Scottish Socialist (videos)

[Scottish_Socialist]

I would like to share with you a project I have recently undertaken. I am posting regular videos on Youtube entitled SCOTTISH SOCIALIST and would like my work to become more known. So please have a look, leave a comment, just whatever, and I will be making more.

(Won't let me post a link because i'm new, but put this after the .com of youtube)

/user/TheScottishSocialist

[uni]

Are you a member of the SSP by any chance?

[Scottish_Socialist]

Incidently, no.

[durhamleft]

I would like to share with you a project I have recently undertaken. I am posting regular videos on Youtube entitled SCOTTISH SOCIALIST and would like my work to become more known. So please have a look, leave a comment, just whatever, and I will be making more.

(Won't let me post a link because i'm new, but put this after the .com of youtube)

/my_playlists?p=6496810B0C378CC5

PM me the link and i'll put it up, the thing u gave doesnt work.

[Scottish_Socialist]

Oh, yeah, I changed it to be its own channel just today. The links in my signature anyway.

[durhamleft]

Oh, yeah, I changed it to be its own channel just today. The links in my signature anyway.

Just watched your video. Check out the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition.

[uni]

I think you should look into joining the SSP. The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition in Scotland are lead by Tommy Sheridan who split the left in scotland for his own self interest and is currently going through a court case hearing for perjury (lying in court) so that is a sinking ship in Scotland. I really would recommend you join the SSP.

I have subscribed to your channel by the way, it's good stuff :thumbup1:

[Scottish_Socialist]

Thanks for the subscribe then :) as for joining SSP. Thought about it, looked into it, but to be honest I don't find any of the left-wing parties to be, well... any good at all. So for the moment anyway I'm just going to support (most) of the left as a whole. There are parties I support more than others but I can't say much more than that.

[uni]

Fair enough, just PM if you are interested about the SSP and getting involved ;)

[durhamleft]

I think you should look into joining the SSP. The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition in Scotland are lead by Tommy Sheridan who split the left in scotland for his own self interest and is currently going through a court case hearing for perjury (lying in court) so that is a sinking ship in Scotland. I really would recommend you join the SSP.

I have subscribed to your channel by the way, it's good stuff :thumbup1:

The TUSC in England (more so than in Scotland- I don't know what's going on there) seems to me like the most likely worker's party to form, as while it has strong socialist roots in the SP and SWP it also has some pretty en-rooted union support, such as the RMT.

[Q]

The TUSC in England (more so than in Scotland- I don't know what's going on there) seems to me like the most likely worker's party to form, as while it has strong socialist roots in the SP and SWP it also has some pretty en-rooted union support, such as the RMT.

This is a bit off topic, but this is overly optimistic I think. TUSC before the elections was an "invitation-only" gathering behind closed doors, as opposed to an open and frank debate between left groups to form unity, so this already got a bad start.

TUSC during the elections performed miserably, not only in direct results, but also in mobilising support among the unions (the RMT was not included, only their general secretary gave personal support). Also, the actual cooperation between the left groups umbrellad in TUSC was paperthin: Socialist Worker merely reported their candidate's campaigns, The Socialist only theirs, for example.

Now, TUSC after the election is not a viable alternative to live on and eventually form a party I think. This is because Labour is moving very swiftly to the left, if only in form as intended by its leadership. This has the effect of radicalising layers within the left of Labour. I think we need to keep an open mind about Labour and recognize that Labour in power isn't the same as Labour in opposition. The 13 year window of opportunity to form a new party has closed and we need to adapt tactically to the new situation. That is in my opinion something along these lines: 1. work together with Labour in a united front, especially reaching out to activists and 2. continue to work on a new workers party, but not as an "Old Labour 2.0", but instead as a Marxist project of unity, which is what our class needs.

Just some thoughts.

[durhamleft]

This is a bit off topic, but this is overly optimistic I think. TUSC before the elections was an "invitation-only" gathering behind closed doors, as opposed to an open and frank debate between left groups to form unity, so this already got a bad start.

