no longer progressive anywhere in the world. It is a decadent social system.


that's the time when Communists organize and prepare for the inevitable reaction after the national bourgeoisie settles in.

No, communists do not say that proletarian revolution must or can wait, be put off, until workers have butchered one another for the victory of the national bourgeoisie.


Nationalism is generally used by socialists as a way of shoring up support, not as a primary thing to lead society.

No. Socialists do not and can not use nationalism to shore up support. This is at best vile opportunism and at worst blatant reactionary. Revolution can only be made by the working class itself, conscious of it's interests and historic mission, not by being goaded into it by appeals to nationalism.


Just curious, what's your stance on Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev?

I don't know enough about him to make a comment. Why do you ask? What significance do you think he has?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Like many of his other ideas e.g. his absurd notion of a bribed labour aristocracy, Lenin´s theory of imperialism is plainly false and misconceived.

I would not go this far. Though I understand and appreciate what you are saying here.


Imperialism at the end of the day is an extension of nationalism which inevitably takes the expansionist logic of capital beyond the boundaries of the nation state.

Imperialism is not merely the extension of nationalism (which it seems to me you are suggesting here). It is inherent to the mechanics of capitalism at a certain stage of it's development (you seem to recognise this in the next line where you say "To imagine that you can have capitalism without imperialism is naive.")

Despite these couple of things I agree completely with your posts in this thread so far.

[Ismail]

Imperialism is not a conscious policy merely chosen by this or that national capital. It corresponds to the economic mechanisms of capitalism, to quote Luxemburg:
"Imperialism is not the creation of any one or any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all it€ relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will." (The Junius Pamphlet)To quote Lenin:

Lenin's marginal notes to "The Accumlation of Capital", are full of comments such as "False!" and "Nonsense!", and he described her main thesis as a "fundamental error". (V.I. Lenin: Notes on R. Luxemburg’s Book; "The Accumulation of Capital", in: "Leniniski Sbornik", Volume 22; Moscow; 1933; p.343-6).

Assuming that Togo hasn't reached such a stage of "ripeness" that it can magically experience "latent imperialism", this doesn't disprove anything. Hell, even if Togo did have "latent imperialism" it must be pretty worthless because it isn't an imperialist state in the sense of "here we see Togolese imperialism in action." I generally believe a state is imperialist if it can actually carry out imperialism, not if it can conceivably be imperialist simply because it can be. Togo isn't imperialist, cannot be, and to my understanding lacks a bourgeoisie that seeks to expand via imperialism.


If you assert that it did maybe you can evaluate the legitimacy of your conclusion that it would lead to a weakening of capitalism, a deterioration of living conditions and "progress in those nations"?It leads to a weakening of imperialism and since anti-imperialist movements are led by progressive forces, progress can indeed be made. I'm pretty sure a progressive or socialist Pan-African state would weaken imperialism quite a bit since sweatshops, etc. would be a thing of the past.


Interesting then that Trotskyists, Maoists and all other variety of Marxist-Leninists still found it necessary to support these movements.... that's impossible, national liberation is achieved in the country, and now a focus on achieving socialism is the goal of the Communists in said country.


As I said above. Capitalism is no longer progressive anywhere in the world. It is a decadent social system.Capitalism isn't progressive, but anti-imperialism is. We aren't defending capitalism, we're advocating the fight against chauvinism and, evidently, imperialism.


No, communists do not say that proletarian revolution must or can wait, be put off, until workers have butchered one another for the victory of the national bourgeoisie.I guess white workers and black workers were "butchering each other" in colonies too, then?


No. Socialists do not and can not use nationalism to shore up support. This is at best vile opportunism and at worst blatant reactionary. Revolution can only be made by the working class itself, conscious of it's interests and historic mission, not by being goaded into it by appeals to nationalism.Nationalism is still used to shore up support in anti-imperialist struggles. To say it is reactionary is to say that black nationalism is reactionary, or any other nationalism directed against chauvinism is reactionary. Most of the early anti-colonialists in Africa were Pan-Africanists anyway.


