On National Liberation

[the last donut of the night]

I know us communists support national liberation, but to what extent? Surely, we oppose nationalism, but we also oppose a group being oppressed based on their religion, language, or ethnicity. What is to be done, comrades?:confused:

[F9]

Not all Communists support national liberation movements.I personally support none such movement..

Fuserg9:star:

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

There can be no national self determination under the current form of capitalism where all states are imperialist.

How do you figure that ALL states are imperialist?

[Radical]

I'm not "strongly" against Cubas kind of nationalism.

In Cuba, Fidel has turned to a mild form of nationalism to keep the country united, so that USA cant infiltrate Cubas Socialism. The main thing that has kept Socialism in Cuba last this long is its unity. Fidel's form of nationalism isent based on "ethnicity". Its based on Citizenship and those that live in Cuba. Although I'm ordinarly against Nationalism, I support Cuba and feel its a good strategic route to securing Socialism in Cuba. I would never condem Castro as a racist for it because his reasoning is totally different to the usual.

[SubcomandanteJames]

How do you figure that ALL states are imperialist?


He was stating that all modern capitalist states ("under the modern form of capitalism") are imperialist. I kind of think lately it's kind of like the relationship between colonial America and England is everywhere, the idea of a mother country and another country exporting materials for the mother country. I think modern capitalism has made it to where you're either a mother country, or an exporting nation, as appose to self-sufficiency. :glare:

[Gustav HK]

Capitalism has today evolved to such a stage that it cannot survive without imperialism. Read "Imperialism" by Lenin.

As i know, left communists critiscize Lenin´s theory of imperialism, they support Luxemburg´s theory.

So read: "The Accumulation of Capital", "The Accumulation of Capital - An Anti-Critique", and "The Junius Pamphlet". All by Rosa Luxemburg.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I know us communists support national liberation, but to what extent? Surely, we oppose nationalism, but we also oppose a group being oppressed based on their religion, language, or ethnicity. What is to be done, comrades?:confused:

Bobkindles will be here soon enough to write an essay on this just for you, so I'll keep it short.

Firstly, no, not all communists support 'national liberation' or 'anti-imperialist' struggles. One of the defining positions of the communist left is it's internationalist opposition to all such movements and inter-imperialist war. If you are interested in this position you might like to read Nation or Class? (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/nationorclass) or Communists on the National Question Parts 1 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/034_natqn_01.html), 2 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/037_natqn_02.html), 3 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/042_natqn_03.html) from the ICC (http://en.internationalism.org/).

Secondly, yes, all communists (at least in words) oppose nationalism, however many also (wrongly) see the 'nationalism of the oppressed' as in some way progressive.

For the Trotskyists, support for national liberation requires a bit of Orwellian double-think, "unconditional military support without an ounce of political support".


As i know, left communists critiscize Lenin´s theory of imperialism, they support Luxemburg´s theory.

This is true in the case of the ICC, however the IBRP adhere to the analysis of Lenin on the question of imperialism however acknowledging the incorrectness of his political conclusions.

[fitz]

What about situations like Northern Ireland?
Fuser would you still be against national liberation in these circumstances?
Oppression is part of the fabric of the northern statelet, it can't exist without it and it creates division through a false border
so would NatLib still be wrong?
Or what about the liberation of colonies against their imperial masters...like happened in cuba to gain their independence from spain, in ches writings on the cuban war he speaks favourably of this, and with a name like yours i imagine some form of support for che

[F9]

What about situations like Northern Ireland?
Fuser would you still be against national liberation in these circumstances?
Oppression is part of the fabric of the northern statelet, it can't exist without it and it creates division through a false border
so would NatLib still be wrong?
Or what about the liberation of colonies against their imperial masters...like happened in cuba to gain their independence from spain, in ches writings on the cuban war he speaks favourably of this, and with a name like yours i imagine some form of support for che

I give no support on nationalism, and on any kind of it!I said i support none national liberation movement, and thats it.
Nationalism is always wrong, whatever some people get to "deform" it, change it etc to fit their own ideas, or just because they see some good possibilities been able to support it.
Yes indeed my name comes from che, i do "admire" his passion, his ability to fight, not sit behind a desk, his equal attitude etc etc, but yes mostly i disagree with his ideas.When i got this username i got it first because it sounded cool and it was about a sport he was playing and i thought it kinda suit me, and second i was supporting che lot more in that time, but thats more than 2 years ago since i "adopted" this username for myself.Beside that, it dont meens im i support something because "che did it" not at all, quite the oposite.
Im aware of all the happenings around those movements, i live them, i saw them, and i understand that even under the "anti-imperialism" way people usually support them, or that they can be "progressive" and help the working class, this is far from truth, as nationalism is an enemy, and it seperates the workers and creates worse standards.

