Anarchists: Would you NEVER support national liberation or secession?

[kharacter]

This is as a result of a discussion with Jazzratt. Please answer and discuss the question above.

If everyone says never, I will admit that I am wrong.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I don't support the creation of new national-bourgeoisies', but your question is loaded.

Of course as a revolutionary tactic 'islands' of revolutionary activity breaking away from counter-revolutionary strongholds is desireable. But if you mean removed from the context of a revolutionary period. Then no.

[kharacter]

I don't support the creation of new national-bourgeoisies', but you're question is loaded.

Of course as a revolutionary tactic 'islands' of revolutionary activity breakign away from counter-revolutionary strongholds are desireable. But if you mean removed from the context of a revolutionary period. Then no.
I do mean under any circumstance.

I am curious though, would you support a more progressive area breaking away from a reactionary area because they are being repressed and attacked, but the former's majority not being enlightened enough to go for the revolutionary way of asking for sovereignty under the same nation, so they create a new nation? Please note that the movement would include all radicals who wanted to escape persecution under the old territory.

[RebelDog]

I support and fight for the liberation of my class and an end to class society and nothing else. I do not accept swapping one boss for another, all bosses can hang in my opinion and I do not care what crap they are pedalling, they are all bosses. I believe the working-class are more than capable of running society, end.

[Patchd]

National 'liberation'? Let's start off by reminding everyone of how much of a misnoma that is. As Anarchists, I'd hope we would attempt to break away from the very idea of the 'nation', seeing it as an illogical divide as much as being a 'town-ist' or regionalist would be. Nations are supposedly groupings of people who share a similar culture, language, history and so forth, but even then those similarities extend to regions outside of the national boundary, and/or is void from certain regions in that nation. Nationalism, however 'liberating' some of it may sound only originated as an attempt to break away from the Imperial bourgeoisie of the 19th Century, or as an attempt to increase the market, and political power of a certain region, such as the creation of Italy showed.

Nations are only propped up by states, I don't understand how an Anarchist could support such a thing?

[kharacter]

I understand it's not ideal for we are looking for stateless and nationless society as the best, but if a national liberation/secession is still progression, and better than what used to be before, would you nevertheless condemn it?

[Patchd]

I understand it's not ideal for we are looking for stateless and nationless society as the best, but if a national liberation/secession is still progression, and better than what used to be before, would you nevertheless condemn it?
Yes, simply because I do not see it as a progression. I wouldn't call it a step backward either, but it doesn't advance the true class struggle in my opinion. Unless by the advancement of the class struggle, we mean the creation of a new state, creating more boundaries as opposed to breaking them up.

Also, it might not be an accurate result, I can imagine Trots and other statists to vote in this for national liberation, considering you said you'd change your position if everyone voted they wouldn't support national liberation. Just keep that in mind mate :) Either, its statists voting in this thread, or the Anarchists who voted in favour of national liberation haven't spoken their mind.

[ls]

I believe the argument being made is that it isn't progressive, all factions of the bourgeois serve to oppress workers and serve their own interests ultimately, thus supporting some kind of a bourgeois in an 'anti-imperialist' capacity simply doesn't work.

I will be honest and say I'm not sure right now, a lot of anarchists seem to regard the Zapatistas as revolutionary, yet "national liberation" is in their very title.. I support the Zapatistas myself although rather than going for labels, simply regard myself as a workerist now.

[Patchd]

I believe the argument being made is that it isn't progressive, all factions of the bourgeois serve to oppress workers and serve their own interests ultimately, thus supporting some kind of a bourgeois in an 'anti-imperialist' capacity simply doesn't work.

I will be honest and say I'm not sure right now, a lot of anarchists seem to regard the Zapatistas as revolutionary, yet "national liberation" is in their very title.. I support the Zapatistas myself although rather than going for labels, simply regard myself as a workerist now.
But would you say you support them for their struggle to achieve an autonomous region? I'm sure there are anti-statist Zapatistas, you could ask Forward Union, as you know he's quite knowledgeable in their movement for obvious reasons ;)

[kharacter]

Yes, simply because I do not see it as a progression. I wouldn't call it a step backward either, but it doesn't advance the true class struggle in my opinion. Unless by the advancement of the class struggle, we mean the creation of a new state, creating more boundaries as opposed to breaking them up.

Also, it might not be an accurate result, I can imagine Trots and other statists to vote in this for national liberation, considering you said you'd change your position if everyone voted they wouldn't support national liberation. Just keep that in mind mate :) Either, its statists voting in this thread, or the Anarchists who voted in favour of national liberation haven't spoken their mind.
No, let me clarify. I said that I will admit that anarchists cannot ever support any national liberation movement ever without it corrupting their ideals. I never said I would stop being an anarcho-communist. I would only revise my thoughts regarding this issue only.

I hope people didn't misunderstand, and it is anarchists voting here. (I really don't mean to exclude other leftists, but I must for this purpose. My apologies.)

[Absolut]

Depends, I would support a Palestinian state, if it prevented the murder (and everything else) of Palestinians. Thats it.

[kharacter]

Depends, I would support a Palestinian state, if it prevented the murder (and everything else) of Palestinians. Thats it.
Support for the Palestinian state is one of the things Jazzratt and I were debating over.

[Patchd]

No, let me clarify. I said that I will admit that anarchists cannot ever support any national liberation movement ever without it corrupting their ideals. I never said I would stop being an anarcho-communist. I would only revise my thoughts regarding this issue only.

I hope people didn't misunderstand, and it is anarchist voting here. (I really don't mean to exclude other leftists, but I must for this purpose. My apologies.)
My apologies, I mistook what you meant then. But still, don't expect the Trots to stay out of an Anarchist vote, I wouldn't do the same for them :lol:


Depends, I would support a Palestinian state, if it prevented the murder (and everything else) of Palestinians. Thats it.
And what if it (as I believe it would be likely) lead to the exploitation, and oppression of Jewish workers displaced or incorporated into this new Palestinian state? Would it end the oppression and exploitation of Palestinian workers?

[h0m0revolutionary]

The idea that Palestinians would be better off being lead by a Palestinian boss-class, merely because their exploiter was born on the same piece of land, is one I just can't fathom and to be honest, smells of blood and soil nationalism.

Whether in the sway of Hamas or Fatah, Palestinians have suffered in their day to day lives under their fist, than they have as a consequence of the Zionist occupation.

I think the coherent anarchist position, is class unity accross that so utterly abstract, yet so contentious border. That involves support for neither bourgeoise faction, but for the class involved in the daily struggles, whatever side of the border they reside.

[kharacter]

Recognizing all the gray area, I have been debating with myself over the Palestine issue for a long time. I can understand people having a different opinion over that particular conflict, but to simply condemn every possible separatist movement no matter what is something I disagree with.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Recognizing all the gray area, I have been debating with myself over the Palestine issue for a long time. I can understand people having a different opinion over that particular conflict, but to simply condemn every possible separatist movement no matter what is something I disagree with.

But comrade, you're an anarchist, which forgive me generalising, means you're for the abolition of all states.

Moreover, it means as a revolutionary, you don't support reformism or any form of nations.

How is your belief that some nations can be progressive in their establishment coherent with anarchism?

[Outinleftfield]

The idea that Palestinians would be better off being lead by a Palestinian boss-class, merely because their exploiter was born on the same piece of land, is one I just can't fathom and to be honest, smells of blood and soil nationalism.

They wouldnt be better off yet. Lets say Israel remains a developed wealthy country and Palestine continues in poverty, and then eventually people in Palestine have had enough. A general strike grows throughout Palestine to claim the factories and infrastructure for the workers. But the people in Israel are happy. If Palestine is still part of Israel then Israel will send in its military and easily crush the uprising. If Palestine is independent then the revolution is Palestine's internal affair. Israel or even the United States might try to get involved but not without a lot of people saying it would violate Palestine's sovereignty to get involved in an internal affair.

[Nwoye]

so would anarchists here reject the notion of immediate demands (increased wages, better working conditions, increased working class participation in government process) as means of furthering revolutionary consciousness and working class solidarity, rather then ends in themselves? I'm genuinely asking here and I think it pertains to the subject matter.

[FreeFocus]

I'm an anarchist, but anti-imperialism figures prominently into my worldview and political proposals. I usually don't view national liberation as entailing the creation of a new state - in fact, this is never the case, given the nature of the state. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, I would have supported that wave of decolonization.

As a minority, I have a different conception of the idea of nation than some others do. Some consider nations to be barriers to human unity (nation being defined as a group with a common history, culture, ties to land, etc. That is not a state). However, culture is one of the greatest things about humanity, and the thought of trying to abolish it or create a uniform culture is atrocious. I like internationalism, I like intercultural exchanges. We need more of that, not less.

On the issue of Palestine: Israel is a settler state. It should continue to be rejected until it doesn't exist anymore. I support a one-state "solution," which of course doesn't solve the ultimate problems of the human condition in the region but it breaks down racism, imperialism and the legacy of ethnic cleansing.

Frankly, this theoretical posturing by the vast majority of the anarchists where support is not lent to an oppressed nationality seeking the rights to express its culture free from foreign suppression is pathetic. Lets face it, most anarchists are white, and anarchism comes from primarily a European base. Therefore its ideological and developmental underpinnings will reflect that. No Europeans (aside from the Irish and a few others) have experienced the ill effects of imperialism. Certainly no sizable population of whites outside of Europe have, since they all reside in settler states. Moreover, when you look at the history of Europe, the hundreds and thousands of cultures it was once home to became somewhat homogenized when the continent was Christianized. Obviously, communists reject religion and the like, but a good deal of European cultures was based on Christianity. Therefore what we have is a type of iconoclastic attitude manifested in anarchism especially, and it is extended beyond Europe and to the rest of the world because of the global nature of our political proposals. Well, guess what, the whole world isn't like Europe and didn't follow the same path of cultural development. There's no reason to want to abolish culture or the concept of the nation. We need to smash capitalism and the state, and encourage cultural development and intercultural, internationalist exchanges.

[rebelmouse]

I would never support national liberation or secessions, as people mentioned, leaders of such movements are creating the new state. it means new evil, where people will be exploited, die from sickness, politicians will have privileges while poor will be kicked out at doctor (I was kicked out in Gothenburg even I had pneumonia 3 months, so I know what means to be poor in any kind of the state), etc.
state = privileges for high positioned = humiliation for poor.
although, in my fight against ruling class, I could help to ETA about liberation of their people from spanish prisons, because I believe that no one should be in prison, but I would never help their fight for creating of the state called baskia. because baskia would be tool in hands of politicians and bosses to exploit people there.
shortly said, everywhere I could help to ordinary people, even if they fight for wrong aims, if they are under repression of foreign or domestic authorities. but I would have to decide about every action, to see that I don't support their leaders in creating of the state. possibly I would not participate in action which will have proclamation for creating of their state. in any case, every action would have to be analyzed.

[Absolut]

And what if it (as I believe it would be likely) lead to the exploitation, and oppression of Jewish workers displaced or incorporated into this new Palestinian state? Would it end the oppression and exploitation of Palestinian workers?

Then I would be equally opposed to the new Palestinian state. What it pretty much comes down to is, if a new Palestinian state can stop the killings of Palestinians (which I think it can, at least it can lower the death-toll), I support it. If by doing this, I betray my anarchist ideals, then so be it.

[Patchd]

They wouldnt be better off yet. Lets say Israel remains a developed wealthy country and Palestine continues in poverty, and then eventually people in Palestine have had enough. A general strike grows throughout Palestine to claim the factories and infrastructure for the workers. But the people in Israel are happy. If Palestine is still part of Israel then Israel will send in its military and easily crush the uprising. If Palestine is independent then the revolution is Palestine's internal affair. Israel or even the United States might try to get involved but not without a lot of people saying it would violate Palestine's sovereignty to get involved in an internal affair.
With all due respect, if an independent Palestine underwent a workers' revolution, and Israeli workers did not follow suit, then you could probably expect the IDF in Ramallah again. A workers' state, or a stateless society is more of a threat to Israeli Capital than children throwing stones at their tanks.


Then I would be equally opposed to the new Palestinian state. What it pretty much comes down to is, if a new Palestinian state can stop the killings of Palestinians (which I think it can, at least it can lower the death-toll), I support it. If by doing this, I betray my anarchist ideals, then so be it.It would certainly reduce the death toll, but then so would the creation of a classless and stateless society. If Anarchists could kindly start to uphold their own principles, we'd have a greater chance of convincing others that we have a coherent philosophy, and it can provide an alternative to the 'traditional' methods of 'liberation'. As a revolutionary, I hoped you would see Capitalism in itself as a killing machine, Capitalism is war and oppression and it will continue as long as Capitalism exists.

The point is to not trick the working class, or any other oppressed classes into believing that they may achieve emancipation through the creation of a new nation-state, when they realise this themselves, you can expect an increase in political apathy and potentially a turn to the right.


As a minority, I have a different conception of the idea of nation than some others do. Some consider nations to be barriers to human unity (nation being defined as a group with a common history, culture, ties to land, etc. That is not a state). However, culture is one of the greatest things about humanity, and the thought of trying to abolish it or create a uniform culture is atrocious. I like internationalism, I like intercultural exchanges. We need more of that, not less.Likewise, I don't think anyone here mentioned they wanted to abolish culture, that would be ridiculous! Simply you can't draw up abstract boundaries in order to segregate cultures, ethnicities and language from one another because culture extends national boundaries.


On the issue of Palestine: Israel is a settler state. It should continue to be rejected until it doesn't exist anymore. I support a one-state "solution," which of course doesn't solve the ultimate problems of the human condition in the region but it breaks down racism, imperialism and the legacy of ethnic cleansing.The creation of one state in 1948 created such turmoil, and people here still believe that the creation of a new state would not do the same, or they believe that the settler state of Israel would actually pose as a less oppressive force were it to be secular or incorporated more of Palestine.

The Jewish population in the region (and I mean Israel and Palestine) is already larger than that of the Arabs, or Palestinians. If we are to create states based on national lines, then nationalism will arise as an issue. Why not fight for the end to all nation-states, the end to all boundaries?


Frankly, this theoretical posturing by the vast majority of the anarchists where support is not lent to an oppressed nationality seeking the rights to express its culture free from foreign suppression is pathetic. Lets face it, most anarchists are white, and anarchism comes from primarily a European base. Therefore its ideological and developmental underpinnings will reflect that. No Europeans (aside from the Irish and a few others) have experienced the ill effects of imperialism. Certainly no sizable population of whites outside of Europe have, since they all reside in settler states. Moreover, when you look at the history of Europe, the hundreds and thousands of cultures it was once home to became somewhat homogenized when the continent was Christianized. Obviously, communists reject religion and the like, but a good deal of European cultures was based on Christianity. Therefore what we have is a type of iconoclastic attitude manifested in anarchism especially, and it is extended beyond Europe and to the rest of the world because of the global nature of our political proposals. Well, guess what, the whole world isn't like Europe and didn't follow the same path of cultural development. There's no reason to want to abolish culture or the concept of the nation. We need to smash capitalism and the state, and encourage cultural development and intercultural, internationalist exchanges.First, just because we hold onto our principles doesn't mean that we are simply theoretically posturing over issues which we seem to have no grasp of reality.

