National Liberation

[Ernesto "Che" Guevara]

So I've found myself puzzled by the communist stance on support for national liberation movements. Apparently, since it equates to support for the national bourgeoisie, it is a waste of effort.

However, while I recognise this point, I feel there are other factors that need to be considered.


The national bourgeoisie are, at least, national. Sure, you are leaving the workers of that nation imprisoned by the chains of wage-slavery, etc. But at least you have removed the chains of imperial domination
In the case of colonies, I find it hard to believe a colonISED worker would be able to fight alongside a worker of the coloniSER nation. To support national liberation would be to help foster international working class solidarity
Is the position advocated in Che Guevara's Message to the Tricontinental ("Let us have not one, but two, or three Vietnams" (paraphrased)) not what we could call today National Liberation?
To not support national liberation is surely to implicity endorse imperialism, colonialism and the subjugation of developing nations? Regardless of the implications for ivory-tower theory, is this not an untenable position?


My points may not be well-expressed, and there may be logical holes in them. Be gentle.

[Palingenisis]

The key to carrying out a new democratic revolution is the independent role of the proletariat and its ability, through its Marxist-Leninist party, to establish its hegemony in the revolutionary struggle. Experience has shown again and again that even when a section of the national bourgeoisie joins the revolutionary movement, it will not and cannot lead a new democratic revolution, to say nothing of carrying this revolution through to completion. Similarly, history demonstrates the bankruptcy of an “anti- imperialist front” (or similar “revolutionary front”) which is not led by a Marxist-Leninist party, even when such a front or forces within it adopt a “Marxist” (actually pseudo-Marxist) colouration. While such revolutionary formations have led heroic struggles and even delivered powerful blows to the imperialists they have been proven to be ideologically and organisationally incapable of resisting imperialist and bourgeois influences. Even where such forces have seized power they have been incapable of carrying through a thoroughgoing revolutionary transformation of society and end up, sooner or later, being overthrown by the imperialists or themselves becoming a new reactionary ruling power in league with imperialists.’ – Declaration of the RIM

[Zanthorus]

In the case of colonies, I find it hard to believe a colonISED worker would be able to fight alongside a worker of the coloniSER nation. To support national liberation would be to help foster international working class solidarity

I don't see exactly how this works. The worker of the colonised nation is being opressed by the bourgeoisie of the coloniser nation. The proletariat of the coloniser nation would most likely have nothing to do with it. Just as a quick example something like 70% of the british population is opposed to the current war in Afghanistan.


To not support national liberation is surely to implicity endorse imperialism, colonialism and the subjugation of developing nations?

No, Imperialism is a world epoch of capitalism. The overthrow of capitalism is synonymous with the end of Imperialism. We fight Imperialism by fighting capitalism instead of wasting out time with national "liberation" (Which is only really "liberating" for the national bourgeoisie).

[Palingenisis]

I don't see exactly how this works. The worker of the colonised nation is being opressed by the bourgeoisie of the coloniser nation. The proletariat of the coloniser nation would most likely have nothing to do with it. Just as a quick example something like 70% of the british population is opposed to the current war in Afghanistan.


You dont see how this works because you live in an Imperialist country. In a colony or a comprador run neo-colony all classes of society are being oppressed in various ways so up to a point they have common cause. The thing thats important is who leads the fight...The patriotic small capitalists and petit-bourgieouse will though in most cases sell out to imperialism though they can land it blows.

[Ovi]

I don't see why I should oppose national liberation if the working class would be better of. If people go out on the streets to protest against the domination, I don't see any reason to be on the side of the empire.

[Die Rote Fahne]

My stance as a Luxemburgist is to generally not support national liberation movements.

However, we also have to look at these movements closer. Although nationalist, the movement in question may be good for the working class in said area. Often times, as well, these movements stem from socialist groups (imagine if Hamas was not reactionary and wanted to establish socialism in Palestine. It would be better to see a Palestinian Socialist state than a capitalist Palestine oppressed by imperialist Israel). Although Hamas is reactionary, it supports, apart from national liberation, the capitalist status quo. It needs to be said that I support the establishment of a Palestinian state, but not necessarily the policies of Hamas.

I support the establishment of a Palestinian state on 1967 borders, or a single bi-national state (as Chomsky would like). Why do I support this movement? Because if successful it will be good for the working class of Palestine, and in my opinion Israel as well. If Hamas were to be in favour of establishing Fascism or a "free market" I would not support the liberation of Palestine under Hamas.

I do not support Hamas. Hamas is as reactionary as Israel. However, regardless of the group in question, so long as the liberation of a "nation" is going to do the working class a favour, I support it.

Also, it should be noted that policies of certain liberation movements do not make the working class better off. This is notable in fascist and right wing liberation movements.