Fuserg9:star:

[Black Sheep]

made a thread on that.
Revolutionary defeatism vs social patriotism.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=113505

Jacob richter links to a very interesting theory thread.

Anyway, it is a solely strategic matter, and it depends too much on the circumstances of class struggle level of the country of question.
In some cases, where the workers are ready to take power, and i.e. a country invades, fighting the invaders is an obstacle to overcome in order to seize power (i mean to crush the domestic cappies).But in this case the 'message' has to be super clear - we fight the invaders, as we fight any other bourgeoisie force.We fight them not for 'our country's sake', but for socialism's sake.

But in normal cases, in 'normal' levels of class struggle, the working class has no interest at all to join or support a war - regardless of the position of their own country, defending or attacking.And that's revolutionary defeatism :)

[scarletghoul]

Imperialism being the highest stage of capitalism, national liberation is a way of fighting global capitalism. If the was no american empire, capitalism would be severely weakened.
That and the fact that most people in an oppressed country arnt gonna bother with class struggle while their country is sill a victim of imperialism

[Devrim]

Imperialism being the highest stage of capitalism, national liberation is a way of fighting global capitalism. If the was no american empire, capitalism would be severely weakened.
imperialism is a world system, not the policy of particular nations. If the US were to be defeated within capatalism it would have to be by another imperialist power which would replace it.

That and the fact that most people in an oppressed country arnt gonna bother with class struggle while their country is sill a victim of imperialism
I presume this is why Kurdish nationalists had to shoot down striking factory workers and Palestinian nationalists had to condemn striking teachers recently.

Devrim

[the last donut of the night]

So if you oppose national liberation, how do you see the oppression of Palestinians by the Zionist state -- Israel? I mean, we can't just stand there, saying "Oh well, we need an international struggle -- and you guys are just nationalists. Sorry, can't help!"? I'm sorry if I seem rude, it's just that I want to know how we can apply these concepts to this region, which stands close to my heart.

[ls]

So if you oppose national liberation, how do you see the oppression of Palestinians by the Zionist state -- Israel? I mean, we can't just stand there, saying "Oh well, we need an international struggle -- and you guys are just nationalists. Sorry, can't help!"? I'm sorry if I seem rude, it's just that I want to know how we can apply these concepts to this region, which stands close to my heart.

By supporting workers there who are oppressed by all sides http://libcom.org/news/palestinian-union-hit-all-sides-25072007.

This is a good article too, the focus must largely come from within Israel in my mind. Israeli Anarchists are doing their best: http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/international/48-anon.html


This protest is allegedly aimed at stopping the attack on Gaza. What does the Palestinian flag have to do with that? One would reply: "well, it represents support for the Palestinian resistance." To that I would have to further ask: what Palestinian resistance? Most sensible Palestinians in Gaza would like to get the hell out of the bombing area, not resist being bombed. What does it even mean to resist being bombed? Wave your hand against the incoming fighters?

It's hardly "defeatism" to choose not to be killed either by national liberationists or the Zionist army.


I presume this is why Kurdish nationalists had to shoot down striking factory workers and Palestinian nationalists had to condemn striking teachers recently.

Devrim

To be fair, I don't think the Kurdish situation is quite as insane as the situation in Palestine, it is one of the most attacked areas in the entire world.

[Charles Xavier]

So if you oppose national liberation, how do you see the oppression of Palestinians by the Zionist state -- Israel? I mean, we can't just stand there, saying "Oh well, we need an international struggle -- and you guys are just nationalists. Sorry, can't help!"? I'm sorry if I seem rude, it's just that I want to know how we can apply these concepts to this region, which stands close to my heart.