Secondly, as a child of an immigrant, growing up with a Chinese single mother, I could say that I am not 'white', nor could I say I was Chinese-Thai. Either way, simply because a number of Anarchists are 'white' does not invalidate their arguments, nor does it mean that they lack an understanding of reality.

My experiences of Nationalism in Thailand definitely cements my position on Nationalism as a whole, Thailand being a very Nationalist nation, and a very socially restricted nation also. Not only that but it's spurred up racial intolerance, to Laotians, Cambodians, Chinese, Malays, and the Burmese. Obviously Thailand is a nation which never had to seek national 'liberation', but it has been dominated by European (French and British), and now American Imperialism since the first arrival of Westerners, the only reason it escaped being colonised was for the fact that it stood as a buffer state for British Burma, and French Indochina. The regions surrounding Thailand are also very nationalist, some moreso than others, depending on the brutality of that state, but all of which had had to seek it's own 'liberation' from the Western Imperialist powers.

That didn't stop tensions between one another, nor did it stop Laos, Thailand and Cambodia assisting US Imperialism in the Vietnam war. The point I'm trying to get at is that with the creation of new nation-states, peace, or emancipation is never guaranteed, and the likelihood is that it will never be granted until the fall of those states. There will always be national tensions so long as you uphold national boundaries, the point is to tear them down and not veer off in a completely different direction which will only help the emerging Capitalists of that region.


Also, if we're speaking about number of deaths national 'liberation' reduces, tell me, when Rwanda was decolonised, what happened there, the same may go for Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Burma, Cambodia, Pakistan and India (the partition primarily) ...

[Absolut]

It would certainly reduce the death toll, but then so would the creation of a classless and stateless society. If Anarchists could kindly start to uphold their own principles, we'd have a greater chance of convincing others that we have a coherent philosophy, and it can provide an alternative to the 'traditional' methods of 'liberation'. As a revolutionary, I hoped you would see Capitalism in itself as a killing machine, Capitalism is war and oppression and it will continue as long as Capitalism exists.

The point is to not trick the working class, or any other oppressed classes into believing that they may achieve emancipation through the creation of a new nation-state, when they realise this themselves, you can expect an increase in political apathy and potentially a turn to the right.

Well, of course the state- and classless society would be the solution to the problems capitalism creates, but were not nearly there yet. You make it seem as though I see a Palestinian state as something equally liberatory to the classless society. I dont. I recognize that capitalism is the underlying reason for the situation in Palestine today, and I would be thrilled if it could be destroyed tomorrow, or even today, but I doubt thats going to happen. If capitalism were destroyed, the situation there would look extremely different, but capitalism will probably exists for a good number of years yet, and what Im concerned with now, is the stopping of the murder and humiliation of the Palestinian people. If a state can help them in achieving this, I really cant distance myself from it. I do recognize that a new state is not nearly a sufficient solution to the problems we face and its not in any way a long term solution.

In order to be apathetic, you have to actually be alive. Personally, Id rather see the Palestinian people alive than to necessarily convince them of anarchist principles.

[Dimentio]

This is as a result of a discussion with Jazzratt. Please answer and discuss the question above.

If everyone says never, I will admit that I am wrong.

I think that national liberation is different from nationalism, in that nationalism often wants to repress people on the other side of the artificial border, while national liberation doesn't want people on the own side of the border to be repressed.

But in the same time, if the national liberation is represented by traditional feudal or patriarchal elites, we could actually stall progress. In most countries which are under foreign occupations, numerous groups are fighting the occupation powers. They often range from the very reactionary to the very progressive. It is crucial, I think, that the progressive forces support those groups who are more progressive (even if they aren't as successful as the reactionary groups).

For example, in the Partizan War in Yugoslavia, would the left have supported the chetniks if the socialists hadn't been so successful?

[Patchd]

Well, of course the state- and classless society would be the solution to the problems capitalism creates, but were not nearly there yet. You make it seem as though I see a Palestinian state as something equally liberatory to the classless society. I dont. I recognize that capitalism is the underlying reason for the situation in Palestine today, and I would be thrilled if it could be destroyed tomorrow, or even today, but I doubt thats going to happen. If capitalism were destroyed, the situation there would look extremely different, but capitalism will probably exists for a good number of years yet, and what Im concerned with now, is the stopping of the murder and humiliation of the Palestinian people. If a state can help them in achieving this, I really cant distance myself from it. I do recognize that a new state is not nearly a sufficient solution to the problems we face and its not in any way a long term solution.

In order to be apathetic, you have to actually be alive. Personally, Id rather see the Palestinian people alive than to necessarily convince them of anarchist principles.

Sorry if I assumed wrong again, however you mention that the mindset of people in that region is not 'nearly there yet' with regards to being class conscious and have a determination to overthrow Capitalism and it's state, so surely the task of us, the task of revolutionaries, is to persuade people so that we would be nearly there. Instead we see a lot of the 'left' sidestepping the issue and instead falling head over heels for what are essentially bourgeois arguments about being liberated.

Their understanding of 'liberation' only extends to their own liberation, not the liberation of their 'lower'/oppressed classes.

Again I pose the question I asked in my last post:

"Also, if we're speaking about number of deaths national 'liberation' reduces, tell me, when Rwanda was decolonised, what happened there, the same may go for Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Burma, Cambodia, Pakistan and India (the partition primarily) ..."

We are going with the assumption that national 'liberation' will actually lower the death toll, but first I'd want that assumption guaranteed if I want to capitulate my own principles.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I'm an anarchist, but anti-imperialism figures prominently into my worldview and political proposals.

Show me an anarchist who doesn't suscribe heavily to anti-imperialism.


I usually don't view national liberation as entailing the creation of a new state - in fact, this is never the case, given the nature of the state.

National Liberation does entail the creation fo a new state. National Liberation movements have as their aim, te creation of new states. This shouldn't be news to you.

If you're talking about cultural/religious/ethnic minority rights, then show me an anarchst who supports the oppression of any worker on these grounds.



As a minority, I have a different conception of the idea of nation than some others do.

No you don't.
"As a minority" what an awful, self-defeating phrase to lead with.

My skin colour, sexuality or anything else mkaing me a "minority" gives me no revolutionary conception on anything. Nor does yours. Hate to break it to you, but white people can understand the concept of a nation too.


On the issue of Palestine: Israel is a settler state. It should continue to be rejected until it doesn't exist anymore.

Agreed. Where is the contention there?


I support a one-state "solution," which of course doesn't solve the ultimate problems of the human condition in the region but it breaks down racism, imperialism and the legacy of ethnic cleansing.

Then you're swapping the poles of oppression, and giving credability to the notion that only a proposal that involves states and borders and all the racism that comes with that, is legitmate.

Creating a country called Palestine, in which Jewish people live, will not halt the religious and cultural tensions in that area. What you're proposing is the groundless notion that giving Palestinians a state will cease those tensions. That isn't the reality. And moreover, it's about as 'anarchist' as those Stalinists who're thanking your posts are.


Frankly, this theoretical posturing by the vast majority of the anarchists where support is not lent to an oppressed nationality seeking the rights to express its culture free from foreign suppression is pathetic.

It's not theoretical posturing, it's basic anarchism.
And again, you're completely rmeoved form reality, please show me where an anarchist doesn't support the fight against the suppression of national minorities? All anarchists, as far as i've ever expereinced support the expression, cultural or otherwise of oppressed national groups, but firstly, we recognise they're not a homogenous group just because of their national identity (something which you apparently don't - asserting that a given nationality should be allowed to express "it's culture") and secondly, that doesn't mean we support the up and coming ruling class of that national group, we support the workers of that group, funnily enough though, and consistent with anarchism, we don't support the establishmentof a state/a more powerful state, or any statist solution.


Lets face it, most anarchists are white, and anarchism comes from primarily a European base. Therefore its ideological and developmental underpinnings will reflect that.

That's a great leap. And one of several references you've made in this thread to the anarchist movement being somewhat rascist. I think that allegation is as bizarre as it is very serious. And you should re-evaluate your position. If you think the anarchist movement is based on some cultural crusade to erase all cultures but European ones, you're incorrect.


No Europeans (aside from the Irish and a few others) have experienced the ill effects of imperialism.

Are you a Maoist? I know you've completely strayed from anarchism, but this is ridiculous!

So the working class in imperialist nations do not suffer form the ill effects of imperialism? The clenching of civil liberties, high militarisation, rascist scapegoating, jingoism and conservatism?


Certainly no sizable population of whites outside of Europe have, since they all reside in settler states.

Wrong.


There's no reason to want to abolish culture or the concept of the nation.

Nobody wants to abolish culture.

If by nation you mean a group of people with shared histroy, culture etc. Then again, this can fully exist without a state. And nobody is asking to defeat any notion of nation, but we are against nationalism, a belief that one's state deserves greater recognition, a belief that one's nation is superior. Just as we're against cultural imperialism.



We need to smash capitalism and the state, and encourage cultural development and intercultural, internationalist exchanges.

You've just said you support the establishment of a Palestinian state?
So why not a Tibetan state?
A Somalian state?

I support this final conclusion you make. But with what you're wirrten before it, you apparently don't. You in fact support the creation of states, because for some reaosn, you're confusing states with the right to express cultural norms from free oppression.

[ls]

But would you say you support them for their struggle to achieve an autonomous region?

Yeah, definitely. But then I would support the FSLN in the past, the Chinese anarchist territories when they existed and the Japanese ones too, Ukraine etc.


I'm sure there are anti-statist Zapatistas, you could ask Forward Union, as you know he's quite knowledgeable in their movement for obvious reasons ;)

Honestly I'm not sure why the Zapatistas call themselves a national liberation army in the first place, they are after an autonomous territory after all. The thing is, that it seems like the more internationalist, anti-national liberation types do not like anything other than a world movement, or an extremely and obviously spontaneous progressive movement.

All I'm saying anyway, is that both national liberation and anti-national liberation seem a bit confused. ;)

[kharacter]

But comrade, you're an anarchist, which forgive me generalising, means you're for the abolition of all states.

Moreover, it means as a revolutionary, you don't support reformism or any form of nations.

How is your belief that some nations can be progressive in their establishment coherent with anarchism?
I am a revolutionary, but I don't ignore reformism in the meanwhile, since people have not yet turned to the idea of revolution, and in this way we can make things better right now and not just in 100 years. I would commend any progressive movement, and yes the creation of another nation with a new set of more-left-wing leaders with socialist tendencies done to curve repression and persecution is, though not ideal, progressive. I must reiterate that none of us will even be alive for when the revolution comes to the whole world.

We then present ourselves as this: We are revolutionaries looking for what we view is best, and we will put that ahead of anything in our missions of organizing, agitating, and educating, but we, recognizing that the majority of the world has not yet turned its eyes to class struggle, will not condemn every single other non-radical progressive initiative.

We could be talking about saving lives and preventing genocide, but those who ill-speak of my idea nevertheless will overlook this because they don't get everything exactly the way they want it. Because chances are that a national liberation movement that is being put forward to salvage an ethnic minority will never, for the entire duration of their fight, decide to go the ideal nationless way. That's just the way things are in the world today.

[kharacter]

so would anarchists here reject the notion of immediate demands (increased wages, better working conditions, increased working class participation in government process) as means of furthering revolutionary consciousness and working class solidarity, rather then ends in themselves? I'm genuinely asking here and I think it pertains to the subject matter.
I would not reject it, that is the point I'm trying to make.

[kharacter]

If Anarchists could kindly start to uphold their own principles, we'd have a greater chance of convincing others that we have a coherent philosophy
I must state that supporting progressive non-radical movements in addition to your primary cause would not decrease chances of convincing others. If anything, by lending a hand to these people, they'll be more attracted to what we have to say.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Secession can be good. As a means to create an anarcho-communist state, a majority in one province/state may advocate secession as an option to attain that goal.

[mykittyhasaboner]

For example, in the Partizan War in Yugoslavia, would the left have supported the chetniks if the socialists hadn't been so successful?

Absolutely not. That is a bit of a loaded proposition if you don't mind me saying. It doesn't correlate with Hamas in Gaza, the Taliban, or any real national liberation/anti-imperialst movement. They were a centralized paramilitary, comprised of mostly Serbs and anyone else who was loyal to the 'Kingdom'. They never really represented the resistance of the whole Yugoslav population, and not to mention collaborated with the Axis powers to carry out all sorts of atrocities. So no, they wouldn't have been supported by the left if the communist Partizani weren't so good at resisting occupation.


I think that national liberation is different from nationalism, in that nationalism often wants to repress people on the other side of the artificial border, while national liberation doesn't want people on the own side of the border to be repressed.

But in the same time, if the national liberation is represented by traditional feudal or patriarchal elites, we could actually stall progress. In most countries which are under foreign occupations, numerous groups are fighting the occupation powers. They often range from the very reactionary to the very progressive. It is crucial, I think, that the progressive forces support those groups who are more progressive (even if they aren't as successful as the reactionary groups).I think this is a rather simplistic perception of national liberation.


Obviously we should support progressive movements as opposed to reactionary ones, especially when it comes to national liberation, but there's not always an option. Often times progressive forces aren't a signifigant embodiement of resistance, with only nationalist or religious organizations making a real effort of expelling invaders.

[Leo]

While not being an anarchist, I would like to say that I think any anarchist with a spine would never support national liberation and the formation of new bourgeois-states.


Honestly I'm not sure why the Zapatistas call themselves a national liberation army in the first place, they are after an autonomous territory after all.

Well, it is basically because they are (moderate) Chiapas ethnic nationalists, and also grand-Mexican nationalists. The autonomous territory they are after is well a part of the Mexican state, they are asking for having more autonomy within the existing nation-state. They do wave the national flag all around and sing the national anthem at every occasion.

Here's a link to more detailed articles on the Zapatistas: http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/281


The thing is, that it seems like the more internationalist, anti-national liberation types do not like anything other than a world movement, or an extremely and obviously spontaneous progressive movement.

I think it is more regarding whether to "support movements" from afar or support and at least strive to take an active part in actual struggles, even if this part is in some cases limited to merely contributing to a discussion to draw the lessons of a real experience of the working class itself.

[*Red*Alert]

Whew! Smell of Crazy around here!

[Nwoye]

I would not reject it, that is the point I'm trying to make.
So i think if you consider national liberation struggles as an alternate form of immediate demands (greater political freedom, more participation in government) then it would be reasonable to support such movements as a means to an eventual socialist end rather then as ends in themselves.

[bailey_187]

anarchists are hilarious to be honest

[ls]

Well, it is basically because they are (moderate) Chiapas ethnic nationalists, and also grand-Mexican nationalists. The autonomous territory they are after is well a part of the Mexican state, they are asking for having more autonomy within the existing nation-state. They do wave the national flag all around and sing the national anthem at every occasion.

But do you think that all Zapatistas follow that line?



I think it is more regarding whether to "support movements" from afar or support and at least strive to take an active part in actual struggles, even if this part is in some cases limited to merely contributing to a discussion to draw the lessons of a real experience of the working class itself.