I don't know enough about him to make a comment. Why do you ask? What significance do you think he has?He predicted that the USSR would fall apart ethnic-wise due to Russian chauvinism, which would work to sabotage the self-determination of Central Asian peoples. Needless to say, this came true.

[Agrippa]

Trotskyists and the like will quickly draw a line between the 'Nationalism of the oppressed' and the 'Nationalism of the oppressor' in order to support the 'right of nations to self-determination' and 'anti-imperialist' movements.

Others, namely the communist left as well as certain anarchists have correctly reject this position, viewing all nationalism as equally pernicious and support for 'national liberation' movements as anti-working class and an attempt to tie the interests of the proletariat to the national bourgeoisie

This is total reductionism. Plenty of ethnic identity have historically strengthened and fortified notions of class consciousness. A perfectly good example is blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, and American Indians in the U.S.

And obviously, on the flip-side, the forces of capitalism frequently try to erradicate certain cultural bonds in order to disrupt political solidarity. (A good example is how the communist/anarchist movements totally deflated among Irish, Slavic, Jewish, and Italian immigrant communities the U.S. once they were assimilated into middle-class white society) Just because it is entirely sensible and correct to reject neo-colonialism, "socialism in one state", capitalist "national liberation"/"self-determination" "struggles", and so on, does not mean that resistance to cultural assimilation and homogenization is not a form a proletarian resistance.


The Soviet Union would not have even existed had Lenin not respected the desires of Central Asian peoples, the Ukrainians, etc.

Why don't you ask a Central Asian or a Ukrainian about that one?

[Lenin II]

Imperialism is not a conscious policy merely chosen by this or that national capital. It corresponds to the economic mechanisms of capitalism, to quote Luxemburg: "Imperialism is not the creation of any one or any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all it€ relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will." (The Junius Pamphlet)


Quite the petty-bourgeois metaphysical idealism coming from a failure to apply dialectics—quite typical of Luxemburg, really.
First off, she starts by conveniently switching things around in saying that imperialism is not the “creation” of “groups” of states. Yes, it is not in the “creation” of states but in their operation and the way they function—as class and national dictatorship to preserve capitalism. A capitalist state, if allowed to flourish by others and unlike colonial countries, is not gobbled up by foreign domination, will inevitably turn to imperialism. But colonial nations are frequently held back from development by foreign powers.
Furthermore, what “groups” of states does she mean? Does she deny that there can be collaboration between imperialist powers, such as that between Portugal and Belgium to conquer Africa and divide the slaves, resources and land?
Expanding on this point, how is imperialism “an innately international condition” or even more metaphysically, an “invisible whole?” Is Africa a “whole” with those colonialist powers carving it up? Is the bourgeoisie a “whole” with the proletariat? Mishmashing is not becoming of scientific analysis. She borders on liberalism moral equivalency by saying no nation can “hold aloof at will” from it. So in her formation, imperialism does not exist. America is only as “imperialist” as Zimbabwe and Vietnam.
Imperialism is not a mechanical and deterministic thing, determined entirely by the base, as Rosa suggests, and thus a series of cogwheels all turning one direction. If it was so, contradictions would not exist between base and superstructure and ALL people of imperialist countries, for example, would be 100% sold on the imperialist system.


However, you are going in the opposite direction by saying it is not a policy “chosen,” thus denying not only what I am saying, but even what Rosa is saying. There is SOME relation between the base and superstructure, but here you imply there is none, that cannons merely fire themselves into the air for fun. The practice of imperialism is, in fact, a CHOSEN and intensely calculated practice to reinforce the rule of capital.


Interesting then that Trotskyists, Maoists and all other variety of Marxist-Leninists still found it necessary to support these movements.
And why not?


As I said above. Capitalism is no longer progressive anywhere in the world.
This formulation is tenuous and frought with theoretical difficulties at best. In colonies such as the Dominican Republic the national bourgeoisie who are not complicit with imperialism have a progressive role to play in the national-democratic revolution, since they will turn against the occupiers. As a note, Trotsky believed that ALL bourgeoisie and ALL capitalists were inherently, always against the revolution and should not be compromised with. This is an ultra-“left” error. Lenin wrote an entire pamphlet against such pipe dreams called “Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder,” which shows that compromis, just as it is part os strikes, must be part of preparation for revolution.


