For those who support national liberation.

[Steve_j]

To get things out of the way, i dont, but im not looking for an argument, just interested in better understanding you position, so if you want to point the direction of any texts you feel supports your position it would be appreciated.

[Muzk]

§ 58. The equal rights of the nations and the right to self-determination; federation

The Communist Party, declaring a relentless war upon all oppression of man by man, takes a decisive stand against that oppression of subject nationalities which is indispensable to the existence of the bourgeois system. Even more relentlessly do communists resist the slightest participation in this oppression on the part of the working class. It does not suffice, however, that the proletariat of a great and strong country should re pudiate all attempts at the oppression of the other peoples which the bourgeoisie or the aristocracy of its own land has crushed. It is also essential that the proletarians of oppressed nations should not feel any mistrust of their comrades who belong to the lands of the oppressors. When the Czechs were oppressed by the German bourgeoisie of Austria, the Czech workers looked upon all Germans as their oppressors. Our tsarist government oppressed the Poles, and the population of Poland has con tinued to cherish mistrust of all Russians; not merely of the Russian tsar, the Russian landlord, and the Russian capitalist. If we are to eradicate the mistrust felt by the workers of op pressed nations for the workers of oppressor nations, we must not merely proclaim national equality, but must realize it in practice. This equality must find expression in the granting of equal rights in the matter of language, education, religion, etc. Nor is this all. The proletariat must be ready to grant complete national self- determination, must be ready, that is, to concede to the workers who form the majority in any nation the full right to decide the question whether that nation is to be completely integrated with the other, or is to be federated with it, or is to be entirely separated from it.
Is it possible, the reader will ask, that the communists can advocate the severance of the nations? How then will come into existence that unified proletarian world-embracing State which the communists aspire to found? There seems to be a contradiction here.
There is no contradiction, however. In order to secure as speedily as possible the full union of all the workers of the world, it is sometimes necessary to countenance the temporary separation of one nation from another.
Let us consider the circumstances in which such a course may be requisite. We will suppose that in Bavaria, which now forms part of Germany, a Soviet republic has been declared, while at Berlin the bourgeois dictatorship of Noske and Scheidemann still prevails. Is it right for the Bavarian communists, in that case, to strive for the independence of Bavaria? Certainly! And not only the Bavarian communists, but also the communists of other parts of Germany, must welcome the separation of Soviet Bavaria, for this will not be a separation from the German proletariat, but will be a deliverance from the yoke of the German bourgeoisie.
Here is the obverse example. A Soviet republic has been proclaimed throughout Germany, Bavaria alone excepted. The Bavarian bourgeoisie desires separation from Soviet Germany, but the Bavarian proletariat desires union. What should the communists do? It is obvious that the communists of Germany should help the Bavarian workers, and should offer armed resistance to the separatist endeavours of the Bavarian bourgeoisie. This would not be the oppression of Bavaria, but the oppression of the Bavarian bourgeoisie.
Again, the Soviet Power has been proclaimed both in England and in Ireland, both in the land of the oppressors and in the land of the oppressed. Furthermore, the Irish workers will not trust the English workers, who belong to a country which has oppressed Ireland for centuries. From the economic point of view, the separation will be harmful. What course should the English communists pursue in these circumstances? Whatever happens, they must not use force, as the English bourgeoisie has done, to maintain the union with Ireland. They must grant the Irish absolute freedom to separate. Why must they do this?
First of all, because it is necessary to convince the Irish workers that the oppression of Ireland has been the work of the English bourgeoisie and not of the English proletariat. The English workers have to win the Irish workers' confidence.
Secondly, because the Irish workers will have to learn by experience that it is disadvantageous for them to form a small independent State. They will have to learn by experience that production in Ireland cannot be properly organized unless Ireland is in close political and economic union with proletarian England and other proletarian lands.
Finally, take the case of a nation with a bourgeois government which wishes to separate from a nation with a proletarian I regime, and let us suppose that, in the nation which desires to separate, the majority of the workers or a notable proportion of them are in favour of the separation. We may suppose that the workers of the separating country are distrustful, not only of the capitalists, but also of the workers belonging to the country whose bourgeoisie has oppressed them in the past. Even in this case it would be better to allow the proletariat of the separating land to come to terms in its own way with its own bourgeoisie, for otherwise the latter would retain the power of saying: ' It is not I who oppress you, but the people of such and such a country.' The working class will speedily realize that the bourgeoisie has desired independence that it may independently flay its own proletariat. The workers will speedily realize, moreover, that the proletariat of the neighbouring Soviet State desires the union, not for the sake of exploiting or oppressing the workers of the smaller land, but that all the workers may join in a common struggle for deliverance from exploitation and oppression.
Although, therefore, communists are, as a general principle, opposed to the severance of one nation from another, especially when the lands in question have close economic ties, they can nevertheless countenance temporary separations. They will act as a mother acts when she allows her child to burn its fingers once that it may dread the fire evermore.