Comrade, you are getting answers from Ultra Leftists and Anarchists. Yes communists support many national liberation movements. We don't however support all nationalist struggles or all national liberation struggles, in any struggle we must ask where the class forces are. We support the right to self-determination of all nations up to and including succession however we will disagree that all nations need to succeed from the oppressor nation. In some cases the only solution is seperation, such as Ireland for example. In other cases in the Tsarist Russia, Nations were able to form a union under one country where all nations have equal rights. So while communists support Palestinian, Liberation and anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles accross the world. We may not see ourselves siding with Nationalist forces in Kurdistan, Kosovo, Tibet, Quebec, Basque, Galicia or other countries as the class forces driving succession are petty bourgeiosie or even bourgeoisie.

[Radical]

I support National Liberation in under-developed countries such as Cuba and Columbia.

This type of National Liberation is progressive because it seeks to dismantle a system of government that is based on exploitation and corruption. Its not oppressive as in the sense of the BNP or the National Front.

Nationalism in Cuba is what has kept Cuba Socialist/State Capitalist for so long. I support Nationalism in Cuba because its meant to keep the country united. The US embrago has failed becase of this very reason, because Cuba have stood united. Cubas Nationalism isent oppressive, it is not based on ethnicity or hatered for other races.

I once thought I opposed all Nationalism, but not the kind of nationalism that is made to be progressive and keep a country united against the imperialist threats.

[ls]

So while communists support Palestinian, Liberation and anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles accross the world. We may not see ourselves siding with Nationalist forces in Kurdistan, Kosovo, Tibet, Quebec, Basque, Galicia or other countries as the class forces driving succession are petty bourgeiosie or even bourgeoisie.

Very weird positions indeed. Are you sure you even know anything about the Kurdish situation? You seemed pretty ignorant about it the last time it was brought up in a thread. And have you even bothered reading how many "Communists" defend ETA in the name of anti-imperialism thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/etas-tactics-t113984/index.html?t=113984) in that Basque thread?

All in all, marxist-leninists, trotskyists and every other current almost never entirely 'adhere' to their chosen ideology completely, the slight nuances in anyone's positions can contribute to whether they are a real revolutionary or a liberal. Your entire last post was really pointless.

[robbo203]

Imperialism being the highest stage of capitalism, national liberation is a way of fighting global capitalism. If the was no american empire, capitalism would be severely weakened.
That and the fact that most people in an oppressed country arnt gonna bother with class struggle while their country is sill a victim of imperialism

If there was no american empire there would be some other empire it is place. Capitalism is inherently expansionist and imperialist in this sense.

The fact that you think people have to fight against so called national oppression first - the most significant "oppressors" are the elites that reside in these so called oppressed nations - before they can engage in the class struggle suggests that you implictly accept that so called national liberation struggles are a distraction from the class struggle. You have thus shot yourself in the foot.

The question remains - how do you achieve so called national liberation in an increasingly globalised capitalist economy? Is it even meaningful as a concept? Effectively what you are advocating is the perpetual postponement and abandonment of class struggle and communism as a pretext for tackling something that can never be removed within the context of global capitalism

[Niccolò Rossi]

in any struggle we must ask where the class forces are.

On the contrary, it is clearly evident from your support of such movements that you do not ask this question.

In what concrete cases do you believe the balance of class forces enables or necessitates support for national liberation movements?


This type of National Liberation is progressive because it seeks to dismantle a system of government that is based on exploitation and corruption

... only to replace it with another.


Its not oppressive as in the sense of the BNP or the National Front.

The real history of 'national liberation' and 'anti-imperialism' tells a different story to this leftist fantasy.


Nationalism in Cuba is what has kept Cuba Socialist/State Capitalist for so long. I support Nationalism in Cuba because its meant to keep the country united.

On the contrary, nationalism is completely antithetical to the liberation of the proletariat and the construction of socialism. The only weapons the working has for the task of revolution are it's consciousness and organisation. The working class can not be duped into liberating itself.

[the last donut of the night]

But what if one struggle for national liberation led to an international socialist revolution? I mean, it's got to start somewhere.