It is a decadent social system.
Marxist-Leninists do not oppose capitalism because it is “decadent.” We oppose it because it is an immoral system based on class dictatorship and requires imperialist wars as fuel for its survival.


No, communists do not say that proletarian revolution must or can wait, be put off, until workers have butchered one another for the victory of the national bourgeoisie.
More idealism. Revolution is dependant on material conditions and development, not wishes of what “should be,” and not the individual’s insistence that it should happen right away, in a smooth, straight line. That is capitalist thought—the petty-bourgeois “I can make this world my own” idealism.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Lenin's marginal notes to "The Accumlation of Capital", are full of comments such as "False!" and "Nonsense!", and he described her main thesis as a "fundamental error". (V.I. Lenin: Notes on R. Luxemburg’s Book; "The Accumulation of Capital", in: "Leniniski Sbornik", Volume 22; Moscow; 1933; p.343-6).

What is the point of quoting this?

Besides Lenin too recognised that imperialism was not merely a foreign policy adopted by this or that national capital at will. Imperialism represented a new stage for capitalism, a change in the very functioning of capitalism itself.


Assuming that Togo hasn't reached such a stage of "ripeness" that it can magically experience "latent imperialism", this doesn't disprove anything.

I take it you mean "Assuming that Togo has reached such a stage of 'ripeness' ". Whether you are or aren't I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this assumption and what follows.


It leads to a weakening of imperialism

You did not answer my question. What is the evidence that anti-imperialist movements (particularly the anti-colonial revolutions of African) historically weakened capitalism or brought world revolution any closer?

I think it is obvious that they have not and have in fact done the opposite: promote nationalism, tie the interests of the working class to those of the bourgeoisie, lead to butchery of the working class at the hands of their class brothers and the murdering out of communist militants.


since anti-imperialist movements are led by progressive forces, progress can indeed be made.

Your power of logic is too great for me.


... that's impossible, national liberation is achieved in the country, and now a focus on achieving socialism is the goal of the Communists in said country.

My bad, misread the brackets in your original statement.


Capitalism isn't progressive, but anti-imperialism is. We aren't defending capitalism, we're advocating the fight against chauvinism and, evidently, imperialism.

Since when has anti-imperialism been synonymous with workers revolution and socialism? Anti-imperialism is not (in the sense it is being used here) anti-capitalism.


I guess white workers and black workers were "butchering each other" in colonies too, then?

Naturally, or maybe you have trouble with your eyes (or the facts as it seems many of you seem to have)?


To say it is reactionary is to say that black nationalism is reactionary, or any other nationalism directed against chauvinism is reactionary.

Has it taken you this long to work that out? Ironically this is the closest we seem to be getting to the OP and we haven't even got this establsihed! As I said in my first post all nationalism as equally pernicious and anti-working class.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Quite the petty-bourgeois metaphysical idealism coming from a failure to apply dialectics—quite typical of Luxemburg, really.

I honestly laughed when I read this. Not that that means anything, but I think others will see the humour in it also.

On a serious note, the failure to apply dialectics is not a real critique of the works of Luxemburg.


First off, she starts by conveniently switching things around in saying that imperialism is not the “creation” of “groups” of states. Yes, it is not in the “creation” of states but in their operation and the way they function—as class and national dictatorship to preserve capitalism. A capitalist state, if allowed to flourish by others and unlike colonial countries, is not gobbled up by foreign domination, will inevitably turn to imperialism. But colonial nations are frequently held back from development by foreign powers.

I don't understand the point you are making here.


Furthermore, what “groups” of states does she mean? Does she deny that there can be collaboration between imperialist powers, such as that between Portugal and Belgium to conquer Africa and divide the slaves, resources and land?