I don't know what you mean by this. It's pretty obvious that we don't all have the means to fly out and go and fight in all these different struggles.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Whew! Smell of Crazy around here!


Sinn Fein

Lol.

[Patchd]

Yeah, definitely. But then I would support the FSLN in the past, the Chinese anarchist territories when they existed and the Japanese ones too, Ukraine etc.
Because they were struggling for a stateless society right? With the exception of the FSLN.


I am a revolutionary, but I don't ignore reformism in the meanwhile, since people have not yet turned to the idea of revolution, and in this way we can make things better right now and not just in 100 years. I would commend any progressive movement, and yes the creation of another nation with a new set of more-left-wing leaders with socialist tendencies done to curve repression and persecution is, though not ideal, progressive. I must reiterate that none of us will even be alive for when the revolution comes to the whole world.But just because many people have a reformist mindset doesn't mean that we should. As revolutionaries, surely we should ignore reformist politics? After all, what major reform have we had which we haven't seen an attempt by the bourgeoisie to wither it away? There are probably some, but as we can already see, in Britain, the bourgeoisie have made and continued attacks on, public education, the National Health Service, the state pension, the benefit system, nationalised transport and so forth.

I'm glad I have the NHS, it means that if I get hit by a car I don't have to pay before getting treatment, or getting treatment and ending up in a hell of a lot of debt. It's a brilliant reform, despite it's flaws, but as reforms go, they can only extend to the limits of the socio-economic system they are made in, and whenever their job is done (whether that's to bring a certain industry back into operation, or whether it's to subdue the working class with immediate promises) they are usually eroded away again. So what are you fighting for? A little bit of tension release from Capitalism through reforms, or for your emancipation? We've had reforms after reforms after reforms and we've had no emancipation.

That's not to say that we shouldn't support reforms, or defend them, as long as they suit our immediate material conditions, but as revolutionaries we certainly shouldn't be advocating it.


We could be talking about saving lives and preventing genocide, but those who ill-speak of my idea nevertheless will overlook this because they don't get everything exactly the way they want it. Because chances are that a national liberation movement that is being put forward to salvage an ethnic minority will never, for the entire duration of their fight, decide to go the ideal nationless way. That's just the way things are in the world today.Assumption again that 'liberating' oppressed 'nations' will save lives. I bring up the examples of Rwanda, Uganda, Laos, Burma, Cambodia, the India and Pakistan divide, Angola, and the Dem. Republic of Congo. The 'liberation' of those nations didn't save lives, nor did it destroy lives, it was the continued existence of a bourgeois state, no matter what colour, or what ethnicity the bourgeoisie were, that led to the deaths of so many people in the post-colonial period.

There is no national 'liberation', as the abstract concept of a 'nation' is inherently oppressive. Capitalism is war, doesn't matter what colour your boss is.


I must state that supporting progressive non-radical movements in addition to your primary cause would not decrease chances of convincing others. If anything, by lending a hand to these people, they'll be more attracted to what we have to say.Support is different to advocation. I still support, and have been involved in the Palestine issue, recently especially with the university occupations, but that's because I oppose Capitalism and the deaths and ongoing oppression of millions, not because I wanted to create a Palestinian state. In fact, I remember in one of the mass meetings we had in the occupation, I put forward the position of a no-state solution, unfortunately being the only one to vocally do so, despite many other Anarchists being in the room.


anarchists are hilarious to be honest
So are people who think states will simply 'wither away'. ;) :lol:

[ls]

Because they were struggling for a stateless society right? With the exception of the FSLN.

Because they were struggling for a collectivist, then eventually a communist society.

Why are you against the FSLN? AFAIK they were on the whole (I'm not talking about them in the here and now) only as nationalistic as the Zapatistas are now. It just doesn't make much sense in my mind.

[Patchd]

Ma bad, double post.

[Patchd]

Because they were struggling for a collectivist, then eventually a communist society.

Why are you against the FSLN? AFAIK they were on the whole (I'm not talking about them in the here and now) only as nationalistic as the Zapatistas are now. It just doesn't make much sense in my mind.
I didn't say I was against the FSLN, sorry I should have made it clear that I don't know that much about the FSLN, but from what I can tell from the wiki, they sought to oppose US Imperialism in Nicaragua by taking over the state as opposed to dismantling it, to me that's not a liberation, that's a replacement of bosses.

But again, I don't know too much about the FSLN, if you could expand on this, then I'd be grateful :)

[Leo]

But do you think that all Zapatistas follow that line?Well, leaving aside the good intentions and the flowery rhetoric... yeah, I would imagine they do - it's what their line is, it's why they are called EZLN, it is why they are around, it is what they are about.


Because they were struggling for a collectivist, then eventually a communist society.

Why are you against the FSLN? AFAIK they were on the whole (I'm not talking about them in the here and now) only as nationalistic as the Zapatistas are now. It just doesn't make much sense in my mind. The FSLN was more radically nationalist than the Zapatistas. The most "collectivist, then eventually a communist society" they could have brought would be just another puppet state of Russian imperialism in the region, in it's struggle with the US imperialism since the FSLN was an organization directly supported by the Russian Eastern block.

We are seeing what was behind the rhetoric anyway now, with the same organization with the same leaders taking power finally again now.


I don't know what you mean by this. It's pretty obvious that we don't all have the means to fly out and go and fight in all these different struggles.Yeah, that's why I said ""even if this part is in some cases limited to merely contributing to a discussion to draw the lessons of a real experience of the working class itself.""

[Patchd]

Oh the shame, leaving it to a left communist to remind Anarchists about their principles. :lol:

[black magick hustla]

Frankly, this theoretical posturing by the vast majority of the anarchists where support is not lent to an oppressed nationality seeking the rights to express its culture free from foreign suppression is pathetic. Lets face it, most anarchists are white, and anarchism comes from primarily a European base. .

you can kiss my brown, left communist ass.

[Pogue]

I believe the argument being made is that it isn't progressive, all factions of the bourgeois serve to oppress workers and serve their own interests ultimately, thus supporting some kind of a bourgeois in an 'anti-imperialist' capacity simply doesn't work.

I will be honest and say I'm not sure right now, a lot of anarchists seem to regard the Zapatistas as revolutionary, yet "national liberation" is in their very title.. I support the Zapatistas myself although rather than going for labels, simply regard myself as a workerist now.

We support them based upon their organisational method, rejection of Leninist organisations, fight against the state and capitalism, and solidarity with our movements. I'll elaborate later.

[black magick hustla]

It is infuriating some douchebag psuedo-anarchist claims all of us who realize we share nothing in common with bosses of our color or creed are we are "european". They also say we should bow to them if they have strong anti-imperialist rhetoric, or whatever. To hell with all of them.

[scarletghoul]

The EZLN are a national liberation army. If you support them you are supporting national liberation. You are also supporting their government, their state.

It's ridiculous to endorse this and condemn other national liberation armies or other democratic states. Seems to me that many self-labelled anarchists just admire the ELZN because they're commonly labelled as anarchist. You'd probably all be loving Libya if Gaddafi called himself anarchist, due to its system of direct democracy, or whatever.

[FreeFocus]

Likewise, I don't think anyone here mentioned they wanted to abolish culture, that would be ridiculous! Simply you can't draw up abstract boundaries in order to segregate cultures, ethnicities and language from one another because culture extends national boundaries.

Yes, nations and cultures aren't bound by borders or regional boundaries, but the fact is that every culture has a home that it originated in and developed in. Most people who embrace a culture happen to also live in the same general area. That being said, I don't endorse walling off regions just because of this fact.


The creation of one state in 1948 created such turmoil, and people here still believe that the creation of a new state would not do the same, or they believe that the settler state of Israel would actually pose as a less oppressive force were it to be secular or incorporated more of Palestine.I certainly don't advocate Israel simply annexing the West Bank and Gaza, that would further Israeli imperialism. Dismantling the Israeli state and creating a new state in Palestine is not the same as Israel annexing the territories. A one state scenario has, as a prerequisite, the breaking down of the ingrained settler racism in Israeli society and Palestinian resentment caused by it. A two state scenario doesn't do this, and frankly Palestinians should still be angry if such a scenario came into fruition, because the settler state still exists, the original problem of ethnic cleansing was never rectified, and an aggressive, expansionist state would share a border with what the US and Israel hope is a completely demilitarized, defenseless Palestinian state.

But we all know the two state "solution" is dead at this point. There are far too many settlements in the West Bank, which has been turned into a sea of disconnected Bantustans.


The Jewish population in the region (and I mean Israel and Palestine) is already larger than that of the Arabs, or Palestinians. If we are to create states based on national lines, then nationalism will arise as an issue. Why not fight for the end to all nation-states, the end to all boundaries?It won't be larger for much longer, given demographic trends. I don't support creating states based along national lines. Of course, it would be nice to see Palestinians fight for autonomous zones and Israelis fight to dismantle to Israeli state. Right now, realistically, given the very complicated dynamics and fragility of the situation, it's better to work toward establishing one state in Palestine.


First, just because we hold onto our principles doesn't mean that we are simply theoretically posturing over issues which we seem to have no grasp of reality.

Secondly, as a child of an immigrant, growing up with a Chinese single mother, I could say that I am not 'white', nor could I say I was Chinese-Thai. Either way, simply because a number of Anarchists are 'white' does not invalidate their arguments, nor does it mean that they lack an understanding of reality.
Well, it is theoretical posturing, when the real world isn't ripe for what you're proposing. You don't get a stateless, classless society overnight. We should never stop pursuing it, and make it clear that's what we want, and our organization and theory should reflect that.

Surely being white doesn't invalidate their arguments. However, it's no secret that whites are not victims of racism, and thus they have different experiences than non-whites do.


My experiences of Nationalism in Thailand definitely cements my position on Nationalism as a whole, Thailand being a very Nationalist nation, and a very socially restricted nation also. Not only that but it's spurred up racial intolerance, to Laotians, Cambodians, Chinese, Malays, and the Burmese. Obviously Thailand is a nation which never had to seek national 'liberation', but it has been dominated by European (French and British), and now American Imperialism since the first arrival of Westerners, the only reason it escaped being colonised was for the fact that it stood as a buffer state for British Burma, and French Indochina. The regions surrounding Thailand are also very nationalist, some moreso than others, depending on the brutality of that state, but all of which had had to seek it's own 'liberation' from the Western Imperialist powers.Fair enough, I never claimed that nationalism can't be wielded by the bourgeoisie.


That didn't stop tensions between one another, nor did it stop Laos, Thailand and Cambodia assisting US Imperialism in the Vietnam war. The point I'm trying to get at is that with the creation of new nation-states, peace, or emancipation is never guaranteed, and the likelihood is that it will never be granted until the fall of those states. There will always be national tensions so long as you uphold national boundaries, the point is to tear them down and not veer off in a completely different direction which will only help the emerging Capitalists of that region.Ideally, the nationalism of the oppressed would hold that anarchism is the only way for healthy communities and cultures to grow and develop, and would take aim at their native bourgeoisie (this was sometimes the case - although not anarchist in orientation, in the early days of the Cuban Revolution, the Cuban bourgeoisie which enabled and aided American imperialism since the Spanish-American war was targeted and their property was expropriated. There was no "class collaboration" at this point, although we can raise legitimate points about the nature of the Cuban state at the present).


Also, if we're speaking about number of deaths national 'liberation' reduces, tell me, when Rwanda was decolonised, what happened there, the same may go for Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Burma, Cambodia, Pakistan and India (the partition primarily) ...I didn't say that it reduces the number of deaths. That would depend on the situation.


Show me an anarchist who doesn't suscribe heavily to anti-imperialism.

Plenty don't. Just read the board. Many regard it as a "distraction," and simply say that fighting capitalism generally already entails anti-imperialism.


National Liberation does entail the creation fo a new state. National Liberation movements have as their aim, te creation of new states. This shouldn't be news to you.My conception of national liberation doesn't. I don't think a nation can be free under a state, or with a state claiming to represent it. Nonetheless, yes, what you said is the common understanding. I don't want to get into a semantic debate.


If you're talking about cultural/religious/ethnic minority rights, then show me an anarchst who supports the oppression of any worker on these grounds.Of course an anarchist won't come out and openly support the oppression, but by putting the blinders over the eyes and saying "fighting capitalism already includes anti-imperialism" until you turn blue in the face doesn't help, say, Australian Aboriginals who now are having their communities raided by the Australian military in a show of arrogant, imperialist paternalism. If Australian Aboriginals, after facing genocide and ethnic cleansing, speak of rebuilding their nations and societies, and seeking freedom from Australian oppression, most anarchists would say, "We just need to unite the working class, let's try to convince the Australian soldiers to join us, let's try to change the opinion of white Australians." Yeah, well racism is ingrained in Australian society, it's not just something that magically goes away with leftist agitation.


No you don't.
"As a minority" what an awful, self-defeating phrase to lead with.I don't see how it's "an awful, self-defeating phrase to lead with." Yeah, I have different experiences from (most) whites. Most whites don't have their language ridiculed, their culture insulted, and aren't called racial slurs.

But thanks for telling me what I've experienced. Next time I encounter this stuff I'll just think about what you said and tell myself, "I'm not experiencing anything."


My skin colour, sexuality or anything else mkaing me a "minority" gives me no revolutionary conception on anything. Nor does yours. Hate to break it to you, but white people can understand the concept of a nation too.Frankly a non-white knows about racism more than a white person, just as a woman knows patriarchy and sexism better than a man. I think that's a given. It doesn't automatically give one a revolutionary outlook, but it gives them a real life understanding that someone who isn't those things simply won't have. For example, I can't claim to know as a gay person does what it feels like to possibly be gay-bashed. I can understand its role in society, but that doesn't mean I have real run-ins with it.


Agreed. Where is the contention there?

Then you're swapping the poles of oppression, and giving credability to the notion that only a proposal that involves states and borders and all the racism that comes with that, is legitmate.
I addressed this earlier in the post when I was debating Palachinov:


I certainly don't advocate Israel simply annexing the West Bank and Gaza, that would further Israeli imperialism. Dismantling the Israeli state and creating a new state in Palestine is not the same as Israel annexing the territories. A one state scenario has, as a prerequisite, the breaking down of the ingrained settler racism in Israeli society and Palestinian resentment caused by it. A two state scenario doesn't do this, and frankly Palestinians should still be angry if such a scenario came into fruition, because the settler state still exists, the original problem of ethnic cleansing was never rectified, and an aggressive, expansionist state would share a border with what the US and Israel hope is a completely demilitarized, defenseless Palestinian state.

But we all know the two state "solution" is dead at this point. There are far too many settlements in the West Bank, which has been turned into a sea of disconnected Bantustans.


Creating a country called Palestine, in which Jewish people live, will not halt the religious and cultural tensions in that area. What you're proposing is the groundless notion that giving Palestinians a state will cease those tensions. That isn't the reality. And moreover, it's about as 'anarchist' as those Stalinists who're thanking your posts are.See above. I'm not proposing just erasing the border tomorrow. It's more complex than that.


It's not theoretical posturing, it's basic anarchism.

