People, culture or state?

[ComradeMan]

Is there a difference between a people and a nation state?

I've been wondering about this for a while.

Anarchism is traditionally anti-state, and anti-nationalist whereas communism tends to see everything in terms of class.

So where does that leave indigenous peoples and their rights? Is not a tribe, for want of a better word, not a miniature nation state in a way and as such "statist"?

How do we successfully separate preservation of diversity and culture from nationalism and statism?

[al8]

Anarchism isn't anti-nationalist unless it advocates Esperanto or some other equivalent. If one want a single people one needs a singe language. A common language is a key thing that defines a people. "Languages are dialects with an army and a navy" it is said. Now the capitalist states control public education and weeds out other dialects and languages. In Sweden for example Ålvdalsmål, the last surviving regional language, is marginalized and not taught in schools. In Iceland linguists police any deviation from the standard vernacular, and have already eradicated several deviancies.

Capitalist states normally want to make no distinction between its organization and it's subjects/citizens 'the people', because they want to mask the class divides in society and that the capitalist state serves the capitalists. But there are differences, the capitalist state is made up of payed employees and has monopoly on the use of violence and hence on what goes generally. The majority of the people do not make up the state - by being employed in its institutions such as tax offices, police stations, jails, hospitals, army etc. And and even then only a few have a real say in the functioning and agenda setting of the capitalist state .

As for preserving culture - we must have short term goals and long term goals - first is to secure that languages have the real material right to exist by having recourses and time spent on the production of cultural products in those languages - such as novels, TV programs, films, music etc. But in the end we want people to blend into one singe people. Doing that requires that we have a language such as Esperanto or similar equivalent for people to have as a second language (that will in the future hopefully become the first language for everyone) to converse easily to other peoples - and having resources and time spent to have an encompassing cultural production in the common language that incorporates all the best cultural products from all the other independent and respected languages (that would in the end be seen the remnants of capitalist nation-building).

[Plagueround]

As for preserving culture - we must have short term goals and long term goals - first is to secure that languages have the real material right to exist by having recourses and time spent on the production of cultural products in those languages - such as novels, TV programs, films, music etc. But in the end we want people to blend into one singe people. Doing that requires that we have a language such as Esperanto or similar equivalent for people to have as a second language (that will in the future hopefully evolve into the 1 language of everyone) to converse easily to others peoples - and having resources and time spent to have an encompassing cultural production in the common language that incorporates all the best cultural products from all the other independent and respected languages.

That is one of the most terrifying paragraphs I've ever read.

On the indigenous question, I actually find the green anarchists line (http://www.greenanarchy.info/native.php) to be more respectful and compatible with the establishment of communism/anarchism that doesn't seek to assimilate (destroy) indigenous cultures into the dominant culture. The idea that the dominant culture gets to determine what's valuable to indigenous cultures is the same old ethnocentrism that founded America. The only problem I find with the greens' line from this particular site and others I've encountered is they often make the mistake of conflating indigenous cultures with primitivism (well, that and their advocacy of primitivism of course).

[al8]

That is one of the most terrifying paragraphs I've ever read.

On the indigenous question, I actually find the green anarchists line (http://www.greenanarchy.info/native.php) to be more respectful and compatible with the establishment of communism/anarchism that doesn't seek to assimilate (destroy) indigenous cultures into the dominant culture. The idea that the dominant culture gets to determine what's valuable to indigenous cultures is the same old ethnocentrism that founded America. The only problem I find with the greens' line from this particular site and others I've encountered is they often make the mistake of conflating indigenous cultures with primitivism (well, that and their advocacy of primitivism of course).

You have little reason to be terrified. My two stage approach is light-years more egalitarian than the empty cheerleadish 'solidarity' of the green anarchist line. Are those anarchist going to speak to the natives in their own tribal tongue or should the natives be expected to learn the national language of the English speaking green-anarchists (and learn that the plural of ox is not oxes but oxen)?

It's almost as if they're blind to their own propagation of nationalism, regionalism and tribalism. They are also making theoretical errors by making a commitment to decentralization abstractly and irrespective of context and concrete tasks - leading them to guard language shibboleths -- which should be faded out humanely. (but this oppertunism would make sense from their primitivist stand - wanting to splinter humanity into little hunter- gatherer grouplets not unify humans into a singe people)

By having a fair, quickly learned, logical, trans-nationalist language - free of grammatical irregularities and erratic spelling - different and still existing nationalities can communicate on an equal basis. Only from this equal basis should the material basis for genuine internationalism be built. And this all happens at a pace of peoples choosing and in line with their circumstances. First a trans-nationalist language will be no-ones native language, but in the end some people will be born that will have it as a native language or taught early and well.

[ComradeMan]

This is one that I wrestle with over and over again. Before I look at theory there are a couple of points

I personally would not desire a world in which there was only one language and everyone was looked, dressed and spoke the same. I think I share that with at least 99% of my fellow co-planetists :D, regardless of political ideology or belief.

Ideas like esperanto have been around for a long time and they don't work.