Long quote, but sums it up pretty nicely. Luxemburg has to say something against it, here's a snippet:



The Bolsheviks are in part responsible for the fact that the military defeat was transformed into the collapse and breakdown of Russia. Moreover, the Bolsheviks themselves have, to a great extent, sharpened the objective difficulties of this situation by a slogan which they placed in the foreground of their policies: the so-called right of self-determination of peoples, or – something which was really implicit in this slogan – the disintegration of Russia.

[Steve_j]

any other texts? Im looking for something a little more indepth on the argument. Links or titles and author are fine. Thanks

[Muzk]

Liebknecht, Self-Determination of Nations and Self-Defence (http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-k/works/misc/self-determination-nations.htm)
Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm)
Lenin, The National Question in Our Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1903/jul/15.htm)
Trotsky, Self-Determination and the Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/red-white/ch09.htm)

[flobdob]

Alongside the Lenin stuff, try these:
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm
http://marxists.org/archive/guevara/1964/12/11.htm
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1965/09/peoples_war/index.htm
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1960/04/x01.htm
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1924/07/08.htm
http://marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1953/10/16.htm
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/fidelyank.htm
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/cheus.htm
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/cabralnlac.html
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1//mandela.html

and of course the biggie: http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The National Question: Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict, and Self-determination in the Twentieth Century is a series of articles by different people, edited by Berch Berberoglu. It looks into national liberation in a historical context, with analysis on Palestine, Puerto Rico, Basque country, Quebec, and Kurdistan. I found it informative. Link (http://books.google.com/books?id=SXyL_inCxTIC&pg=PA1&dq=The+National+Question+Nationalism,+Ethnic+Confl ict,+and+Self-Determination+in+the+Twentieth+Century+edited+by+B erch+Berberoglu&ei=RI7fS9SGPJTANsD96NgE&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false)

[kalu]

Learning Politics from Sivaram by Mark Whitaker. About Sri Lanka, but lots of general theory about national liberation from a revolutionary Tamil journalist. In the early years, the Tamil militants in Sri Lanka frequently met with other movements, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

http://www.anarchistpanther.net/node/12 - Sure to be controversial.

It's also important to distinguish between different types of national liberation: for example, "ethnic separatism" (Basques, Kurds, Tamils, Chechens, etc.), "anti-imperialism" (Cuba, Viet Nam, Iraq, Palestine, etc.), "anti-colonialism" (Puerto Rico, indigenous nations, Palestine, etc.), and what I will awkwardly call "struggles of people of color" (in the Metropoles, ie. Blacks in the US and Britain, Chicanos, etc.) The latter can dovetail into nation-building (consider proposals for "the Republic of New Afrika" or "Aztlan," though often considered "outside the mainstream"). Some people like to make these distinctions because they support one type or the other, though others may support all types.

The classic text, of course, is Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth.

[blake 3:17]

To get things out of the way, i dont, but im not looking for an argument, just interested in better understanding you position, so if you want to point the direction of any texts you feel supports your position it would be appreciated.


It's basically a meaningless question the way you pose it. Whose national liberation? When you say you oppose it, does that mean you support the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or the imposition of WTO rules on Africa and Latin America? I'm guessing you don't but I dunno.

[scarletghoul]

and of course the biggie: http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm
Must emphasise this, OP. Understanding imperialism as the high stage of capitalism is vital. From this understanding it follows that anti-imperialism (including 'national liberation') is a major front in the fight against capitalism.

Sorry I havnt got any cool links to post, just wanted to second this suggestion..

[Steve_j]

When you say you oppose it

I didnt say i oppose it, i said i dont support it, so please dont put words in my mouth.

And as for support for the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and the WTO ect WTF?

[AK]

Cool story bro, telling one nation's proletariat to wage war against another nation's bourgeoisie. Whilst this may seem like a great idea, it always seems to inspire national hatred. The problem is the proletariat always seems to believe that the proletariat of the agressor nation support their bourgeoisie.

Class war should be a war against classes, not nations.