TUSC during the elections performed miserably, not only in direct results, but also in mobilising support among the unions (the RMT was not included, only their general secretary gave personal support). Also, the actual cooperation between the left groups umbrellad in TUSC was paperthin: Socialist Worker merely reported their candidate's campaigns, The Socialist only theirs, for example.

Now, TUSC after the election is not a viable alternative to live on and eventually form a party I think. This is because Labour is moving very swiftly to the left, if only in form as intended by its leadership. This has the effect of radicalising layers within the left of Labour. I think we need to keep an open mind about Labour and recognize that Labour in power isn't the same as Labour in opposition. The 13 year window of opportunity to form a new party has closed and we need to adapt tactically to the new situation. That is in my opinion something along these lines: 1. work together with Labour in a united front, especially reaching out to activists and 2. continue to work on a new workers party, but not as an "Old Labour 2.0", but instead as a Marxist project of unity, which is what our class needs.

Just some thoughts.

My grandfather was involved in Labour throughout his life, and was a revolutionary, not a reformist, he was asked to leave the Labour party in the late eighties because he was 'too left wing'.

My father was videoed singing the internationale in the 90's with some other labour party members, they were all kicked out for being Trotskyists.

Labour used to be a party that tolerated capitalist, social democratic members and revolutionary members, now it only seems to allow pure capitalists- just look at what the bastards did to us over the last 13 years!

Also, it strikes me that there are no candidates involved in the leadership contest who will truly represent socialist views, and if David miliband wins, we're truly fucked. Ed seems better, but is still hardly what we stand for, and the biggest leftie, Abbot, sends her fucking kids to a fucking private school!

[Q]

My grandfather was involved in Labour throughout his life, and was a revolutionary, not a reformist, he was asked to leave the Labour party in the late eighties because he was 'too left wing'.

My father was videoed singing the internationale in the 90's with some other labour party members, they were all kicked out for being Trotskyists.

Labour used to be a party that tolerated capitalist, social democratic members and revolutionary members, now it only seems to allow pure capitalists- just look at what the bastards did to us over the last 13 years!

Also, it strikes me that there are no candidates involved in the leadership contest who will truly represent socialist views, and if David miliband wins, we're truly fucked. Ed seems better, but is still hardly what we stand for, and the biggest leftie, Abbot, sends her fucking kids to a fucking private school!

Be that as it may, and I don't disagree that Labour has carried out very capitalist policies when in power, I think that Labour in essense hasn't changed much from the Labour of 1920, 1945, 1960 or 1980. There were and still are two contradicting poles within the party, the pro-capitalist leadership has moved further and further to the right when in power. Now that Labour is out of power, it'll retry to connect back to its working class roots. While that is pure cynicism from the leadership, it did have the effect of thousands of members applying to the party since the elections and the candidates in the leadership contest talking more left than they want to admit! My point being: Painting Labour as simply a pure bourgeois party is simplistic and wrong.

On a sidenote, I don't think we should be in the business of making ad hominem attacks on candidates like Abbott. Ultimately the point that her children go to a private school is irrelevant. What we should ask her about is whether or not she supports stuff like opposition to cuts or troops out of Aghanistan. And on these accounts she scores positively. Critical support for Abbott may be a good idea as she offers us a platform to even pull her rhetorics further to the left and strengthen the working class pole.

[durhamleft]

Be that as it may, and I don't disagree that Labour has carried out very capitalist policies when in power, I think that Labour in essense hasn't changed much from the Labour of 1920, 1945, 1960 or 1980. There were and still are two contradicting poles within the party, the pro-capitalist leadership has moved further and further to the right when in power. Now that Labour is out of power, it'll retry to connect back to its working class roots. While that is pure cynicism from the leadership, it did have the effect of thousands of members applying to the party since the elections and the candidates in the leadership contest talking more left than they want to admit! My point being: Painting Labour as simply a pure bourgeois party is simplistic and wrong.

On a sidenote, I don't think we should be in the business of making ad hominem attacks on candidates like Abbott. Ultimately the point that her children go to a private school is irrelevant. What we should ask her about is whether or not she supports stuff like opposition to cuts or troops out of Aghanistan. And on these accounts she scores positively. Critical support for Abbott may be a good idea as she offers us a platform to even pull her rhetorics further to the left and strengthen the working class pole.