And again, you're completely rmeoved form reality, please show me where an anarchist doesn't support the fight against the suppression of national minorities? All anarchists, as far as i've ever expereinced support the expression, cultural or otherwise of oppressed national groups, but firstly, we recognise they're not a homogenous group just because of their national identity (something which you apparently don't - asserting that a given nationality should be allowed to express "it's culture") and secondly, that doesn't mean we support the up and coming ruling class of that national group, we support the workers of that group, funnily enough though, and consistent with anarchism, we don't support the establishmentof a state/a more powerful state, or any statist solution.I think there's a difference between simply condemning an aggressor and siding with the oppressed. Most anarchists do the former, and will condemn the oppressed as having the wrong tactics, or having the wrong politics. Take Hamas, for example. You can talk all you want until you're blue in the face once more about uniting workers across borders, or overthrowing the bourgeoisie regardless of their state of origin. Meanwhile, Hamas fighters (who make up the majority of the organization, are mostly poor and sign up because their families were killed) are out there trying to defend Palestinians and resist Israeli aggression.

What you'll see when you look at polls is that a majority of Israelis support every war against Arabs, except when it drags on and they take heavy casualties (e.g. Lebanon in 2006). I think it's the responsibility of Israeli workers to have a change of heart and go to smash the Israeli state, it's not the responsibility of Palestinians to take it on the fucking chin for another 60 years while Israelis cheer and clamor for more Arabs to be murdered and more land to be annexed.


That's a great leap. And one of several references you've made in this thread to the anarchist movement being somewhat rascist. I think that allegation is as bizarre as it is very serious. And you should re-evaluate your position. If you think the anarchist movement is based on some cultural crusade to erase all cultures but European ones, you're incorrect.Not consciously racist, but some positions and attitude end up supporting cultural and national oppression indirectly. I explained why I think anarchism has this tendency in my first post. It's not that it's racist, it's either that they're unwilling or unable to relate to non-white reality and social conditions in non-white societies. It's not a cultural crusade, it's a politics that grew out of what its originators knew at the time.

What non-white anarchist thinkers do you know of? And why is it that most people of color throughout the world have historically opted, when they embraced a socialist ideology, for more statist (Leninist, Maoist, etc) programs and politics?


Are you a Maoist? I know you've completely strayed from anarchism, but this is ridiculous!

So the working class in imperialist nations do not suffer form the ill effects of imperialism? The clenching of civil liberties, high militarisation, rascist scapegoating, jingoism and conservatism?Actually, I've been slightly influenced by some strains of third-worldist thought, and will continue to be until workers in imperialist states stop supporting murder and imperialism in astonishing percentages. Everything you mentioned tends to be supported to some degree by workers in imperialist states (militarization - "Support our boys! Give them what they need!", racist scapegoating - "We need to get rid of these immigrants and have border control, immigrants are terrorists and steal services and tax dollars", etc).


Wrong.

Nobody wants to abolish culture.Well perhaps anarchists need to make it more clear when discussing imperialism that smashing capitalism isn't all their is to it. The difference between imperialism and just having a native bourgeoisie is that imperialism goes to some lengths to repress, insult and degrade culture. Sure, the native bourgeoisie often times enables and is in bed with imperialism. I'm not saying that we should ever make an alliance with the bourgeoisie, but rather acknowledge and manipulate their squabbles.

For example, at the height of the Iraqi insurgency, was the Iraqi government as bad as the American occupation? If the US had withdrawn in, say, 2006, we would've had a weak Iraqi government and a weakened American imperialism.

Basically, anarchists tend to pass by strategic considerations, which is why I said we just make ideological postures. Why not weaken imperialism? Is a strong, rejuvenated imperialism better? Would you rather deal with an occupation, or a fragile state?


If by nation you mean a group of people with shared histroy, culture etc. Then again, this can fully exist without a state. And nobody is asking to defeat any notion of nation, but we are against nationalism, a belief that one's state deserves greater recognition, a belief that one's nation is superior. Just as we're against cultural imperialism.I understand that..that's what I've been arguing the whole time. But I disagree with your definition of nationalism, your definition of nationalism is my definition of patriotism. I never see patriotism as a good thing - it always entails supporting the state, whereas I don't believe nationalism invariably does.


You've just said you support the establishment of a Palestinian state?
So why not a Tibetan state?
A Somalian state?
No, I support a one state solution in Palestine. Establishing a Palestinian state would mean having two states. That doesn't solve any of the pressing issues in the region.


I support this final conclusion you make. But with what you're wirrten before it, you apparently don't. You in fact support the creation of states, because for some reaosn, you're confusing states with the right to express cultural norms from free oppression.The bold made me laugh. :lol:

I'm not confusing states with anything. My point is that yeah, it'd be great if all people suffering from imperialism opted for autonomous zones with worker control and socialism. However, you can't wish this into existence. If that's what we want, we need to start theorizing about anarchist solutions to imperialism, and not simply saying "fighting capitalism includes it." Anarchism is the best anti-imperialism because without states, you can't have imperialism. Furthermore a nation suffering from the effects of imperialism would be removeing the possibility of a native bourgeoisie arising and enabling foreign imperialism.

[F9]

Poll answers are as usual too...(damn i dont remember the word) "specific terms" that delete the possibility of something in between them..Thinks are almost never black and white.I cant answer and be 100% honest in either of choices.

Though i can say that mostly i do not support national liberation movements, and currently i support none, but in the future under some circumstances if i did, i can honestly say that i am not sure..

I strongly dislike nationalism, of any kind, and if i see it anywhere, withing any group, they are not my "friends" and they have not my supportive.This isnt "absolute" though, while i may dont like some things, i may be ok with others and give some support on some occasions, but i can generally say that i dont support any kind of nationalism, whatever "mask" it wears.

[FreeFocus]

you can kiss my brown, left communist ass.

You can also kiss my brown ass. :p

[ls]

I didn't say I was against the FSLN, sorry I should have made it clear that I don't know that much about the FSLN, but from what I can tell from the wiki, they sought to oppose US Imperialism in Nicaragua by taking over the state as opposed to dismantling it, to me that's not a liberation, that's a replacement of bosses.

I don't think they did in the beginning. That is not to say that it was a perfect movement at any point, at all points it had flaws, but the general strike and the grassroots insurrection was one you would expect to return a collectivist free territory, which is what we strive for.

I also think that the aims of some of the key revolutionaries, such as Ortega himself (who later went into government) had revolutionary consciousness that is (or rather was) compatible with us.


But again, I don't know too much about the FSLN, if you could expand on this, then I'd be grateful :)


The Sandinista Uprising

1926, Jan. 14 > May 2

When a Liberal insurrection was started by GEN. AUGUSTO CÉSAR SANDINO (1895-1934), the U.S. government hastily landed forces. Dedicated to freeing the country of foreign domination and improving the lot of Nicaraguan peasants, Sandino would fight a war against U.S. Marines and the National Guard for the next eight years. A brief armistice was effected by the U.S. (Sept. 23); Chamorro then resigned.

1928, Nov. 4

José Moncada (Liberal) was elected, with the U.S. government supervising the polling. Sandino, who had continued the fighting on his own account and who had gone so far as to attack American troops, withdrew to Mexico, but in 1931 he resumed the struggle.

1933, Jan. 1

With the Sandino forces numbering over 3,000, the U.S. Marines gave up the fight in Nicaragua. In keeping with the turn toward a less interventionist policy, initiated by Herbert Hoover and made official by Franklin Roosevelt, the U.S. created a National Guard, staffed and directed by Nicaraguans. U.S.-educated GEN. ANASTASIO SOMOZA GARCÍA (1896-1956) was appointed head of the guard, which was conceived as a peacekeeping force that would remain politically neutral.

1934, Feb 21

During a U.S.-mediated negotiation between the government and Sandino, Somoza ordered Sandino's execution. In the following weeks scores of Sandino's followers were rounded up and executed, crushing the movement.

1961

Carlos Fonseca, Silvio Mayorga, and Tomás Borge founded the FRENTE SANDINISTA DE LIBERACIÓN NACIONAL (FSLN), composed largely of students, which sought to overthrow the Somozas through guerrilla warfare. The Sandinistas were almost wiped out by the late 1960s.

1974, Dec. 27

During a Christmas party held to honor the U.S. ambassador, FSLN guerrillas stormed in and took 40 hostages, including high-ranking officials. The raid brought worldwide recognition to the FSLN. Somoza announced a state of siege, leading to brutal repression in rural areas.

1976, Nov

FSLN founder and leading ideologue Carlos Fonseca was ambushed and killed.

1978, Jan. 10

PEDRO JOAQUÍN CHAMORRO WAS ASSASSINATED, allegedly by Somoza gunmen. The murder touched off demonstrations, strikes, and widespread violence. It moved many middle-class and elite groups to join the movement to end the dictatorship. The Catholic Church also withdrew its support of the government. The FSLN, meanwhile, had moderated its platform and was seeking to ally itself with all opponents of the Somoza regime.

1978, Jan. 10 > Feb

Indians in Monimbo, Masaya, rose up in support of the FSLN but were bombed into submission.

1978, Jan. 10 > Aug. 22

An FSLN unit stormed the National Palace during a session of Congress, taking over 2,000 prisoners and demanding the release of political prisoners and publication of their agenda. Numerous Latin American countries, including Costa Rica, Panama, Venezuela, and Cuba, had extended offers of both material aid and safe haven to the FSLN.

1978, Jan. 10 > Sept. 8

The FSLN launched insurrections in five cities, but was defeated by National Guard assaults preceded by extremely heavy bombing of urban areas. In the “cleanup” operation, government forces killed over 5,000 persons. In the aftermath the FSLN grew radically, as grassroots groups emerged to oppose Somoza. In the U.S., the Carter administration announced an arms freeze against Nicaragua.

1979, June

As Somoza bombed several major cities, Sandinista forces called for a general strike and final offensive to overthrow the dictator. A broad insurrection, including all classes of Nicaraguans, rallied behind the Sandinista forces to overthrow Somoza.

They then went into government and it degraded from there imo, but they were revolutionary during their time before government without doubt, in my mind.


Well, leaving aside the good intentions and the flowery rhetoric... yeah, I would imagine they do - it's what their line is, it's why they are called EZLN, it is why they are around, it is what they are about.

I don't think all of them are necessarily as nationalist as you make out, if you can find me an anarchist that does not support them on this forum, I would find it very interesting - an 'anarchist with a backbone' as you put it.


The FSLN was more radically nationalist than the Zapatistas.

How? Do you think that the general strike was radically nationalist? Do you think all the people who were murdered by the national guard were nationalist?

Before they were in government, they were a mass movement of revolutionaries aligned to the revolutionary party.


The most "collectivist, then eventually a communist society" they could have brought would be just another puppet state of Russian imperialism in the region, in it's struggle with the US imperialism since the FSLN was an organization directly supported by the Russian Eastern block.

Cuba more so actually. But receiving economic aid from another faction does not necessarily make the movement mostly a bourgeois one.


We are seeing what was behind the rhetoric anyway now, with the same organization with the same leaders taking power finally again now.

What do you mean?


Yeah, that's why I said ""even if this part is in some cases limited to merely contributing to a discussion to draw the lessons of a real experience of the working class itself.""

Fair enough, it seemed like you were trying to say we should all be militants out fighting, which seemed strange as the ICC's line is usually something like: militancy without solid theory is useless. Which I agree with.


Oh the shame, leaving it to a left communist to remind Anarchists about their principles. :lol:

If you're so principled according to left-communists, then how comes you support the Zapatistas as well? At least I think you do based on your previous posts.

This smacks of hypocrisy to me.


We support them based upon their organisational method, rejection of Leninist organisations, fight against the state and capitalism, and solidarity with our movements. I'll elaborate later.

But isn't the 'critical support' position the same as what the SWP do?

You can always leave out all the things you disagree with, then include the good, that isn't the same as critical analysis however, imo.

[black magick hustla]

You can also kiss my brown ass. :p

yours stinks of identity politics though

[Patchd]

Yes, nations and cultures aren't bound by borders or regional boundaries, but the fact is that every culture has a home that it originated in and developed in. Most people who embrace a culture happen to also live in the same general area. That being said, I don't endorse walling off regions just because of this fact.
Exactly, there isn't one culture in a certain region, and different aspects of different cultures overlap regions where one culture may seem to be dominant.

Other cultural aspects also extend continental restrictions. Take Australia and Canada for example, which incorporates part of what may be considered 'British culture', obviously through Imperialism, but nonetheless it goes to show that even culture is variable and changes constantly with the introduction of different cultures in society.


I certainly don't advocate Israel simply annexing the West Bank and Gaza, that would further Israeli imperialism. Dismantling the Israeli state and creating a new state in Palestine is not the same as Israel annexing the territories. A one state scenario has, as a prerequisite, the breaking down of the ingrained settler racism in Israeli society and Palestinian resentment caused by it. A two state scenario doesn't do this, and frankly Palestinians should still be angry if such a scenario came into fruition, because the settler state still exists, the original problem of ethnic cleansing was never rectified, and an aggressive, expansionist state would share a border with what the US and Israel hope is a completely demilitarized, defenseless Palestinian state.So as an Anarchist, why would you still advocate a one state solution? The hardest part would be the convincing of Palestinians and Israeli Jews to drop their resentment towards one another, what then is stopping you from arguing for a no-state solution? You'd rather the creation of a new bourgeois state, despite the possible overcoming of racial tensions, I thought as a 'minority', you'd understand that Capitalism requires racism at points in it's history in order to function, that or it produces racism through scaremongering or Imperialist conquest.


Well, it is theoretical posturing, when the real world isn't ripe for what you're proposing. You don't get a stateless, classless society overnight. We should never stop pursuing it, and make it clear that's what we want, and our organization and theory should reflect that. Of course it isn't, hence why we're not living in a Communist society, but, now I may be mistaken, but I thought the task of a revolutionary Anarchist-Communist was to advocate an Anarchist-Communist society, why side-step the issue and make the overall task of convincing workers that a stateless society is possible harder than it could be, under the pretence that the creation of a bourgeois state would even solve anything?


Surely being white doesn't invalidate their arguments. However, it's no secret that whites are not victims of racism, and thus they have different experiences than non-whites do.Are you kidding, what a ridiculous statement, racism extends beyond 'whites' and 'non-whites'. In Wales there have been cases of English people racially targeted, in England, the French are sometimes racially discriminated, in France it is the reverse. Spain has been known to discriminate against the Basque people, as well as the Catalans, and in Canada, we have the obvious division between the French and English-speaking Canadians.

Obviously, the racism white people may experience is usually less severe than that which non-white people experience, but to say that they are not victims of racism is ridiculous if not downright offensive to any white person who has experienced racism.


I didn't say that it reduces the number of deaths. That would depend on the situation.Sorry, I must have been referring to another person's post who claimed that if national 'liberation' would reduce the death toll in a region they would support it. I wanted a guarantee that it would.