Although I respect "indigenous" peoples and "original cultures" I do recognise that they are not to be idealised either. These peoples are not museum pieces to be preserved- but part of humanity. Do we intervene in an example when a boy in New Guinea is going to be killed for being a witch and thus, anthropologically speaking interfere with indigenous culture, or do we stand back and not interfere and thereby contradict or own values? The only solution I have for this is that people should be shown an alternative and given a choice. The last word, choice, is the fundamental factor here as often in history and still now, indigenous people are assimilated by force and not given any choice whatsoever.

On to the theory...

I had a look around for some points of view on the matter....


We know that the classical Anarchist position is that revolution will sweep away any and all distinctions of nationality because nationality is inherently a social construct and that the true proletariat does not form or need a "nation". Of course, this leads to internationalism. On the other hand traditionally Marxism has acknowledged borders and the development of a nation state. In contrast anarchism tends to see borders and national divisions as detrimental and we end up with a one world one people ideal.


What is odd in all of this is that Anarchism and Marxism seem to take diametrically opposed views in terms of theory yet in terms of what actually happened the results are surprising. Micro-systems of self-determination,localised consensus democracy and self-administration along with co-operation often meet the demands of various ethnic groups for self-determination. This coincidence seems to be compatible with non-statist ethnic nationalism. History gives us the example of the Catalan movement for self-determination under the CNT in the Spanish Civil War. In the United States there has been some fusion of Anarchism with Native-American/Amerindian political movements as manifested in Indigenist movement. Other examples of “ethnic-amarchism” may be found in Ireland, the Basque Country, Brittany and so on.


Whan analysing Marxist, Leninist and CCP practice we tend to find a differetn trend. Although the theory seems pro-ethnicity the practice often differs. Lenin and the Bolsheviks promised independence to various indigenous national minorities such as the Ukrainians and the Poles in return for support against the Tsar. However this position soon changed when the dominant Bolshevik faction grouped around Lenin in Moscow drove the National Communists underground finally liquidating them in 1928. All nationalist movements throughout the USSR were crushed by Lenin subsequently.


A similar, if not parallel, process repeated itself in China with Mao Zedong and the CCP's promises of self-determination to China's many ethnic minorities- none of these promises were kept and Beijing invaded and annexed Tibet.


In the South America the Nicaraguan Sandinistas were also accused of carrying out campaigns of ethnic cleansing against indigenous peoples in order to seize their land. There was only one way that the Atlantic Coast Indians could become authentic revolutionaries. They had to take part in the Sandinista struggle on the same terms as the Mestizos who lived in on the Pacific Coast and Central region of the country. Their struggle as Indians did not matter. After the Sandinistas took power, Miskitos demands came to their attention in a most forceful manner. The Sandinistas were ill-prepared to respond in the proper fashion. Their ethnocentrism prevented this from happening. More importantly, there were important gaps in Marxist theory that prevented them from understanding the special oppression of Indian people. Dogmatic Marxism tends to view Indians as a relic of precapitalist society. For the sake of "progress," they should enter the working-class as rapidly as possible. Assimilation is the only worthwhile goal. The Sandinistas gave concessions to this view and it cost them dearly
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/indian/miskitos.htm


Ward Churchill the US Indiginist claims Marxism is inherently imperialist and racist in effect, if not in intent, because it is based on the idea of historical progress and industrialization as inevitable, and sees industrial proletarian-based societies as more "advanced" than other societies (particularly indigenous societies).
http://www.zmag.org/Chiapas1/wardindig.htm




So where does that leave us?

[al8]

It leaves us with empty verbiage causing fake problems and headaches.

What is meant by nationalism being a social-construct? Its way to vague - we need specifics. And they are to be found in the real and main material basis for nationalism; Language. If we are not for a trans-national/international language we are supporting one national language or another whether we know it or not. This issue is pivotal and reveals our true (and latent) colors as to who is a nationalist or trans-nationalist policy enthusiast.

The Russian national language being propagated on the cost of other smaller national/regional languages is not trans-national or internationalist policy - it is a national policy that is anti-regional and anti-micronational. I am very disappointed in the Russian revolutionaries that they did not use Esperanto as the fair and non-national communicative medium. It was already widely spoken in Russia with various proletarian language study groups already existing. However it was slandered as the language of spyes and fought against.

A nation neutral trans-national language is the only non-national alternative that can avoid cultural stifling between existing cultures/nations/languages-groups, respect peoples native languages be they small or big, and in a fair manner pave way for a better egalitarian and unified non-national world culture without national distinctions.


I personally would not desire a world in which there was only one language and everyone was looked, dressed and spoke the same. I think I share that with at least 99% of my fellow co-planetists , regardless of political ideology or belief.

By the same token you should be a copyright patent enthusiast. It puts up warm and fuzzy barriers to technological progress. But same language does not mean same dress codes or racial features. You are stuck in the anti-progress imagery the capitalism propagators muster against better-society advocates (utopians/visionaries).


Ideas like esperanto have been around for a long time and they don't work.

The key thing is to recognize why they 'did not work'. They simply faced a prolonged multi-angeled opposition from followers and foot-soldiers of capitalist nation-state building projects and resultant policies.