Labour in the 1920s-70s had it written in their constitution to nationalise as much as they could, that has been taken out... They abandoned the 'red flag' as their song and took down their red flag in favour of the red rose. In the 1980s when militant tendency (trotskyists) tried to infiltrate the party they were soon kicked out on the basis that socialism is incompatible with the labour party.
New labour are nearer the tories than any socialist party, and maybe if people start flocking towards another socialist tendency they will start to listen.

[Q]

Labour in the 1920s-70s had it written in their constitution to nationalise as much as they could, that has been taken out... They abandoned the 'red flag' as their song and took down their red flag in favour of the red rose.
This is argueing about cosmetics. I'm talking about the contradicting class nature of Labour.


In the 1980s when militant tendency (trotskyists) tried to infiltrate the party they were soon kicked out on the basis that socialism is incompatible with the labour party.
I'm well aware as I'm a member of the CWI myself. Militant started in 1964 in fact and Ted Grant, one of the major leaders of Miltant, became a member of Labour in 1949 if I'm not mistaken.


New labour are nearer the tories than any socialist party, and maybe if people start flocking towards another socialist tendency they will start to listen.
Well, there we have the white eliphant in the room, don't we? What other socialist tendency? All projects to the left of Labour in the past 13 years or so have failed: the Socialist Labour Party of Arthur Scargill, the Socialist Alliance, Respect ... and now we have TUSC which is perhaps the worst attempt at unity compared to the others.

The UK electoral system is perhaps the worst in the west outside the USA's. Most European nations have a system in place that lets smaller parties participate in elections and actually gain some seats. The leftwing of the working class movement in Germany for example is centered around Die Linke, in the Netherlands it would be the SP, etc. Due to the nature of the UK context Labour remains a united party with a, so far, dominant right wing and if the UK would adopt a system similar to that of Germany, no doubt in my mind that the party would split in a nanosecond. However, this is not the case and next year's AV referendum isn't going to change much to that either.

Also, while I think a radicalisation wave is to be expected in Labour, the question will be how strong that radicalisation is, which is dependent on a leftwing leadership of which I'm not so optimistic about at the present time. But this is a gap we need to fill by reaching out to those activists on the ground.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If we're talking about reformist labour parties, I prefer even the inter-war SPD and its left turn courtesy of the renegades Kautsky and Hilferding (and their Heidelberg Programme), and of the departure of the scabs Ebert and Scheidemann. At least there even the leadership didn't treat the "left turn" as cynical.

But yeah, the electoral system is important.

[uni]

The TUSC in England (more so than in Scotland- I don't know what's going on there) seems to me like the most likely worker's party to form, as while it has strong socialist roots in the SP and SWP it also has some pretty en-rooted union support, such as the RMT.
In England TUSC may be the way forward but in Scotland they don't stand a hope in hell. They were supported by Tommy Sheridan who is facing a court case for allegedly lying in court and IF he goes down (I am not going to speculate publicly but privately I will be happy to go into detail) then the left in Scotland will be demonised for a while. The SSP has been growing in membership recently as the split which seen Tommy Sheridan's Solidarity getting formed is losing impact (Solidarity didn't even stand in the 2010 general election). The SSP had 6 MSPs until 2007 and it's because of this track record that I believe that the SSP is Scotland's left wing party and are most likely to get represented at a devolved level again.

[Scottish_Socialist]

Tommy Sheridan's Solidarity getting formed is losing impact (Solidarity didn't even stand in the 2010 general election).

True, didn't see any sign of Solidarity in the election at all. Personally I don't like them anyway, more SSP for me.


The SSP had 6 MSPs until 2007 and it's because of this track record that I believe that the SSP is Scotland's left wing party and are most likely to get represented at a devolved level again.