Where she says "Imperialism is not the creation of any one or any group of states" she explicity acknowledges the possibility of imperialist blocs. Her point here is entirely correct and no Marxist who adopts a materialist analysis of imperialism would disagree with this (including Lenin, Bukharin and co.)


Expanding on this point, how is imperialism “an innately international condition”

Becuase it corresponds to the economic mechanics of capitalism. You know this and you mention and even go so far as to criticise this further down.


or even more metaphysically, an “invisible whole?” Is Africa a “whole” with those colonialist powers carving it up?

I too would be worried if Luxemburg had said that imperialism was an 'invisible whole'.

For Luxemburg imperialism meant precisely the carving up of the globe (with particular attention to the capture of extra-capitalist markets).


Is the bourgeoisie a “whole” with the proletariat?

Don't be an idiot. This has nothing to do with the Luxemburg quote.


Mishmashing is not becoming of scientific analysis.

The analysis of imperialism offered by Luxemburg is not 'mishmashing' and I'd like to see proof that it is (and not just drawing out none existance conclusions from a 2 line quote).

Then again, stalinists would know alot about amalgam methods of argument.


And why not?

I've already been over this and can't think of a good reason to repeat myself for you.


This formulation is tenuous and frought with theoretical difficulties at best. In colonies such as the Dominican Republic the national bourgeoisie who are not complicit with imperialism have a progressive role to play in the national-democratic revolution, since they will turn against the occupiers. As a note, Trotsky believed that ALL bourgeoisie and ALL capitalists were inherently, always against the revolution and should not be compromised with. This is an ultra-“left” error. Lenin wrote an entire pamphlet against such pipe dreams called “Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder,” which shows that compromis, just as it is part os strikes, must be part of preparation for revolution.

This like most of the argument you have made above that I have not quoted or bothered responding to basically says "You are wrong because you are wrong".


Marxist-Leninists do not oppose capitalism because it is “decadent.” We oppose it because it is an immoral system based on class dictatorship and requires imperialist wars as fuel for its survival.

I wonder then why you bother calling yourselves Marxist-Leninists at all.

The critique of capitalism as a system of exploitation and oppression is of course the basis of why Marxists oppose capitalism and advocate proletarian revolution. Alienation and the exploitation of the proletariat are the premises of revolution.

However, Marxism is not merely a moral critique of capitalism, it is a scientific one. Proletarian revolution becomes both a possibility and a necessity one capitalism has entered its era of decadence, where the social relations of capitalism have become "too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them" and fetter the further development of the productive forces and drag society into ruin (war, poverty, environmental destruction etc.).


In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or - this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms - with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. (Marx, Preface to the Introduction to the Critique of Political economy, 1859)


=Lenin IIMore idealism. Revolution is dependant on material conditions and development, not wishes of what “should be,” and not the individual’s insistence that it should happen right away, in a smooth, straight line. That is capitalist thought—the petty-bourgeois “I can make this world my own” idealism.

I understand what you are saying but it isn't at all applicable here. The material conditions and development of capitalism have definitively put the bourgeois revolution off the agenda of history. "A new epoch is born. The epoch of the disintegration of capitalism, of its inner collapse. The epoch of the communist revolution of the proletariat" (Platform of the Communist International, 1919).

[ZeroNowhere]

petty-bourgeois metaphysical idealismWow. I must say, that silly, completely inappropriate string of words could look impressive from a distance.


coming from a failure to apply dialectics...


Lenin's marginal notes to "The Accumlation of Capital", are full of comments such as "False!" and "Nonsense!", and he described her main thesis as a "fundamental error". (V.I. Lenin: Notes on R. Luxemburg’s Book; "The Accumulation of Capital", in: "Leniniski Sbornik", Volume 22; Moscow; 1933; p.343-6).Well, that book was largely nonsense, but I would guess that you're, um, saying that since Lenin said, "Nonsense," you can apply the word to any situation and claim to be quoting Lenin? I mean, technically, that could be correct, but you are still doing it wrong.