Ideally, the nationalism of the oppressed would hold that anarchism is the only way for healthy communities and cultures to grow and develop, and would take aim at their native bourgeoisie (this was sometimes the case - although not anarchist in orientation, in the early days of the Cuban Revolution, the Cuban bourgeoisie which enabled and aided American imperialism since the Spanish-American war was targeted and their property was expropriated. There was no "class collaboration" at this point, although we can raise legitimate points about the nature of the Cuban state at the present).Then I don't see why you don't advocate it, what I'm concerned about is that there are Anarchists who support the creation of states, despite their natural opposition to all states, seeing them as inherently oppressive. In addition, it is true that Anarchism remains a largely white Western ideology, I'd say that has less with it being some 'petty bourgeois' ideology as Stalinists or the Sparts would have you believe, but because in LEDCs, Maoism, or other variants of Marxism-Leninism is traditionally stronger. The point is that Anarchism is beginning to emerge, or grow in these regions, as well as in 'oppressed nations' and we should help to nurture that growth as opposed to sliding our position on the state (which is one of our key distinctions from the 'left') to the side in favour of populism.


Frankly a non-white knows about racism more than a white person, just as a woman knows patriarchy and sexism better than a man. I think that's a given. It doesn't automatically give one a revolutionary outlook, but it gives them a real life understanding that someone who isn't those things simply won't have. For example, I can't claim to know as a gay person does what it feels like to possibly be gay-bashed. I can understand its role in society, but that doesn't mean I have real run-ins with it.Again, no, patriarchy is entirely based on the female - male relationship, whereas racism encompasses all ethnicities, as opposed to just white people being inherently dominant and oppressive, which simply isn't true. Throughout history, we have seen where white people have not been free to express their 'national identity', or practice their culture. The recent war in Kosovo is an example, admittedly, muslim Kosovans and Serbs are usually regarded as 'white', yet they were, and are still discriminated. Not to mention the attempted 'Russofication' of different regions of it's former Empire, Poland being an example of that.


I'm not proposing just erasing the border tomorrow. It's more complex than that.I don't think anyone here is, the point is that we're supposed to convince people beforehand, and as Anarchists, we don't believe that a state is necessary before being able to achieve Anarchism/Communism, yet we still advocate it.

Revolution and the breaking down of borders will be an option when the material conditions are right, but that cannot happen without the principles in place either, but our principles won't be in place if 'Anarchists' go around advocating the creation of states.


If you're so principled according to left-communists, then how comes you support the Zapatistas as well? At least I think you do based on your previous posts.

This smacks of hypocrisy to me.This smacks of haven't read my posts to me. :tt2: Where have I stated my support for the Zapatistas? I'm still waiting for Forward Union to come in this thread, if he will, and inform us about the Zapatistas, he knows a fair bit about them, with first hand experience as well, so it would be interesting to know what he has to say about them.

Sorry, long post is loooooooooooooongggg......

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Devrim]

Obviously, the racism white people may experience is usually less severe than that which non-white people experience, but to say that they are not victims of racism is ridiculous if not downright offensive to any white person who has experienced racism.

An example of white people who experience racism could be Turks in Germany. Quite severe racism in my opinion. Fascist gangs burning people to death in their houses is reasonably severe.
Devrim

[Guerrilla22]

The FSLN was more radically nationalist than the Zapatistas.

This is minor I know, however I don't think you can place the FSLN under the category of nationalist groups as they didn't represent a nation in the proper sense. The EZLN however definitely represents the interest of an individual nation (Mayan)

[Anarchia]

Just to add another vote, I said "I would never".

I don't really think I need to expand much further, by and large the A-Fed members on this thread have said what I would have, prob unsurprisingly.

[Leo]

How? Do you think that the general strike was radically nationalist? Do you think all the people who were murdered by the national guard were nationalist?

Before they were in government, they were a mass movement of revolutionaries aligned to the revolutionary party.You sound a bit Maoist there to be honest.

Regardless of whatever moralism you make about people being shot, what determines whether an organization is nationalist is their ideology, and the FSLN was a nationalist organization.


Cuba more so actually. But receiving economic aid from another faction does not necessarily make the movement mostly a bourgeois one.It makes it a pawn of imperialism.


What do you mean?The FSLN and Ortega are in power in Nicaragua now.

[ls]

You sound a bit Maoist there to be honest.

But the FSLN were not maoist.

Just because they are pointed out as being 'guerrillas' it does not make them maoists, the mass action in Greece was apparently staged by 'anarchist and socialist guerrillas' too, does that make the mass uprising in Greece maoist?


Regardless of whatever moralism you make about people being shot

First of all, it's not a moral argument, it shows that it wasn't just a bourgeois struggle for state independence in which they took power from the incumbent government overnight, it shows that it was a struggle which degenerated after the leadership took actual power over both the FSLN and the government.


what determines whether an organization is nationalist is their ideology, and the FSLN was a nationalist organization.

And so are the Zapatistas according to you, does that make people who support them maoists too?

Furthermore, your earlier argument was kind of absurd; The FSLN was more radically nationalist than the Zapatistas.

What on earth made you come to that conclusion?


It makes it a pawn of imperialism.

I don't know what to say really, ideologically they probably oughtn't to have accepted the aid, but then so many people in a deep crisis like that fuels desperate measures, let's be honest - Nicaragua was in a deep crisis at the time after the earthquake. To not see how this factors in the problems it faced seems at best, a complete joke.

If they hadn't of accepted the aid, the Nicaragua proletariat would have been in a very deep hole indeed.


The FSLN and Ortega are in power in Nicaragua now.

Yeah but that doesn't make the original insurrection and general strike a bourgeois one. There has never been any evidence either, especially not in the form of direct words from the FSLN themselves to do with maoism.

[F9]

So Cyprus should be under the control of Turkey then?

:rolleyes:What are you talking about?From my post you got that.... i support army control, that i support any kind of control over people?
Of course and Cyprus shouldnt be under control of Turkey as it shouldnt be under control from greece.. as it shouldnt be under control at all.

[Leo]

But the FSLN were not maoist.

I was talking about your rhetoric, not the FSLN anyway.


First of all, it's not a moral argument, it shows that it wasn't just a bourgeois struggle for state independence in which they took power from the incumbent government overnight

Do you think people don't get shot in every bourgeois struggle for state independence? Why on earth do you think we are making such an issue about workers' being cannon fodder for the interests of the ruling class do you think?


And so are the Zapatistas according to you, does that make people who support them maoists too?

Eh, I said you sounded like one, not that you were one.


Furthermore, your earlier argument was kind of absurd; The FSLN was more radically nationalist than the Zapatistas.

What on earth made you come to that conclusion?

Well, the Zapatistas are more moderate with their nationalism - and more moderate in general as well. They are bourgeois nationalists also but, due to times changing they don't put it forward in a way that is as strong as the FSLN. The FSLN was a typical example of the left-nationalist Latin American movement supported by the Russian block. This of course also has got to with the FSLN being an actual, serious challenger for taking over the state, supported by the Eastern block, wheras the Zapatistas are a mostly irrelevant force in comparision.


I don't know what to say really, ideologically they probably oughtn't to have accepted the aid, but then so many people in a deep crisis like that fuels desperate measures, let's be honest - Nicaragua was in a deep crisis at the time after the earthquake. To not see how this factors in the problems it faced seems at best, a complete joke.

If they hadn't of accepted the aid, the Nicaragua proletariat would have been in a very deep hole indeed.

Aside from that, there is also the support given to the FSLN by the intelligence agencies of the Eastern Block. It was from the beginning an organization which was a pawn of Russian imperialism, one if it's three founding members himself is said to be a KGB agent. It wasn't an "ideological mistake" accepting aid later, it was of course natural, and the FSLN had been "accepting aid" from the beginning altogether.


Yeah but that doesn't make the original insurrection and general strike a bourgeois one.

It shows the true colors of the FLSN which supposedly had anything that was even remotely "socialist".

[h0m0revolutionary]

Do all those who voted on this poll identify as anarchist of some sort?

Evidently not.

But no hard feelings, if there were a poll on "is Trotsky k00l as sch00l" TROTS ONLY.
i'd vote no.. just to piss em off ;)

[Jazzratt]

Why do people in this thread assume that all anarchists support or sympathiose with the EZLN?

Also the poll is quite clearly not serving its purpose, if you wanted to gauge anarchists opinions only then perhaps the anarchist usergroup would have been better, no?

[genstrike]

I'm an anarchist, and I tend to support national liberation and struggles for self-determination (or at least some modicum of it). But the last time I had this discussion on here, it wound up being pretty much, "you're not a real anarchist, you're a closet Stalinist!"

[Forward Union]

Why do people in this thread assume that all anarchists support or sympathiose with the EZLN?

I take it as a compliment. All anarchists ought to support the EZLN, it's a sign of intelligence. Though it makes me laugh, from 1994 to 2000 it was chiqe to support the EZLN, and now it's totally uncool. Both positions are born out of a general misunderstanding about the EZLN and agreeing with various peoples own interpretations of the movements. Someone will take a statement Marcos said out of context and tell all his mates that the EZLN support small land owners and people tend to accept that as a given.

The reason it is possible to come up with such ridiculous statements as to call them Maoist, nationalist or liberal reformist, is because their statements contain very confusing language. This is because it is written by committees made up of 6 language groups who have never seen mobile telephones. The context is confusing, and Marcos simply puts the confusion in a more digestable format.

They are not nationalists, they have explicitly explained that international cooperation is necessary to defeat capitalism. I would urge people who hold this position to ask themselves what the purpose of the Zesta Internacional was.

They are not Liberal reformists, they have explained countless times that they are against Capitalism, and support workers control of the means of productions.

They are not Maoists, they support first world revolution as well, and have referred to the American working class as allies. Furthermore they have a tense relationship with the actual Maoist army in Mexico, The EPR (which is actually bigger than the EZLN) and have had debates over the role of the state. Though it is true that Marcos was a Maoist in the 80s.

[Patchd]

They are not Maoists, they support first world revolution as well, and have referred to the American working class as allies. Furthermore they have a tense relationship with the actual Maoist army in Mexico, The EPR (which is actually bigger than the EZLN) and have had debates over the role of the state. Though it is true that Marcos was a Maoist in the 80s.
Would you say that the EZLN are anti-statist then, or do they not hold a position on that? Is what Leo said true, when he stated, "they are (moderate) Chiapas ethnic nationalists, and also grand-Mexican nationalists. The autonomous territory they are after is well a part of the Mexican state, they are asking for having more autonomy within the existing nation-state. They do wave the national flag all around and sing the national anthem at every occasion."

[Leo]

I don't think anyone claimed that the Zapatistas are Maoists now, it is a fact that their leadership comes from the Maoist intelligentsia though.

Calling for international cooperation does not mean they aren't nationalists - there is not a single nationalist force that does not call for international cooperation, even fascists call for some sort of an international cooperation.

Waving the national flag, singing the national anthem, defending the national interests and so forth does. Claiming that Zapatistas aren't nationalist is absolutely ridiculous.

Saying that one is against capitalism does not make one against capitalism. Lots of bourgeois statesmen, including Stalinists, Maoists and social democrats have claimed to be against capitalism - they weren't against it. The EZLN is not only a nationalist organization but a supporter of other nationalist-bourgeois organizations (such as the Palestinian nationalist organizations) and an ardent supporter of the capitalist Mexican state. They are as far as one could be from actually being revolutionary, from calling for the destruction of capitalism and for the destruction of all existing states. They are trying to carve themselves an "autonomous" space within the system.

These are all facts. The charming flowery language you are referring to does not leave space for such confusions but conceals them on the minds of white "zapatists" who want to support a different movement that what there is.

Here's an article by communist militants in Mexico further expanding the analysis: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2005_ezln.html

[Forward Union]

Would you say that the EZLN are anti-statist then, or do they not hold a position on that? Is what Leo said true, when he stated,

They have defined themselves as being opposed to state power yes, I dont have time to dig up references to back all this up at the moment but it's easy enough to find on google.


"they are (moderate) Chiapas ethnic nationalists, and also grand-Mexican nationalists. The autonomous territory they are after is well a part of the Mexican state, they are asking for having more autonomy within the existing nation-state. They do wave the national flag all around and sing the national anthem at every occasion."


No this is not true at all. Firstly, they are not after an autonomous territory. Their first declaration stated that they wanted to overthrow the Mexican army and government entirely. The autonomous territory they received was a concession made during the san andras peace accords which was reunubtably better than the shit they had before. They are not ethnic nationalists but they do demand equality with the Mestizo (white/latino) population of Mexico. A pretty reasonable demand to me. They also support the struggles of other opressed groups, including Homosexuals, Transgender and Women. it's also important to remember that the Zapatistas are made up of about 6 different ethnic groups, Tzotsils, Tseltals, Choles etc.

They do not ask for more autonomy within the existing nation state, rather they have defended the right to self-organise given the dire poverty they live in. But this is a biproduct of their main campaign called "la otra" which hopes to unite the base of all the trade unions, anarchist federations, socialist parties and community campaigns into a united confederation which can challenge state power in the coming decade.

As for the national flag, yes it is true. But there are two things to remember here, the Mexican national flag and anthem must been seen in the context of promises of land reforms made in the 1910 revolution. That flag and Anthem were revolutionary in the 1900s, and the promises never fulfilled.

But most importantly, in 1994, the government did everything it could to portray them as outsiders. First calling them Guatemalan insurgents who had crossed the border (really!), then as being stupid and gullible chiapans being lead by Guatemalans, then they said they were sepratists who wanted to annex Chiapas back to Guatemala (!!!). it was integral for them to be visibly Mexican in order to maintain a positive image with the Mexican people, and to distance themselves from the 'separatist' claims. A very clever move but not one that is indicative of the content of their politics.

[Forward Union]

I don't think anyone claimed that the Zapatistas are Maoists now, it is a fact that their leadership comes from the Maoist intelligentsia though.

Their commanders are Tatcho, David, Moises and formerly Ramona though she died of cancer.

Which one of them was from the Maoist intelligencia? or did you once again assume that Subcomandante Marcos, the spokesperson of the EZLN, was the commander. Of course we can debate whether he oversteps his mandate. But their leadership now is certainly not maoist.

Especially considering that Marcos has now stepped down. And essentially given in to defeat.


Waving the national flag, singing the national anthem, defending the national interests and so forth does. Claiming that Zapatistas aren't nationalist is absolutely ridiculous. I've explained this point. The flags are pragmatic, not nationalist. So really you need to provide some proof of their political nationalism.


The EZLN is not only a nationalist organization but a supporter of other nationalist-bourgeois organizations (such as the Palestinian nationalist organizations) and an ardent supporter of the capitalist Mexican state.
[Citation Needed]

on the other hand;

First: Advance to the capital of the country, overcoming the Mexican federal army and political police, protecting in our advance the civilian population and permitting the people in the liberated area the right to freely and democratically form their own authorities.
-EZLN first declaration (of war)


They are as far as one could be from actually being revolutionary, from calling for the destruction of capitalism and for the destruction of all existing states. They are trying to carve themselves an "autonomous" space within the system. Sigh. No they are not.

[Leo]

Their commanders are Tatcho, David, Moises and formerly Ramona though she died of cancer.

Which one of them was from the Maoist intelligencia? or did you once again assume that Subcomandante Marcos, the spokesperson of the EZLN, was the commander. Of course we can debate whether he oversteps his mandate. But their leadership now is certainly not maoist.

Especially considering that Marcos has now stepped down. And essentially given in to defeat.