I would hope so, they just need to get more attention, more campaigning. There really isn't any other solely Scottish Left-wing party that in my view is even semi-adequate. Ofcourse the SWP and is ok and, well, UAF is quite well heard of since they always seem to appear wherever the English Defence League or any other fascist, right-wing eejits do, but these are British parties.

[Sam_b]

Why are you so obsessed by Scotland and electoral politics?

[Zanthorus]

I would hope so, they just need to get more attention, more campaigning. There really isn't any other solely Scottish Left-wing party that in my view is even semi-adequate. Ofcourse the SWP and is ok and, well, UAF is quite well heard of since they always seem to appear wherever the English Defence League or any other fascist, right-wing eejits do, but these are British parties.

So your position boils down to national chauvinism?

[Scottish_Socialist]

So your position boils down to national chauvinism?

...where did you get that from? I wasn't saying that I would not support any party that did not solely represent Scotland. I would like Scottish Independence and for a strong left in Scotland, but if this happens for the whole UK then even better!

I would still like Scotland to be Independent though.

[Q]

I would still like Scotland to be Independent though.

Communists strive for genuine world unification, not more division. Would it not make more sense to strive for a new federative republic of the British Isles (so, including Ireland)? In my opinion independence will only vastly weaken the cause for socialism, not strengthen it, as the answer is presented in a nationalist project within the capitalist state system, in which Scotland will be a junior partner to the UK, as opposed to overcoming the bourgeois nationstate and for working class solidarity and unity.

[scarletghoul]

Communists strive for genuine world unification, not more division. Would it not make more sense to strive for a new federative republic of the British Isles (so, including Ireland)? In my opinion independence will only vastly weaken the cause for socialism, not strengthen it, as the answer is presented in a nationalist project within the capitalist state system, in which Scotland will be a junior partner to the UK, as opposed to overcoming the bourgeois nationstate and for working class solidarity and unity.
The most important thing is self-determination. If the people of Ireland, Scotland, Wales or Cornwall want independence then they should have independence. A federative republic kinda thing would probably remain a vehicle for English hegemony and perhaps chauvinism, even under socialism. I think that it would be great to have separate socialist states in all these places, cooperating and comprising a liberated territory across the Isles, but each with control over their own destinies.That would be much better I think as socialist power would be spread and there would be more socialist countries, making it harder to overthrow.

[Scottish_Socialist]

I think that it would be great to have separate socialist states in all these places, cooperating and comprising a liberated territory across the Isles, but each with control over their own destinies.

Thats exactly what I mean! There is no denying that England is seen as the 'head' of the union, and many (but by no means all), I hate to use this term, 'English people' see themselves as superior to the Scots, Welsh and N.Irish. I don't know how many times I have heard the entire British Isles being referred to as Enlgland. Its not that I dislike England, or think of Scotland as superior, I just don't want a Union in which one of the four participants has the majority of power.

Just look at the general election. In Scotland, the Conservatives only got 1 seat, just 1. But they are still govern Scotland.

In my view, The United Kingdom is the last part of the British Empire, and I think its time for it to end, with each individual nation cooperating while remaining independent.

[Zanthorus]

I would still like Scotland to be Independent though.

The question of independence is secondary to the question of a united British Left party. Lenin supported the absolute right of nations to self-determination on the national question and yet still fought against localist errors within the RSDLP on the part of groups like the Bundists for a single unified Russian party. Rosa Luxemburg who supported the flip side of the coin on the national question supported a group (The SDKPil) which attempted in sectarian fashion to keep it's autonomy from the larger RSDLP instead of dissolving into it.

In fact my own preference is not for single national parties, perhaps united in some kind of federative "international", but for a single international workers party. One of the key problems with the Comintern was that it occasionally acted like a single party (The 21 conditions for affiliation for example) and there were elements within the Comintern who saw it as being analogous to a single party (Such as the Left Fraction of the PCd'I) but on the whole you still had little national groups managing their own affairs. One of the biggest problems this threw up of course was the Russian question. It was percieved as being solely the business of the CPSU to be dealt with internally by the Russians rather than what it was, an issue that affected the workers movement worldwide and deserved open discussion internationally by that same movement. And hell, if we oppose anarchist and federalist errors on a national level why should we suddenly capitulate to them on an international scale?