Marxist-Leninists do not oppose capitalism because it is “decadent.” We oppose it because it is an immoral system based on class dictatorship and requires imperialist wars as fuel for its survival.
I'm fairly sure that that's not a necessary prerequisite, for example, whoever the hell wrote the ICC's critique of De Leonism is a Leninist, but also upholds decadent theory. Though I'm not going to attack your reasons for opposition because they are valid.


I understand what you are saying but it isn't at all applicable here. The material conditions and development of capitalism have definitively put the bourgeois revolution off the agenda of history. "A new epoch is born. The epoch of the disintegration of capitalism, of its inner collapse. The epoch of the communist revolution of the proletariat"
I don't really see how that quote is relevant to your point.

[Ismail]

@Agrippa:

Why don't you ask a Central Asian or a Ukrainian about that one?I have. You do know what the USSR was, right? It was a union of various constitutionally independent Republics based on ethnic groups. The Russian SFSR entered into the union after giving up territory so that other Republics (Uzbek SSR, etc.) would form. A basic read on this subject (e.g. Affirmative Action Empire or Tribal Nation: The Making of Soviet Turkmenistan) should be sufficient.

@Niccolò

You did not answer my question. What is the evidence that anti-imperialist movements (particularly the anti-colonial revolutions of African) historically weakened capitalism or brought world revolution any closer?How has it strengthened socialism? The European Communists were like "Oh, those colonies will live peacefully with the rest of our glorious socialist states" while Africans looked the other way.

Anti-imperialism, colonialism, etc. are popular and progressive ideologies. Progressives don't bring us closer to socialism either, but we still support them. I fail to see how one can honestly say that colonies should have basically stayed and not only that but actually condemning those being oppressed by state-enforced racism to its extremes rising up to try and put a stop to it.


I take it you mean "Assuming that Togo has reached such a stage of 'ripeness' ". Whether you are or aren't I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this assumption and what follows.Not all capitalist countries are imperialist. You can have reactionary capitalist states (and of course progressive states eventually recourse to becoming reactionary when either capitalism is threatened or by coup d'état) who do things on behalf of imperialists, and you have the occasional border conflicts due to the national bourgeoisie of the country wanting the rights of the land contained therein, but there isn't imperialism anywhere near the extent of "let us treat other nations as neo-colonies and dominate them in our sphere of influence."


I think it is obvious that they have not and have in fact done the opposite: promote nationalism, tie the interests of the working class to those of the bourgeoisie, lead to butchery of the working class at the hands of their class brothers and the murdering out of communist militants.
NaturallySo basically, blacks in Africa should learn to live happily with white colonizers in the name of internationalism. One wonders why these blacks had such objections to colonial rule in the first place. Petty reformist nationalism, no doubt.


Has it taken you this long to work that out? Ironically this is the closest we seem to be getting to the OP and we haven't even got this establsihed! As I said in my first post all nationalism as equally pernicious and anti-working class.So basically your view is "Yeah these guys are chauvinist racists and/or oppressors, but calling for socialism will straighten everything out." Too bad that is never the case.

And on your reply to Lenin II:

For Luxemburg imperialism meant precisely the carving up of the globe (with particular attention to the capture of extra-capitalist markets).So even though these imperialist states wanted to keep the colonies (some even fought to keep them, like France in Algeria and Portugal in its colonies), popular anti-imperialist movements therein were attempts to "carve up the globe"? I guess a bunch of states certainly carves up the globe more than huge colonies filled with racism and the worst kind of exploitation imaginible.

[Lenin II]

I honestly laughed when I read this. Not that that means anything, but I think others will see the humour in it also. I'm glad you find dialectics funny.

On a serious note, the failure to apply dialectics is not a real critique of the works of Luxemburg. Are you really a Marxist? It most certainly IS a criticism of Luxemburg that she doesn't apply dialectics, since dialectical materialism is part of Marxism and part of science, just as the class struggle and the materialist concept of history are part of Marxist science. One only has to paraphrase this line of thought into another facet of Marxism, for example if you were to say “the failure to apply the class struggle is not a criticism of Luxemburg,” or “the failure to apply the scientific method and reject idealism is not a criticism of Luxemburg,” to realize how truly wrong this phrase is.