Obviously because of the anonymity of their specific figures, it is not possible to say anything about their political backgrounds but the EZLN itself has it's roots in a split from the Maoist FLN, and a split among the same ideology. Marcos himself was, of course among those who split from the FLN, I would assume most of the other leaders also were.


They have defined themselves as being opposed to state power yesThey openly call for the defense of state capital in the Sixth Declaration: "...a full and coordinated defence of national sovereignty, through intransigent opposition to the privatisation of electrical energy, oil, water and natural resources."


No this is not true at all. Firstly, they are not after an autonomous territory. Their first declaration stated that they wanted to overthrow the Mexican army and government entirely. The autonomous territory they received was a concession made during the san andras peace accords which was reunubtably better than the shit they had before.“Now the possibility of a peaceful transition to democracy and freedom can be put to the test: the electoral process of August 1994. The CND (Convention Nacional Democratica) must demand the carrying out of free and democratic elections...” - Second Communique

Only shows their true colors - and the misleading pseudo-radical rhetoric of the first declaration only showed not a proletarian but an ethnic nationalist and Maoist influence.


I've explained this point. The flags are pragmatic, not nationalist. So really you need to provide some proof of their political nationalism.

If the above wasn't enough, here's their adherence to the constitution of the Mexican state: “We have already seen the changes of the law that remove Article 27 from the Constitution and mean that the common land and communal land can be sold... And they also say they are going to privatise, or rather sell to foreigners, the businesses that the State once used to help the people's welfare. Not because they are not working properly... Instead of the social rights that were conquered by the 1910 revolution being improved, they are being shamefully abandoned...”


They are not ethnic nationalists but they do demand equality with the Mestizo (white/latino) population of Mexico. What this translates as is that they are mild ethnic nationalists calling for the resolving of the problems of the indigenous population within the boundaries of grand Mexican nationalism and by the democratic institutions of the Mexican state.


But this is a biproduct of their main campaign called "la otra" which hopes to unite the base of all the trade unions, anarchist federations, socialist parties and community campaigns into a united confederation which can challenge state power in the coming decade.All this talk about the "other campaign" is but an effort to make themselves seem more distanced from the PRD, which they have declared also to be a party "of the left". One has to wonder why they are now trying to distance themselves from the PRD, but not wonder for too long.


As for the national flag, yes it is true. But there are two things to remember here, the Mexican national flag and anthem must been seen in the context of promises of land reforms made in the 1910 revolution. That flag and Anthem were revolutionary in the 1900s, and the promises never fulfilled.

But most importantly, in 1994, the government did everything it could to portray them as outsiders. First calling them Guatemalan insurgents who had crossed the border (really!), then as being stupid and gullible chiapans being lead by Guatemalans, then they said they were sepratists who wanted to annex Chiapas back to Guatemala (!!!). it was integral for them to be visibly Mexican in order to maintain a positive image with the Mexican people, and to distance themselves from the 'separatist' claims. A very clever move but not one that is indicative of the content of their politics.Not just the promises of land reforms regarding the 1910 events, but in general the 1910 events also, a bourgeois revolution. The same thing can be said the national flag and anthem of the American or French national flags and anthems, as well as that of many many other countries.

The second justification is even more absurd. From the beginning, even when the leaders of the Zapatistas were not Zapatistas but Maoist intellectuals, they were nationalists, Mexican patriots - as is customary with Maoists of course. After briefly trying a more radical form of ethnic nationalism, with the jargon of destroying the Mexican state and all, they quickly remoderated their rhetoric at the prospect of getting something out started defending the free democratic institutions and elections of the state. This did not begin their nationalism in 1994. Had they done it though, had they had an actual opposition to nationalism before 1994 - which they did not - it would not have favored your arguement also: only a completely despicable, spineless political movement would abandon what it presents as a principle like that.

On the other hand you have successfully moved from denying their nationalism to justifying it.

[kharacter]

But just because many people have a reformist mindset doesn't mean that we should. As revolutionaries, surely we should ignore reformist politics? After all, what major reform have we had which we haven't seen an attempt by the bourgeoisie to wither it away? There are probably some, but as we can already see, in Britain, the bourgeoisie have made and continued attacks on, public education, the National Health Service, the state pension, the benefit system, nationalised transport and so forth.

I'm glad I have the NHS, it means that if I get hit by a car I don't have to pay before getting treatment, or getting treatment and ending up in a hell of a lot of debt. It's a brilliant reform, despite it's flaws, but as reforms go, they can only extend to the limits of the socio-economic system they are made in, and whenever their job is done (whether that's to bring a certain industry back into operation, or whether it's to subdue the working class with immediate promises) they are usually eroded away again. So what are you fighting for? A little bit of tension release from Capitalism through reforms, or for your emancipation?
I fight for both. with emphasis on emancipation.


Assumption again that 'liberating' oppressed 'nations' will save lives. I bring up the examples of Rwanda, Uganda, Laos, Burma, Cambodia, the India and Pakistan divide, Angola, and the Dem. Republic of Congo. The 'liberation' of those nations didn't save lives, nor did it destroy lives, it was the continued existence of a bourgeois state, no matter what colour, or what ethnicity the bourgeoisie were, that led to the deaths of so many people in the post-colonial period.I didn't say they necessarily will save lives, but you are saying you wouldn't support them even if they did.



Support is different to advocation. I still support, and have been involved in the Palestine issue, recently especially with the university occupations, but that's because I oppose Capitalism and the deaths and ongoing oppression of millions, not because I wanted to create a Palestinian state. In fact, I remember in one of the mass meetings we had in the occupation, I put forward the position of a no-state solution, unfortunately being the only one to vocally do so, despite many other Anarchists being in the room.
I'm debating for support in particular, not advocating, so why are you fighting with me? It says 'support' in the title of thread.

[Patchd]

I didn't say they necessarily will save lives, but you are saying you wouldn't support them even if they did.
If they did, perhaps I would be more inclined to give them support, but history has shown that the saving of lives is not guaranteed by national 'liberation', and sometimes it has resulted in the opposite happening.


I'm debating for support in particular, not advocating, so why are you fighting with me? It says 'support' in the title of thread.
Sorry, please don't take this personally, I see debate as being beneficial to both sides, for the bettering of my understanding of issues and subjects as well as yours. Sometimes I can come out with personal attacks, and if I do just slap me on the wrist and tell me to shut up :)

[kharacter]

If they did, perhaps I would be more inclined to give them support, but history has shown that the saving of lives is not guaranteed by national 'liberation', and sometimes it has resulted in the opposite happening.
I agree that history has shown that, but you say that even under the circumstance that they did save lives, you would not support them. History has shown us that no tendency is absolute.



Sorry, please don't take this personally, I see debate as being beneficial to both sides, for the bettering of my understanding of issues and subjects as well as yours. Sometimes I can come out with personal attacks, and if I do just slap me on the wrist and tell me to shut up :)
Thanks, same the other way around if I sound offensive.

[kharacter]

While not being an anarchist, I would like to say that I think any anarchist with a spine would never support national liberation and the formation of new bourgeois-states.

What kind of arrogance is necessary to say that all anarchists that disagree with you on a single issue have no spine?
Is this the way to reach unity? By harshly condemning those so near to your beliefs?
I can't even begin to describe how sectarian this is.
Mabve arrogance was too strong of a word. I mean no offense to you admin, but this bothers me so.

[Patchd]

I agree that history has shown that, but you say that even under the circumstance that they did save lives, you would not support them. History has shown us that no tendency is absolute.
Apart from an internationalist no-state tendency, as that has not been tried to the fullest extent ever, except for in isolated bubbles here and there.

[Leo]

What kind of arrogance is necessary to say that all anarchists that disagree with you on a single issue have no spine?
Is this the way to reach unity? I have no interest in any unity or even joint political work with supporters of nationalism, and anti-working class and bourgeois movements.


Mabve arrogance was too strong of a word. I mean no offense to you admin, but this bothers me so.

As long as you don't flame or troll, you can and are encouraged to make whatever criticism you want to make to anyone, admin or not.

[Jazzratt]

What kind of arrogance is necessary to say that all anarchists that disagree with you on a single issue have no spine?

It's not arrogant at all. It's not the quantity of issues on which someone disagrees, but the importance of them. Capitulating to and cheering on factions of the bourgeoisie is an issue which is difficult to ignore and certainly betrays a certain spinelessness, a willingness to sell out the working class.


I can't even begin to describe how sectarian this is.

It isn't, though. It's not placing the interests of the sect above those of our class. "Sectarianism" isn't a magic word you can use to deflect any and all criticisms of your anti-worker ideology.


Mabve arrogance was too strong of a word. I mean no offense to you admin, but this bothers me so.

:lol: Leo has been called worse things than "arrogant" I am sure.

[Plagueround]

I often wonder what the comments would have been like had this forum existed during the Wounded Knee massacre. That's about as much as you'll get out of me on the subject.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Depends, I would support a Palestinian state, if it prevented the murder (and everything else) of Palestinians. Thats it.
Lebanon has a state. That doesn't seem to have done much to prevent Israel murdering Lebanese people.

And why is it that most people of color throughout the world have historically opted, when they embraced a socialist ideology, for more statist (Leninist, Maoist, etc) programs and politics?
This is a really disingenuous question. I believe that most white people throughout the world have also historically opted, when they embraced a socialist ideology, for more statist (Leninist, Maoist, etc) programs and politics, for largely the same reasons: Stalinist and Maoist movements were able to attract support and patronage from the Russian and Chinese bureaucracies, and they involved much less of a radical break with the "common sense" of class society. No surprise there.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I often wonder what the comments would have been like had this forum existed during the Wounded Knee massacre. That's about as much as you'll get out of me on the subject.

They would not have been saved if they had their own state.

[ls]

I was talking about your rhetoric, not the FSLN anyway.

You're joking aren't you?

My word. One could find language like that in an ICC pamphlet with so much ease it's just ridiculous, that is the poorest reply I've ever seen you make.


Do you think people don't get shot in every bourgeois struggle for state independence? Why on earth do you think we are making such an issue about workers' being cannon fodder for the interests of the ruling class do you think?

Where did I say people didn't get shot in bourgeois struggles I wonder?

It may not be unique to this struggle, but denying that the brutal repression by the Somoza line of leaders is noteworthy is just silly.


Eh, I said you sounded like one, not that you were one.

Only as baseless as saying my rhetoric sounds maoist. Honestly what planet were you on?


Well, the Zapatistas are more moderate with their nationalism - and more moderate in general as well. They are bourgeois nationalists also but, due to times changing they don't put it forward in a way that is as strong as the FSLN.

This is frustrating, I am not talking about the FSLN as they exist post-1979, you seem incapable of taking that onboard however.


The FSLN was a typical example of the left-nationalist Latin American movement supported by the Russian block. This of course also has got to with the FSLN being an actual, serious challenger for taking over the state, supported by the Eastern block, wheras the Zapatistas are a mostly irrelevant force in comparision.

What load of crap, you come out and say that militancy without theory means nothing, then you come out with this? It's wholly contradictory tosh.

The Zapatistas are not an irrelevant force, they are pretty different struggles and cannot be compared in any meaningful way, other than perhaps with the ICC's line that they are both bourgeois struggles (which I don't agree with).


Aside from that, there is also the support given to the FSLN by the intelligence agencies of the Eastern Block. It was from the beginning an organization which was a pawn of Russian imperialism, one if it's three founding members himself is said to be a KGB agent. It wasn't an "ideological mistake" accepting aid later, it was of course natural, and the FSLN had been "accepting aid" from the beginning altogether.

That was my point about the many flaws of the FSLN, that precise example to me does not point to ideological failure in the FSLN, it points to a strong NKVD and a weakened proletariat.


It shows the true colors of the FLSN which supposedly had anything that was even remotely "socialist".

So what are your basic, specific criticisms of it? That the original struggle was started wrongly by Sandinho and was bourgeois from the start? That the workers did not attempt to spread the struggle elsewhere? An ICC pamphlet would be cool.


Why do people in this thread assume that all anarchists support or sympathiose with the EZLN?

Because I've never met one that doesn't, irl or on here or elsewhere.


Also the poll is quite clearly not serving its purpose, if you wanted to gauge anarchists opinions only then perhaps the anarchist usergroup would have been better, no?

That's a fair point.

[Plagueround]

They would not have been saved if they had their own state.

I'm not sure what that means, other than it may be time to brush up on your history before commenting.

[Leo]

You're joking aren't you?

My word. One could find language like that in an ICC pamphlet with so much ease it's just ridiculous, that is the poorest reply I've ever seen you make.

Eh, saying something like this about the FSLN


Do you think all the people who were murdered by the national guard were nationalist?

Before they were in government, they were a mass movement of revolutionaries aligned to the revolutionary party.

Yeah... You can hear lots of Maoists say similar things about Nepal, India and so forth.

One would expect anarchists to know better. Most of them don't, unfortunately.


Where did I say people didn't get shot in bourgeois struggles I wonder?

You said that the point you made about people getting shot in Nicaragua is not a moral argument but "shows that it wasn't just a bourgeois struggle for state independence". I pointed out that in lots of bourgeois struggles people get shot, and they get shot en masse, and this was the case in Nicaragua also.


This is frustrating, I am not talking about the FSLN as they exist post-1979, you seem incapable of taking that onboard however.

The FSLN from it's very beginning was an organization supported by the states of the Eastern block. Nor did it magically change this character of its overnight in 1979, or in any period. You can't talk about the FSLN only with regards to before 1979. It was the same party, lead by the same person before 1979, it was the same party lead by the same person in and after 1979, it is the same party lead by the same person now.


The Zapatistas are not an irrelevant force, they are pretty different struggles and cannot be compared in any meaningful way

As bourgeois leftist organizations go, Zapatistas are a minor force only active in one area in Mexico, the Sandinistas were a major force that took state power in an entire country twice - once by a coup d'etat and once by elections. The actions of the FLSN had a significant effect on international politics, the international effect of the Zapatistas is limited to leftist subcultures. I would say that in comparission, the FLSN is the more significant of the two.


That was my point about the many flaws of the FSLN,

I see being a pawn of imperialism more than just a "flaw".


that precise example to me does not point to ideological failure in the FSLN

Do you think that an organization that from its beginning has been the pawn of an imperialist block is even capable of having an ideology based on the interests of the working class?


So what are your basic, specific criticisms of it? That the original struggle was started wrongly by Sandinho and was bourgeois from the start?

Of course the original struggle started by Sandino was bourgeois from the start. I think my basic critique is that the FSLN was a left-nationalist movement which was a pawn of imperialism. I think that is clear enough.

For a detailed analysis of the events, comrades who read Spanish can check out this article: http://es.internationalism.org/rm/2007/96_NIcaragua

[Enragé]

it's not that nations are progressive, it's that secession by a region from a larger region in some areas (such as occupied places, beleagerd, blockaded etc.) is under certain circumstances a pre-requisite for the development of class struggle. Class struggle is hard with the military on the streets, especially if its a foreign military because the home front often doesnt care (or at least doesnt see) if a demonstration is dispersed by shooting a few hundred - and how to organise protests, strikes, etc while you are being starved? Or bombarded from above?