[Devrim]

But what if one struggle for national liberation led to an international socialist revolution? I mean, it's got to start somewhere.

But why on Earth would one suppose that an internationalist working class movement would develop from a natioanlist cross class movement?

Devrim

[Devrim]

To be fair, I don't think the Kurdish situation is quite as insane as the situation in Palestine, it is one of the most attacked areas in the entire world.

I don't think that the point is about which nationalisty is most 'oppressed', and I was just giving two examples from nearby countries.

Some of the things that have gone on in Kurdistan though do compare with what happens in Palestine, the al-Anfal campaign culmilating in the posion gassing of thousands, the clearing of Kurdish villages in Turkey, the illegalisation of the Kurdish language...

Devrim

[Devrim]

So if you oppose national liberation, how do you see the oppression of Palestinians by the Zionist state -- Israel? I mean, we can't just stand there, saying "Oh well, we need an international struggle -- and you guys are just nationalists. Sorry, can't help!"? I'm sorry if I seem rude, it's just that I want to know how we can apply these concepts to this region, which stands close to my heart.

The question for socialists concerns the working class, and the working class in Palestine is possibly the weakest in the region. For us, we see little if any possibility of a working class revolution arising first in Palestine, and doubt very much whether the class there could develop strength independently of a much wider regionally and international movement based in the Middle East on the countries where the working class is stronger, Iran, Egypt, Turkey...

You seem to be suggesting that because there is no, or very little, class movement we have to support nationalist movements.

Devrim

[ls]

I don't think that the point is about which nationalisty is most 'oppressed', and I was just giving two examples from nearby countries.

Some of the things that have gone on in Kurdistan though do compare with what happens in Palestine, the al-Anfal campaign culmilating in the posion gassing of thousands, the clearing of Kurdish villages in Turkey, the illegalisation of the Kurdish language...

Devrim

Fair enough, all this talk got me thinking only within the Turkish context of the oppression of Kurds. I know that you weren't saying about which culture is oppressed the most, but neither was I really, it was more about the exact parallels of the situation, nationalist movements do vary quite a bit even if they are essentially reactionary in nature.

In fact, it serves as a reminder that thinking with the mentality of a single nation is doomed to fail, as multi-state oppression of Kurds is extremely relevant in reality. The PKK's war against all these "states" has led to so many deaths of innocent Kurdish workers...

It's odd that some who support 'anti-imperialism' are saying it's defeatism then simultaneously saying "most people in an oppressed country arnt gonna bother with class struggle while their country is sill a victim of imperialism", it makes no sense as a position.

[Devrim]

In fact, it serves as a reminder that thinking with the mentality of a single nation is doomed to fail, as multi-state oppression of Kurds is extremely relevant in reality. The PKK's war against all these "states" has led to so many deaths of innocent Kurdish workers...

Actually as far as I know the PKK has never fought against the Syrian state and until 1998 was actually sponsered by them just showing the tendency of national liberation groups to become tools of various states.

Devrim

[ls]

Actually as far as I know the PKK has never fought against the Syrian state and until 1998 was actually sponsered by them just showing the tendency of national liberation groups to become tools of various states.

Devrim

Ah yes of course, the Syria that would fund the PKK's fight in Turkey and Iraq, but not Syria of course. http://www.meib.org/articles/0404_s1.htm

This remembering that Kurds in Syria are not granted the same rights as ethnic Syrians.

Why are people on the 'left' denouncing the PKK anymore than any other group? It puzzles me how you can support the paramilitary elements of the IRA but not the PKK.

[Devrim]

This remembering that Kurds in Syria are not granted the same rights as ethnic Syrians.

Yes, since the PKK got kicked out some sort of Kurdish movement seems to have arisen there. This could not be unconnected to the fact that there are no longer large numbers of PKK stated backed milita men stationed in Kurdish areas.


Why are people on the 'left' denouncing the PKK anymore than any other group? It puzzles me how you can support the paramilitary elements of the IRA but not the PKK.

Our organisation, the International Communist Current, is consistent on this. I imagine why the PKK has fallen out of favour with leftists is possibly due to it dropping 'Marxism' and moving towards the US.