Dialectics says that there are always two opposing forces, in this case capitalism and communism, which then are locked in life-and-death struggle, and that one force will eventually win out and consume the other, whereupon the struggle between, and the unity between, opposites begins anew. No doubt you're asking what this has to do with the point I was making—for how did Luxemburg deny dialectics?. I'll explain further below.


Besides Lenin too recognised that imperialism was not merely a foreign policy adopted by this or that national capital at will. Imperialism represented a new stage for capitalism, a change in the very functioning of capitalism itself. Quite right, but that is not all it is. You're sinking into determinism again. Imperialism does not just exist because the base demands it, though this certainly is a reason. There are people who actively work for their own wealth, who do in fact plan imperialist wars. Perhaps it is not always fully realized, and not always fully conscious, but in many cases it is and will be.

Do you deny that imperialists “planned” to destroy socialist and national liberation movements because they threatened their rule? That they use the police, the army and various armed thugs to keep the lower classes down for profit and to maintain the status quo?


I don't understand the point you are making here. I was saying that not all nations on earth that are capitalist are imperialist. Imperialism is the “last” stage of capitalism, which has been reached by imperialist powers such as the US, England, France, Japan, etc. and has been shown by their histories of occupation and genocide. Colonial and semi-colonial countries have usually not reached that “higher” stage of capitalism, since they were previously the victims of the antagonistic struggle between imperialism and oppressed colonial nations.

This is what I meant earlier when I said Luxemburg wasn't practicing dialectics. She says in the article that imperialism is “an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all it€ relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will.”

This is a failure to recognize the dialectic relationship between imperialism and colonial nations, the struggle between them. Of course, I don't want to sound like a Third-Worldist here, so I will say within those nations there's also the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and all that jazz. The point is that Luxemburg tries to mush it all togethor into one, negating dialectics and slipping into idealism and metaphysics. Imperialism is certainly not an “indivisible whole” from which “NO NATION on earth can hold aloof.” This negates the struggle between nations, imperialism/colonies, national bourgeois-democratic forces/occupation forces and most importantly, between feudalism, mercantile capitalism and late stage imperialism.


I too would be worried if Luxemburg had said that imperialism was an 'invisible whole'. I mean “indivivisible.” Typo – my bad.

For Luxemburg imperialism meant precisely the carving up of the globe (with particular attention to the capture of extra-capitalist markets). Based on the quote you offered it seems to her to mean simply “capitalism.”

Don't be an idiot. This has nothing to do with the Luxemburg quote. See above. On the surface it doesn't, but to deny dialectics is to deny socialism, because to deny dialectics is to deny the class struggle and the struggle between two opposing forces (the proletariat and bourgeoisie.)

Then again, stalinists would know alot about amalgam methods of argument. Can you elaborate?

I wonder then why you bother calling yourselves Marxist-Leninists at all.

The critique of capitalism as a system of exploitation and oppression is of course the basis of why Marxists oppose capitalism and advocate proletarian revolution. Alienation and the exploitation of the proletariat are the premises of revolution.

However, Marxism is not merely a moral critique of capitalism, it is a scientific one. Proletarian revolution becomes both a possibility and a necessity one capitalism has entered its era of decadence, where the social relations of capitalism have become "too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them" and fetter the further development of the productive forces and drag society into ruin (war, poverty, environmental destruction etc.).
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or - this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms - with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. (Marx, Preface to the Introduction to the Critique of Political economy, 1859)You are essentially correct, however this is not inherant in the word “decadent,” since that can mean quite a few things, from excessive materialism (not dialectical, materialism as in the focus on possessions) to bourgeois opulence, which I thought was the line you were putting forward—that we oppose capitalism only because it is “wasteful,” or some such thing. This is one reason, but only one facet; bourgeois opulence is merely a side effect of the main, scientific reason, outlined above. Hope that clears it up a bit.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I'm fairly sure that that's not a necessary prerequisite, for example, whoever the hell wrote the ICC's critique of De Leonism is a Leninist, but also upholds decadent theory.