Of course the revolution is not right around the corner and it will take a long time to rebuild the international movement to a level where it is ready to form a single international party. In the meantime we can still oppose localist and federalist errors on a small scale by building a unified British party and opposing nationalist confusionism on a British scale while it is still a unified territory.


The most important thing is self-determination. If the people of Ireland, Scotland, Wales or Cornwall want independence then they should have independence.

What about on a smaller scale? What if the people of Wiltshire, Derbyshire, Cornwall, Greater London or Greater Manchester want "self-determination"? Or on an even smaller scale what if Chiseldon, Marlborough or Swindon wanted the right to "self-determination" apart from the rest of Wiltshire? If we think about it, what the "self-determination" slogan boils down to is bourgeois ideas about the inalienable sovereignty of entities which endows them with certain untouchable "rights", which if you've read Marx you will know is a foundation stone of Capitalism. Your new tendency is in fact incredibly appropriate given that you're now espousing federalism, decentralisation and "self-determination" all of which add up to an anarchist position on how to organise society.

While confusionists like yourself try to import national chauvinist and localist errors into the workers movement I think Q's post was spot on.

[scarletghoul]

What about on a smaller scale? What if the people of Wiltshire, Derbyshire, Cornwall, Greater London or Greater Manchester want "self-determination"? Or on an even smaller scale what if Chiseldon, Marlborough or Swindon wanted the right to "self-determination" apart from the rest of Wiltshire?
Yes, every community should have self-determination. I seriously doubt any of those places would want to become a separate country; they don't really have a separate culture or national identity or whatever. Every community should have control over its own destiny.

If we think about it, what the "self-determination" slogan boils down to is bourgeois ideas about the inalienable sovereignty of entities which endows them with certain untouchable "rights", which if you've read Marx you will know is a foundation stone of Capitalism.
So, what, the only true Marxist position is to support direct rule from London, forcing all communities to stay together under one state ?? That's silly. If a people want their own state, why shouldn't they have one ?

Your new tendency is in fact incredibly appropriate given that you're now espousing federalism, decentralisation and "self-determination" all of which add up to an anarchist position on how to organise society.
I've always been in favour of a somewhat decentralised state, with self-determination of every community under the guidance and coordination of a central government and party. This is not about bourgeois right, or the bourgeois-Anarchist conception of liberation; its about giving people and their communities power over themselves and over the Party, so that the government does not become alienated from them. You seem to advocate an all-powerful central authority that controls every community and makes decisions for them, often presumably against their interests.

[scarletghoul]

In fact my own preference is not for single national parties, perhaps united in some kind of federative "international", but for a single international workers party. One of the key problems with the Comintern was that it occasionally acted like a single party (The 21 conditions for affiliation for example) and there were elements within the Comintern who saw it as being analogous to a single party (Such as the Left Fraction of the PCd'I) but on the whole you still had little national groups managing their own affairs. One of the biggest problems this threw up of course was the Russian question. It was percieved as being solely the business of the CPSU to be dealt with internally by the Russians rather than what it was, an issue that affected the workers movement worldwide and deserved open discussion internationally by that same movement.
Haha, do you agree with Bordiga's ridiculous idea of having all the international communist parties rule the USSR together ??? :lol:

[Zanthorus]

Yes, every community should have self-determination. I seriously doubt any of those places would want to become a separate country; they don't really have a separate culture or national identity or whatever. Every community should have control over its own destiny.

So, what, the only true Marxist position is to support direct rule from London, forcing all communities to stay together under one state ?? That's silly. If a people want their own state, why shouldn't they have one ?

Because if we take this argument to it's logical conclusion, any man and his dog could form their own state if they willed it. It makes perfect sense for the revolutionary bourgeoisie to have upheld the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination because it is merely a logical corrolary of the principle of the sovereignity of the individual. Your position boils down to bourgeois moralism.