Devrim

[Redmau5]

Why are people on the 'left' denouncing the PKK anymore than any other group? It puzzles me how you can support the paramilitary elements of the IRA but not the PKK.

I'm pretty sure Devrim has never supported any elements of the IRA.

[ls]

Our organisation the International Communist Current is consistent on this. I imagine why the PKK has fallen out of favour with leftists is possibly due to it dropping 'Marxism' and moving towards the US.

Devrim

It just seems like when the Western imperialist states make 'concessions' for the obvious big name struggles that there is no criticism, but when others do it..


I'm pretty sure Devrim has never supported any elements of the IRA.

I would hope so, what's a good interpretation of your/the SP's position on the IRA then?

[Devrim]

I would hope so, what's a good interpretation of your/the SP's position on the IRA then?

We say that the IRA was a reactionary nationalist organisation, which played its role in dividing the working class.

Obviously we differ from the SP on many questions such as parlimentarianism, unions, the party, class conciousness...

Also, it must be born in mind that I am not so up to date on the SP's positions. When I lived in the UK they were still the Militant, and if I remember correctly advocating the unionisation of the British army as a response to the Northern Ireland situtation.

I get the impersion though not specifically from NI, but also from looking at their stuff on the Middle East that even if there analysis seems to be similar to that of internationalists, it seems to conceal an undercurrent of chauvanism and what is sometimes called 'big nation nationalism', and they don't challenge the nationalism of workers in the dominant powers.

Devrim

[Redmau5]

I would hope so, what's a good interpretation of your/the SP's position on the IRA then?

The Socialist Party (or Militant as it was known during the majority of the IRA's campaign) never supported the IRA. In 1969, with the onset of serious sectarian pogroms initiated by loyalists and the NI state against the catholic working-class, the British government decided to deploy troops onto the streets in a bid to "protect" catholics from loyalist mobs. Militant at the time completely opposed this, correctly predicting that the troops would eventually be used against the very people they were supposed to be protecting.

However, while Militant believed that an IRA campaign would only serve to heighten repression against catholics, they didn't expect the catholic community to sit idly by while they were attacked from all sides. They called for a united workers defence force, based on the trade unions, to co-ordinate the defence of areas under seige.

However, while Militant opposed the IRA's campaign, we also opposed the internment of IRA volunteers and suspected IRA volunteers by the state. We completely understood why so many people took the decision to join the IRA. They weren't "nationalist gangsters" or "thugs", they were young men and women, many of whom were socialists, who felt they had no choice but to strike back at the British state and their unionist lackeys.

Here's a short enough Militant article from September 1969 on the issue of British soldiers being deployed in Northern Ireland;

http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/Archive/1969Troops.htm

If you have any other questions, ask away. :)

[the last donut of the night]

But why on Earth would one suppose that an internationalist working class movement would develop from a natioanlist cross class movement?

Devrim

But how would you start then? My main question is, if the Palestinian uprising were proletarian -- but only confined to Palestine -- would that be nationalistic? No. So isn't a national struggle -- coming from the workers, that is -- necessary to spark the international revolution? :confused: Thanks.

[Devrim]

But how would you start then? My main question is, if the Palestinian uprising were proletarian -- but only confined to Palestine -- would that be nationalistic? No. So isn't a national struggle -- coming from the workers, that is -- necessary to spark the international revolution? :confused: Thanks.

Of course the revolution won't break out at the same time everywhere so in that sense there must be somewhere where it starts. I suppose in that sense we can talk about revolution in a 'national' sense. However, a workers revolution can't be one that pits workers against other workers, which is what nationalism does. I am not sure what you mean by a revolution in Palestine being a workers' revolution, and I for one can't imagine the working class there breaking through all of it's nationalist illusions in isolation from a revolutionary movement across the region.

Devrim

[the last donut of the night]

Of course the revolution won't break out at the same time everywhere so in that sense there must be somewhere where it starts. I suppose in that sense we can talk about revolution in a 'national' sense. However, a workers revolution can't be one that pits workers against other workers, which is what nationalism does. I am not sure what you mean by a revolution in Palestine being a workers' revolution, and I for one can't imagine the working class there breaking through all of it's nationalist illusions in isolation from a revolutionary movement across the region.

Devrim


Thanks for the explaining.