All Marxists uphold 'decadence theory' is some way shape and form. It is at the heart of historical materialism. What is meant by decadence, what signals the decadence of a mode of production, what are the implications of decadence, etc. are another story.

On a side note, the allegations of Leninism and the ICC are dealt with in Have we become "Leninists" Pt 1 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists) & 2 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2)


I don't really see how that quote is relevant to your point.

I thought it spoke it for itself. It shows that the CI did in fact also espouse a 'decadence theory' (even if there may have been certain confusions regarding capitalism's collapse, etc.) and recognised that capitalism had entered a new period, it's era of decadence, the era of proletarian revolution.


How has it strengthened socialism? The European Communists were like "Oh, those colonies will live peacefully with the rest of our glorious socialist states" while Africans looked the other way.

This does not even attempt to answer the question. To be honest however, I don't really care. I don't think you can answer the question. History is not on your side.


Anti-imperialism, colonialism, etc. are popular and progressive ideologies. Progressives don't bring us closer to socialism either, but we still support them.

What defines 'progressive' then?


I fail to see how one can honestly say that colonies should have basically stayed and not only that but actually condemning those being oppressed by state-enforced racism to its extremes rising up to try and put a stop to it.

This is a complete misrepresentation. I never said that the "colonies should have basically stayed". I am not an imperialist supporting goon.

Internationalists oppose all imperialism, nationalism and racism.


Not all capitalist countries are imperialist. You can have reactionary capitalist states (and of course progressive states eventually recourse to becoming reactionary when either capitalism is threatened or by coup d'état) who do things on behalf of imperialists, and you have the occasional border conflicts due to the national bourgeoisie of the country wanting the rights of the land contained therein, but there isn't imperialism anywhere near the extent of "let us treat other nations as neo-colonies and dominate them in our sphere of influence."

The analyses of imperialism being taken up in this thread are obviously quite different if this is something you have yet also to notice. Without going into a deeper debate on theories of imperialism, even on the basis of the Lenin(-Bukharin) analysis, internationalist opposition to national-liberation can still stand firm on the basis that the global nature of imperialism destroys the material basis for national self-determination.


So basically, blacks in Africa should learn to live happily with white colonizers in the name of internationalism. One wonders why these blacks had such objections to colonial rule in the first place. Petty reformist nationalism, no doubt.

Once again you appallingly misrepresent and slander internationalism. No, internationalist opposition to the African anti-colonial struggles did not have as it's solution - 'live happily with white colonizers'. Internationalists opposed the butchering of the working class in defence of warring bourgeois factions and supported the united class struggle of theproletariat against all exploiters, both black and white.

Of course the exploited and oppressed black masses of the African continent rightly opposed colonialism and neo-colonial imperialism. Internationalists supported the international class struggle of the proletariat against the entire world capitalist system as the only means of ending exploitation, oppression and all the horrors of colonial imperialism.


Are you really a Marxist? It most certainly IS a criticism of Luxemburg that she doesn't apply dialectics, since dialectical materialism is part of Marxism and part of science, just as the class struggle and the materialist concept of history are part of Marxist science. One only has to paraphrase this line of thought into another facet of Marxism, for example if you were to say “the failure to apply the class struggle is not a criticism of Luxemburg,” or “the failure to apply the scientific method and reject idealism is not a criticism of Luxemburg,” to realize how truly wrong this phrase is.

I should have made myself more clear in my original statement. One can criticise Luxemburg's method, that is, her failure to 'apply dialectics', as you have here (though I would not say rightly so).

The real issue is not criticising the method of Luxemburg but her actual theses of Marxist crisis theory and imperialism. This is something you have failed to do. Rubbishing Luxeburg's method does not lessen the validity of her conclusions.


You're sinking into determinism again.

No I think you are nitpicking. I don't really have the time to waste with this.


Imperialism does not just exist because the base demands it, though this certainly is a reason. There are people who actively work for their own wealth, who do in fact plan imperialist wars. Perhaps it is not always fully realized, and not always fully conscious, but in many cases it is and will be.