To get people to question authority, how to do this when the one who has authority where you live is the only one between you and the agressor's war machine? And very simply, how is resisting that which threatens the lives of friends, family and class in any way reactionary or 'un-anarchist'? To divorce class struggle in a region abstractly from such things like the occupation of a that region, is to make that classic mistake often attributed to leninists - you speak of revolution without reference to everyday life.

[Forward Union]

Obviously because of the anonymity of their specific figures, it is not possible to say anything about their political backgrounds but the EZLN itself has it's roots in a split from the Maoist FLN, and a split among the same ideology. Marcos himself was, of course among those who split from the FLN, I would assume most of the other leaders also were..[QUOTE]

You would assume wrong. That group was not actually based in Chiapas but DF. When it dissolved marcos and (i thin two others, one was called Pablo) spent 10 years trying to form a new group around the FLNs principals but totally failed. So they reformed their political outlook to one which is now the EZLN current policies.

Marcos was the only original organiser to survive the uprising. The background of the other leaders is entirely rooted in the Chiapan highlands.

[QUOTE]"...a full and coordinated defence of national sovereignty, through intransigent opposition to the privatisation of electrical energy, oil, water and natural resources."

Yes, but the national soverignty they speak of is literally no different to the soveringty of workers councils you hope to see, which would be geographic I assume. You are getting tied up in confusing language they use. They support the abolition of borders and international class solidarity. That's all we need to worry about.


“Now the possibility of a peaceful transition to democracy and freedom can be put to the test: the electoral process of August 1994. The CND (Convention Nacional Democratica) must demand the carrying out of free and democratic elections...” - Second Communique

A concession made to the fact that the popular support they had hoped to achieve in the first weeks of fighting did not materialise. They gave into the democrtatic demands of the people. And it was done with a bitter taste in their mouths. Now that they have been proved right you'll be happy to know that they are currently prepairing for war again.


Only shows their true colors

´zzzzzzzzzzzz slective quoting.


If the above wasn't enough, here's their adherence to the constitution of the Mexican state:
cant reply to rest, will do later

[The Ungovernable Farce]

To get people to question authority, how to do this when the one who has authority where you live is the only one between you and the agressor's war machine?
I think the aggressor's war machine counts as a form of authority in itself.

And very simply, how is resisting that which threatens the lives of friends, family and class in any way reactionary or 'un-anarchist'?
It isn't. But resisting that force in order to place a local bourgeois faction in power is.

[RebelDog]

Every nation-state is imperialist by nature - Tom Wetzel:

http://libcom.org/library/every-nation-state-imperialist-nature-tom-wetzel

[Enragé]

I think the aggressor's war machine counts as a form of authority in itself.

The point being?


It isn't. But resisting that force in order to place a local bourgeois faction in power is.

I'm not saying we ourselves should be content with only driving out the occupiers, at every moment should we be trying to push this struggle further. However because we, on the streets, in real life first have to deal with the occupiers we'll deal with them first, and probably since most people right now aren't revolutionaries, we'll be in effect in alliance with the local bourgeois' forces.

Lastly, simply because you don't see many bourgeois fighting and dying (they have other people for that), what you'll be doing in the streets (fighting the occupier) will be done alongside other workers/peasants, thus enabling you to try and push the struggle further than merely replacing one boss with the other.

Or do you want to sit idly by while everybody is killed off by foreign bourgeois simply because you don't want to "support the local bourgeois"?

[Ovi]

So I should be sorry that the soviet union collapsed simply because many more states were created afterwards? Sorry, I can't.

[Devrim]

Lastly, simply because you don't see many bourgeois fighting and dying (they have other people for that), what you'll be doing in the streets (fighting the occupier) will be done alongside other workers/peasants, thus enabling you to try and push the struggle further than merely replacing one boss with the other.

No, what you will be doing is being the people fighting and dying in the streets on behalf of the bourgoise and even worse you will be giving their nationalist politics a left wing cover, which may result in other workers being dragged into offering up their lives for the nation.

Devrim

[Enragé]

are you stuck in 1917?!

Wars are not fought on far away frontiers, lobbing shells at one another from trenches and just sending wave after wave to die. The war is total nowadays, and has been so since the late 30's. There are tanks rolling down your street shooting everything on sight. And there are the bourgeois forces trying to stop it - and you're just gonna stand there? Your friends, family, dying simply because you don't want to 'support the local bourgeois'?

And I in no way advocate going into the bourgeois army, we should at any opportunity try to constitute our own armed force, have our own tactics, distribute our critique. And if we draw in more workers, and/or other workers do the same, there we have our armed workers, your dictatorship of the proletariat!

So why oppose it?

[Leo]

You would assume wrong. That group was not actually based in Chiapas but DF.

The FLN? Probably yeah.


When it dissolved marcos and (i thin two others, one was called Pablo) spent 10 years trying to form a new group around the FLNs principals but totally failed. So they reformed their political outlook to one which is now the EZLN current policies.

According to what I've heard, they had well over fifteen, which is a start in such things.

Oh, and yeah, they have "seen the reality of the people" haven't they? They aren't the only group claiming that either.


Yes, but the national soverignty they speak of is literally no different to the soveringty of workers councils you hope to see

Step by step, this is going to the identification of the nation with the proletariat.

We've all seen where that leads to.


which would be geographic I assume.

I am for centralization anyway. And in any case it would be based in central cities, not the countryside.


You are getting tied up in confusing language they use.

I am not confusing their language - it is openly nationalist, pure and simple. You are trying to portray it as something else, "paint it red" as they used to say, or in this case "paint it black".

I'm sorry, you just can't make people replace the word nation or national with workers and proletarian if what it's talking about is nations and national things.


They support the abolition of borders and international class solidarity. That's all we need to worry about.

Yeah just like the Stalinists who claimed that they can also be internationalists when they are patriots, the Zapatistas are claiming they can support the abolition of borders when they are for national independence of Mexico and national sovereignty of Chiapas. Makes no more sense than it used to.

And Zapatistas are not for class solidarity of any kind. They weren't when they were Maoists, they aren't when they are libertarian-nationalists. They might be for solidarity among what they see as oppressed peoples and subgroups, but that does not have anything to do with working class solidarity.


A concession made to the fact that the popular support they had hoped to achieve in the first weeks of fighting did not materialise. They gave into the democrtatic demands of the people. And it was done with a bitter taste in their mouths. Now that they have been proved right you'll be happy to know that they are currently prepairing for war again.

If you are talking about the Other Campaign thing, it looks more like a preparation of a new electoral / NGO front than war preparation.

[Leo]

Wars are not fought on far away frontiers, lobbing shells at one another from trenches and just sending wave after wave to die. The war is total nowadays, and has been so since the late 30's. There are tanks rolling down your street shooting everything on sight. And there are the bourgeois forces trying to stop it - and you're just gonna stand there? Your friends, family, dying simply because you don't want to 'support the local bourgeois'?There has not been a single bourgeois force in the last century which tried to stop a total war, or which cared enough to save any lives in any wars.

And maybe the people you are talking to might have experienced a bit more about things like this than you did or are at least closer to and more acquainted with them than are in your life. Maybe this is something to consider before lecturing people about what to do in case of an invasion.

And you don't know your history either:


are you stuck in 1917?!Wars were total wars in 1917, it wasn't just trenches. This was why it was such a big deal compared to almost all wars of the 19th century.

[Enragé]

Wars were total wars in 1917, it wasn't just trenches. This was why it was such a big deal compared to almost all wars of the 19th century.

the point is in the case we are talking about, i.e a territory occupied, the enemy military either is everywhere or can be everywhere at any time.

And im also more talking about bombing the shit out of civilians, you didnt have that in 1917. That people are hurt anyway, regardless if they are on the "frontlines" or not (i.e the frontline is everywhere), makes a big fucking difference.
And I don't advocate running blindly to the front, seek to arm yourself, emphasize the defense of your direct surroundings, people you know, form militia's. We have our organisations do we not?

[Leo]

the point is in the case we are talking about, i.e a territory occupied, the enemy military either is everywhere or can be everywhere at any time.

Yeah, happened in WW1.


And im also more talking about bombing the shit out of civilians, you didnt have that in 1917.

That's when that one begun also.


And I don't advocate running blindly to the front, seek to arm yourself, emphasize the defense of your direct surroundings, people you know, form militia's. We have our organisations do we not?

An organization is our organization only if it is not one supporting our enemy, the ruling class.

[Mälli]

Yes I would, because i am totally for everything humanitarian and socialist.

[Jazzratt]

Yes I would, because i am totally for everything humanitarian and socialist.

Oh come on. You're begging the question, you've supplied absolutely no evidence that support for bourgeois factions is remotely socialist and certainly haven't provided anyone with a reason to assume armed 'sturggle' on the part of said factions is at all humanitarian. These claims are both subject to serious questioning (see this entire thread for reference).

[The Ungovernable Farce]

So I should be sorry that the soviet union collapsed simply because many more states were created afterwards? Sorry, I can't.
No, you shouldn't be, and none of the anarchists on this thread would say otherwise (I doubt any of the left-communists would either). We just don't think you should celebrate the setting up of new states (most of them highly authoritarian and undemocratic) either. To give a comparison: we don't support the Labour or Democratic parties, and I take it you don't either. But when the Conservatives or Republicans lose, that doesn't mean you should be sorry they lost, even though Labour or the Democrats gain power as a result. Do you see what I'm saying here?

[Enragé]

Yeah, happened in WW1.

Err yes, so? We should refrain in attacking the state in occupied territories because the state present there is the one of the foreign bourgeoisie not the local one? Makes no sense.


That's when that one begun also.


Not comparable to attacks on civilian targets starting in the spanish civil war (by the nazis, on guernica), simply because of available technology for aircraft and the 'delivery' of bombs. Im not saying the idea didnt start then, im saying actual large scale effects on civilian populations were minute, because airplanes couldnt fly that far and only drop a handful of bombs manually. Zeppelins were tried once or twice i believe, with greater effect, but the scale is incomparable to that of WW2 and thereafter.


An organization is our organization only if it is not one supporting our enemy, the ruling class.

Yes, and that's regardless of whether its foreign or local right? So why refrain in attacking the foreign one because of fear you might end up supporting the local one? Especially since, as one of my earlier posts argue, we can pose the greatest threat to the local bourgeoisie only by joining in the fight. I just propose we do this independently, without liquidating into the bourgeois army, thus constituting our own self-acting armed organisation.
Then, when we've driven out the occupiers, there might be chances for driving out our own rulers as well.

[Leo]

Err yes, so?

So there were total wars in the WW1 period just as there was afterwards.


Not comparable to attacks on civilian targets starting in the spanish civil war (by the nazis, on guernica), simply because of available technology for aircraft and the 'delivery' of bombs. Im not saying the idea didnt start then, im saying actual large scale effects on civilian populations were minute, because airplanes couldnt fly that far and only drop a handful of bombs manually. Zeppelins were tried once or twice i believe, with greater effect, but the scale is incomparable to that of WW2 and thereafter.

While the scale was of course not near what it was at the WW2 (and there has been no such war ever since - not before and not after), the bombings of the second half of the 1910s were not negligible: thousands died. One particularly brutal example was the air bombing of the working class neighborhoods in Germany, done by the social-democratic counter-revolution against the German revolution, which claimed thousands of lives.


Yes, and that's regardless of whether its foreign or local right? So why refrain in attacking the foreign one because of fear you might end up supporting the local one?

Oh sure, attack the foreign boss but don't attack the foreign boss with the local boss, in the way the local boss wants you to.

The way to fight the foreign boss is not to kill the children of workers sent to occupy - such would at best be a desperate measure of individual survival which offers no political alternative at all and at worst workers marching to murder other workers for the interest of the local bosses.

There is a different way to struggle - a struggle of workers' of all belligerent countries as well as those of neutral countries: turning the imperialist war into revolutionary civil war.

This is the only real condemnation of imperialism.


Especially since, as one of my earlier posts argue, we can pose the greatest threat to the local bourgeoisie only by joining in the fight.

You can't pose any threat to the local bourgeoisie by joining it's fight - you only strengthen it, become it's manpower, it's cannon fodder, and reduce yourself to becoming that also.

[Enragé]

Oh sure, attack the foreign boss but don't attack the foreign boss with the local boss, in the way the local boss wants you to.

again, im not saying liquidate yourself into the local bourgeois army, but we must take steps to defend ourselves from the foreign bourgeois. That's all im saying. And in practice this most likely means that we'll get into clashes with the foreign bourgeois military, sometimes alongside the local bourgeois army.


There is a different way to struggle - a struggle of workers' of all belligerent countries as well as those of neutral countries: turning the imperialist war into revolutionary civil war.

Ofcourse. This however presupposes an active commitment on the part of a revolutionary organisation to defend civilians in your locality, with force if need be.


You can't pose any threat to the local bourgeoisie by joining it's fight - you only strengthen it, become it's manpower, it's cannon fodder, and reduce yourself to becoming that also.

For the last time, i do not advocate joining the local bourgeoisie's army.

[Devrim]

are you stuck in 1917?!

Wars are not fought on far away frontiers, lobbing shells at one another from trenches and just sending wave after wave to die. The war is total nowadays, and has been so since the late 30's. There are tanks rolling down your street shooting everything on sight. And there are the bourgeois forces trying to stop it - and you're just gonna stand there? Your friends, family, dying simply because you don't want to 'support the local bourgeois'?

Personally I would try to flee with my friends and family as hundreds of thousands did in the last Isreali invasion of Lebanon. To me it seems a much better option than dying for the Lebanese state.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

According to what I've heard, they had well over fifteen, which is a start in such things.

Something like that but I couldnt say how many were maoists and don't particularly care. During the political shift away from Maoism they adopted a lot of very different politics and it's fair to say that the EZLN now has very little to do with the Maoist group it came from. As I have said, their relationship with actual maoist, nationalist and stalinist groups like the EPR is very bad. But they have a vested interest in building link between the bases of these groups and thus use some very diplomatic language.

Of course, left communists prefer to hold all of reality ransom to their rediculous pseudo-religious standards. Anything that actually engages with reality becomes tainted and cannot be supported of course :rolleyes:


Step by step, this is going to the identification of the nation with the proletariat.

We've all seen where that leads to.Yes the EZLN are fascists.


I am for centralization anyway. And in any case it would be based in central cities, not the countryside.And they EZLN oppose centralisation, but have no particular ideological bias toward 'the countryside'. They have done a good job of recognizing these shotcomings and have done what they can to build links with the urban workers.


I am not confusing their language - it is openly nationalist, pure and simple. You are trying to portray it as something else, "paint it red" as they used to say, or in this case "paint it black".All you have done is present some silly quotations about supporting the revolutionary demands of 1910 which are in the constitution. It's like me saying I think we should defend the 8 hour working day, and thus an aspect of British law... The actual physical content of the EZLNs demands are no different from anything we would propose.


Yeah just like the Stalinists who claimed that they can also be internationalists when they are patriots, the Zapatistas are claiming they can support the abolition of borders when they are for national independence of Mexico and national sovereignty of Chiapas. Makes no more sense than it used to.Do you think the region of "Mexico" should be governed by the people living there or by people living in America? (rhetorical question)


And Zapatistas are not for class solidarity of any kind.
Except they are.