Of course imperialism involves an interaction between the base and superstructure of capitalist society. I never claimed otherwise. However, the roots of imperialism are fundamentally economic, imperialism corresponds to the laws and mechanics of capitalist social relations.


Do you deny that imperialists “planned” to destroy socialist and national liberation movements because they threatened their rule? That they use the police, the army and various armed thugs to keep the lower classes down for profit and to maintain the status quo?

Of course I do not deny these things. However, the reason for them is not merely or even primarily superstructural.


Imperialism is certainly not an “indivisible whole” from which “NO NATION on earth can hold aloof.” This negates the struggle between nations, imperialism/colonies, national bourgeois-democratic forces/occupation forces and most importantly, between feudalism, mercantile capitalism and late stage imperialism.

I think that for Luxemburg it is obvious that it does not.


to deny dialectics is to deny the class struggle and the struggle between two opposing forces (the proletariat and bourgeoisie.)

No it isn't. One can accept the reality of class struggle without the philosophical justification you want to tack onto it aswell.


Can you elaborate?

I can't be bothered to. I was merely be an smart arse. Don't mind it.


You are essentially correct, however this is not inherant in the word “decadent,” since that can mean quite a few things, from excessive materialism (not dialectical, materialism as in the focus on possessions) to bourgeois opulence, which I thought was the line you were putting forward—that we oppose capitalism only because it is “wasteful,” or some such thing. This is one reason, but only one facet; bourgeois opulence is merely a side effect of the main, scientific reason, outlined above. Hope that clears it up a bit.Sorry you mistook my meaning. I was certainly not using it in the sense you thought I was.

EDIT: Please take this to be my last post in reply to the pair of you. I have neither the time nor the energy at the moment to continue this debate, especially given that it doesn't seem to be making any headway or going anywhere. Cheers.

[Ismail]

This does not even attempt to answer the question. To be honest however, I don't really care. I don't think you can answer the question. History is not on your side.Very well, I shall answer the question. By achieving national independence from imperialism and colonialism, the progressive forces will thus weaken the power of the oppressor both internationally, nationally (within the nation, e.g. Communists or progressives reporting on the anti-imperialist/colonial struggles) and economically. The progressives now in power in the liberated state will (assuming Communists do not play a leading role and come to power) now face Communists who would presumably have power on their side as they can legitimately call themselves anti-imperialists and anti-colonialists, with experience in working with the movement. It goes on from there.


What defines 'progressive' then?Any ideology that is non-Communist but is willing to work with them to achieve a goal that the Communists also find worthwhile. Either this or those who though anti-Communist work for a progressive cause. Obviously the former is better than the ladder, and participation in popular movements makes the former more common.


This is a complete misrepresentation. I never said that the "colonies should have basically stayed". I am not an imperialist supporting goon.Then you should have no problem with national liberation struggles carried out by people within those nations.


internationalist opposition to national-liberation can still stand firm on the basis that the global nature of imperialism destroys the material basis for national self-determination.That makes no sense. Capitalism itself propagates divisions (agonizing tribal ties under colonialism, supporting racism as a "divide and rule" tactic, etc.) and obviously if anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist movements still exist to this very day then that's a bit of a problem for such a thesis.


Once again you appallingly misrepresent and slander internationalism. No, internationalist opposition to the African anti-colonial struggles did not have as it's solution - 'live happily with white colonizers'. Internationalists opposed the butchering of the working class in defence of warring bourgeois factions and supported the united class struggle of theproletariat against all exploiters, both black and white.Okay, so what side did/would this "united class struggle of the proletariat" take in, say, Rhodesia? In light of the internationalist mission of defeating imperialism and colonialism, and promoting unity, I assume they supported ZANU and/or ZAPU while building a distinct Communist line and mass movement against the Rhodesian government? Apparently, no.

Also most of the white workers in these areas were extremely reactionary and would have rather kept white rule than join the Communists. Just like unions in the early 20th century in the US united white workers against the "yellow hordes" of Asia or Latinos from Mexico. Not exactly progressive. Hell, most white workers after Rhodesia fell simply packed up their bags and left for Britain, relatively few stayed.