They weren't when they were Maoists, they aren't when they are libertarian-nationalists. They might be for solidarity among what they see as oppressed peoples and subgroups, but that does not have anything to do with working class solidarity.They support workers control of the means of production in their own words. They physically supported various strikes, including disputes at a coca cola factory in Chiapas. etc. These slanderous accusations are simpy wrong, a hyperbolic over exageration of you own fantastic conclusions.


If you are talking about the Other Campaign thing, it looks more like a preparation of a new electoral / NGO front than war preparation.With your finger so firmly on the pluse you must be aware that the Zapatistas have pulled out of la otra to prepair a military campaign. They have been supposedly smuggling arms into Oaxaca (breakingtheir ceasfire) and Marcos has basically said his goodbyes. They will probably be erradicated in the next 5 years.

[Comrade Kaile]

ive stated never on assumption of either a leadership that is headed by an organisation unfriendly to the proletarian, or the influence, direct or indirect, of an international power, which would eventually cause the old system to be re-instated

[Ovi]

No, you shouldn't be, and none of the anarchists on this thread would say otherwise (I doubt any of the left-communists would either). We just don't think you should celebrate the setting up of new states (most of them highly authoritarian and undemocratic) either. To give a comparison: we don't support the Labour or Democratic parties, and I take it you don't either. But when the Conservatives or Republicans lose, that doesn't mean you should be sorry they lost, even though Labour or the Democrats gain power as a result. Do you see what I'm saying here?
Indeed, I have a similar oppinion. But since there will be no revolution tomorrow and probably not next year, I don't have anything against measures that generally improve something; reforms suck but I'll support the abolition of slavery at any time, even if that means wage slavery increased. The fact that many more states were created after the collapse of the USSR sucks, but is any of them more authoritarian?

[Leo]

Something like that but I couldnt say how many were maoists

Well all those fellas had split from the FLN, so...


As I have said, their relationship with actual maoist, nationalist and stalinist groups like the EPR is very bad.

Oh the EZLN is as nationalist as the ERP.


Of course, left communists prefer to hold all of reality ransom to their rediculous pseudo-religious standards. Anything that actually engages with reality becomes tainted and cannot be supported of course http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

When we look at reality, we see actual class struggle, and this is what we support. Obviously you don't even care enough about it to consider it a part of reality - there seems to be only room for romantic nationalists in your reality.


Yes the EZLN are fascists.

Well, I don't think the EZLN is claiming anything that has anything to do with the proletariat. They are concerned with the nation, not the working class, and they openly say so.

What I was criticizing was you painting them red, and black. You shifting further and further right is something I have been sort of watching with moderate interest - I wonder when you'll end up in the Labour Party.


And they EZLN oppose centralisation

This doesn't really mean anything to me at all. The PKK says they oppose centralization.


All you have done is present some silly quotations about supporting the revolutionary demands of 1910 which are in the constitution.

Of course, whatever you don't want to see becomes silly and insignificant.


It's like me saying I think we should defend the 8 hour working day, and thus an aspect of British law...

Yeah, it is.


The actual physical content of the EZLNs demands are no different from anything we would propose.

Anything you would propose perhaps, there is no inclusive we here. Revolutionaries propose the abolition of capitalism, of all states, of all constitutions, of all nations and of all nationalisms - pure and simple. And the demands of working class struggles are determined by the specific conditions the workers are living in, not the British constitution.


Do you think the region of "Mexico" should be governed by the people living there or by people living in America? (rhetorical question)

I don't really care as long as it is governed by the ruling class.

The entire world should governed by the unified working class.


They support workers control of the means of production in their own words. They physically supported various strikes, including disputes at a coca cola factory in Chiapas. etc.

There is a little difference between visiting a strike and being for actual workers' solidarity. Much more significant bourgeois politicians than them have visited strikes, offered support and "solidarity" even, and have talked about workers' control of the means of production. It is the general ideological perspective and the deeds that determine that matter though.

[Devrim]

One of the things that hasn't come up at all in this is that the EZLN is not a working class movement, but a peasant movement.

Do their anarchist supporters think that the peasantry is a revolutionary class?

Devrim

[bricolage]

Do their anarchist supporters think that the peasantry is a revolutionary class?

I don't know if you can really talk about the peasantry as revolutionary or non-revolutionary as in global terms they are nowhere near homogenous and their material conditions and social relationships to other classes vary dramatically in different countries and geographic areas. I don't know I'm sure I'll gt shouted down here but I can't see why we wouldn't see those such as the Mexican peasantry as revolutionary.

[Bright Banana Beard]

On the topic, they did support national liberation. One example is Anarchist Catalonia, another is Anarchist Korea, and thirdly, Anarchist Ukraine.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

On the topic, they did support national liberation. One example is Anarchist Catalonia, another is Anarchist Korea, and thirdly, Anarchist Ukraine.

Yes but our qualm is not with national liberation struggles rooted in working class freedom. Our qualm is with bourgeois national 'liberation'.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Yes but our qualm is not with national liberation struggles rooted in working class freedom. Our qualm is with bourgeois national 'liberation'.

So can I assume you're talking about such "grass-roots movements" as the radical right secessionist movement in Texas and Alaska?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

So can I assume you're talking about such "grass-roots movements" as the radical right secessionist movement in Texas and Alaska?

Why would you assume that? What has a reactionary movement got to do with working class freedom?

[PRC-UTE]

Yes but our qualm is not with national liberation struggles rooted in working class freedom. Our qualm is with bourgeois national 'liberation'.

So you woudl support Irish Republican Socialists?

[Jazzratt]

So you woudl support Irish Republican Socialists?

No, of course not. This is part of the whole point we've been trying to make. An irish republic is just going to be another bourgeois state, no matter whether or not you tack "socialist" to the name. Independence for bourgeois states against bourgeoius statse is, to put it simply, not our fight.

[Forward Union]

One of the things that hasn't come up at all in this is that the EZLN is not a working class movement, but a peasant movement.

Do their anarchist supporters think that the peasantry is a revolutionary class?

Devrim

I think that's an archaic question, and also incorrect. The EZLN are not peasants because you described peasants in an earlier discussion we had as being (small scale) land owners. They were not land owners, they were slaves of land owners. I think you refered to this section of society as "agricultural workers". So I absolutely do not think that Peasants are revolutionary.

I do not believe they have sufficient capacity to overthrow capitalism no, but they can of course take over the means of production (in this case, fields) and run it collectively and democratically. If that's not a revolution I don't know what is. The problem is the cultural gap between the agricultural and urban workers. A revolution cannot be won in the countryside. We need industry, and an agricultural revolution is unlikely to get anywhere, which is one of the major problems I see with the Zapatista movement.

The situation in Oaxaca, D.F and to a lesser extent; atenco, is of far more interest to me.

[Forward Union]

Well, I don't think the EZLN is claiming anything that has anything to do with the proletariat. They are concerned with the nation, not the working class, and they openly say so..

Well to put it simply, you are wrong. They defend aspects of the Mexican constitution whereby it overlaps with defending the interests of workers. This is the problem with left communists their over simplistic world view is based on rigid marxist-moralism which fails to recognise the complexities of politics. It is not always black and white, or should I say, red and blue. When the Anarcho Syndicalists, Communists and Zapatistas wrote the land reform articles, it was a step forward, not a step sideways.

The fact that you even consider defending teh 8 hour working day to be nationalist shows how bankrupt your politics are.


Anything you would propose perhaps, there is no inclusive we here. Revolutionaries propose the abolition of capitalism, of all states, of all constitutions, of all nations and of all nationalisms - pure and simple.

Which the zapatistas do also. With the exception of the abolition of constitutions which is the most rediculopus political statement I have heard in a long time. We would of course form a revolutionary constitution which would map out the mechanics of workers democracy along with the rights of minorities etc.



The entire world should governed by the unified working class.

yea wow that's great. How we gonna do it.


There is a little difference between visiting a strike and being for actual workers' solidarity.

If it barks like a dog...

[Forward Union]

bump

[PRC-UTE]

No, of course not. This is part of the whole point we've been trying to make. An irish republic is just going to be another bourgeois state, no matter whether or not you tack "socialist" to the name. Independence for bourgeois states against bourgeoius statse is, to put it simply, not our fight.

I was asking Stranger than Paradise, who said: 'Yes but our qualm is not with national liberation struggles rooted in working class freedom. Our qualm is with bourgeois national 'liberation'.' It's not a strange question to ask; other anarchists and communists have supported us, going back to Marx.

And you're either misinformed or trolling, republican socialists don't support putting establishing a bourgeois state in Ireland. We have always stood by Connolly's words taht without working class freedom, national freedom is merely changing the colour of the flag. Or as we often say, Ni saoirse go saoirse lucht oibre.

Anyway, if we do support a bourgeois republic, you should easily be able to point to a section of the bourgeoisie supporting republican socialism.

[ls]

Eh, saying something like this about the FSLN

Yeah... You can hear lots of Maoists say similar things about Nepal, India and so forth.

Of course, but you hear a lot of people saying that about every movement. It doesn't make me any more Maoist than you to say that about a movement.


One would expect anarchists to know better. Most of them don't, unfortunately.

Most anarchists I know, to be honest, probably do not support many widely accepted 'national liberation' struggles other than the Zapatistas, so I think you're completely incorrect in that regard.


You said that the point you made about people getting shot in Nicaragua is not a moral argument but "shows that it wasn't just a bourgeois struggle for state independence". I pointed out that in lots of bourgeois struggles people get shot, and they get shot en masse, and this was the case in Nicaragua also.

But the struggle was not against striking workers or anything like that, it was specifically against pro-government military designated to destroy any opposition.

I'm not saying that they were a perfect revolutionary force; just that the grassroots groups that formed under the banner of the FSLN, of which there were so many attempted an ideologically justified fightback in that ideologically, they were a lot better than just any bourgeois force.


The FSLN from it's very beginning was an organization supported by the states of the Eastern block.

The founders of it wanted funding from the Eastern bloc, but that doesn't negate the hard work done by the working-class, nor does it automatically make the FSLN a complete 'pawn of imperialism'. Perhaps the working-class wrongly were united under their banner, but you can't magically negate the work of the revolutionary working-class within the FSLN by saying that it was all orchestrated from the start (which is essentially what you're saying, a simple orchestrated bourgeois revolution).


Nor did it magically change this character of its overnight in 1979, or in any period.

No, it was always flawed in some respects and I'm not denying that, the Proletarios faction which emerged was resolutely Marixst in an undeniable sense though.


You can't talk about the FSLN only with regards to before 1979. It was the same party, lead by the same person before 1979, it was the same party lead by the same person in and after 1979, it is the same party lead by the same person now.

That's simply not true at all, Ortega did not "found" the FSLN, in fact he was one of 13 people released during a deal, he wasn't the leader for that much of their time.


As bourgeois leftist organizations go, Zapatistas are a minor force only active in one area in Mexico, the Sandinistas were a major force that took state power in an entire country twice - once by a coup d'etat and once by elections. The actions of the FLSN had a significant effect on international politics, the international effect of the Zapatistas is limited to leftist subcultures. I would say that in comparission, the FLSN is the more significant of the two.

It just seems like you disregard the good work done by the Nicaraguan proletariat done in their own interest. Those who started the FSLN did want foreign aid yes, but that alone does not immediately make the FSLN a pawn. Many good revolutionaries (that you do not consider bourgeois) have tried to do similar things.

Attempting to overthrow the government in the wake of a disaster such as that which happened in Nicaragua - alone, was done purely by the Nicaraguan proletariat, the fact that the people were strongly destabilised by the earthquake, also by the massive struggle that had just taken place against the government and yes.. the ideological confusion within the FSLN, along with the want of Ortega are the factors that led to an easy takeover by Daniel Ortega, concreting himself as the FSLN's leader and president of the country as the FSLN became the government.


I see being a pawn of imperialism more than just a "flaw".

Sometimes I wonder if your line is a bit like everyone except the ICC is a pawn of imperialism in this epoch (sorry had to).


Do you think that an organization that from its beginning has been the pawn of an imperialist block is even capable of having an ideology based on the interests of the working class?

Why not? Organisations and the world altogether require change on the inside, not from the outside.


Of course the original struggle started by Sandino was bourgeois from the start.

Yeah, but basing your organisation's name and a small bit of its rhetoric loosely on an old struggle has no bad impact on the organisation itself.


I think my basic critique is that the FSLN was a left-nationalist movement which was a pawn of imperialism. I think that is clear enough.

For a detailed analysis of the events, comrades who read Spanish can check out this article: http://es.internationalism.org/rm/2007/96_NIcaragua

A translation of that is readable but misordered.

Even that article attacks them while in government, it does not talk about them before that, the whole critique of the Sandinistas from the ICC seems at best very confused and unfair.


Anyway, if we do support a bourgeois republic, you should easily be able to point to a section of the bourgeoisie supporting republican socialism.

Right under your nose? Sinn Fein perhaps? :rolleyes: Most people in all the Irish Republican armies admit they (Sinn Fein) are complete sellouts to any working-class interest whatsoever.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

One of the anarchist comrades on this thread was very correct in explaining why a lot of other comrades, especially those from Western industrialized economies, cannot understand the concept of a national liberation struggle. It is a historical fact that they have only had to put up with nationality-based oppression only for short historical periods, compared to colonized populations.

In a country like mine, Pakistan, it is impossible to talk of any left-wing politics without addressing the question of oppressed nationalities.

Many of the comrades here seem to recognize only open class-based oppression. What they need to understand is that the real world is rarely as neat as their interpretation of what Marx wrote in 1848.

I'll give you a small example, from an incident that once happened in front of me, to explain what national oppression is like in everyday life...

Students were protesting against Islamic fundamentalists, on a main street in Pakistan. I was among them. Near the end of the protest, some students started to sing the Pakistani national anthem, and we leftists were wondering whether to join in or not.

In the meanwhile, a Baloch nationalist friend of mine (who is sympathetic to communist views, like most other Baloch nationalists), was walking near the edge of the road.

He was wearing a pair of traditional Baloch trousers, with kind of... folds around your legs like a series of rings.

A guy walks up to him, who we later saw, was a low-ranking intelligence agent sent in by the local police-station. He walks up to our Baloch nationalist comrade, and goes "Oi, are you Baloch?"

My friend stands up proudly and defiantly and goes "Yes I am!"

The Intelligence Bureau dude goes "THen what are you doing here?"

This, my friends, is nationality-based oppression in action in everyday life.

As the other students sang the Pakistani anthem, the handful of Baloch nationalists turned their backs and walked off from the anthem of the Pakistani state which robs their people of their economic and political rights.

I walked away with them too.

THat, comrades, is oppression, but you can't boil it down to the bosses-vs-workers rhetoric of so many comrades here.

There is a whole world out there, comrades, and oppression comes in many forms. It can take place along class lines, gender lines, ethnic/national lines, religious lines, etc.

Our task as Marxists is NOT to filter in only those bits of the real world which fit into our theory. Our task is to understand society as a complex whole...or at least try doing that.