Further, there is no real reason for individual national communities to have seperate states. As long as they are free to use their own language for public purposes, are allowed to celebrate their own traditions, don't have their territory occupied by any kind of armed force and are equal participants in decision making (Or equal candidates for selection by sortition to public office as per Demarchy) there doesn't seem to be any reason why we would need to go further and grant them absolute self-determination (And good reasons why we would not want to do so).


I've always been in favour of a somewhat decentralised state, with self-determination of every community under the guidance and coordination of a central government and party. This is not about bourgeois right, or the bourgeois-Anarchist conception of liberation; its about giving people and their communities power over themselves and over the Party, so that the government does not become alienated from them. You seem to advocate an all-powerful central authority that controls every community and makes decisions for them, often presumably against their interests.

A rather ironic accusation coming from a supporter of Stalin and Mao. Actually come to think of it, I believe I'm actually closer to Stalin than you on this question. Wasn't it Stalin who was called the "Great Russian bully" by Lenin in one of his last works because of his position on the need for the Soviet Union as against the individual SSR's? I've never read too much into the detail but I'm pretty sure it was something similar.

But I don't advocate an all-powerful central authority. What I advocate is a centralised democratic process as against various localist and sectoralist schemes on the need for "self-management" and "self-determination". To make the issue clearer, imagine that each individual community is allowed to make production decisions for itself. One community has a honey making plant and they're very eager so they decide to make a hundred gallons of honey. But what's this? The other community with the plant that makes the jars to keep the honey in was lazy and only made enough jars for thirty gallons. This is obviously an absurd and oversimplified example but the general principle is clear. Decentralised decision making and individual enterprises intiating production independently of each other is in fact the essence of capitalism because it is this that forces people to co-ordinate their production through the market mechanism and turns the products of human labour into a power which stands over the producers themselves. That is what causes alienation, not centralisation of decision making. For capitalism to be overcome we need the whole of society to manage itself collectively instead of allowing individual sections to control themselves and associate with the rest.


Haha, do you agree with Bordiga's ridiculous idea of having all the international communist parties rule the USSR together ??? :lol:

First of all, see my user title. Second of all, Bordiga viewed the Comintern as being a single party, not a collection of parties. That's why he abandoned the leadership of the party to Gramsci's centre faction even though he had majority support in the PCd'I, because in the Comintern as a whole his group was a minority. That's why it was called the PCd'I in the first place. Communist Party of Italy, i.e the Italian section of the international Communist Party. When the Communist party was re-started as the PCI or Italian Communist Party the Italian Left correctly regarded the name change as being evidence of a deeper capitulation of the party to Stalinism and nationalism (Although by that time they had been expelled for "Trotskyism" and formed the PCInt). Third of all, the Russian question was a question which concerned the international workers movement anyway and should've been discussed internationally but instead Stalin supressed any such discussion.

[Scottish_Socialist]

If a unified British left party took power, and all of the the British isles remained a single nation under socialism, don't tell me that London would not remain the centre of power.

[Q]

If a unified British left party took power, and all of the the British isles remained a single nation under socialism, don't tell me that London would not remain the centre of power.

Why do you see England as a homogeneous whole? It isn't the English working class that is oppressing you, but the capitalist elite. Under socialism this would obviously change.

[Radek]

This is a tactical question, not one of principal. We can look back to Marx and see that he supported independence where he thought that it would advance the cause of socialism (eg. Poland), and opposed it where he thought that it wouldn't. Ultimately Lenin was the same, supporting the independence of colonies and dependencies so as to weaken European capitalism and spur on revolution. I think it's idealistic to discuss this in general one-size-fits-all Leninist terms of 'support self-determination, but oppose independence'.

From my brief experience (I'm active in the pro-independence Scottish left, but it's discussed very rarely) the talk of Scottish independence usually comes down to two things: anti-imperialism (breaking up the British state and withdrawing Scotland from its wars/nukes/etc), and the idea that there is a better chance for creating socialism in an independent Scotland in the future (anti-Tory, a more social democratic consciousness, a proportional electoral system, different interests, developed government is easier to influence, etc). There's also the hope that a socialist Scotland could act as a good example.

From a less ideological perspective, it also stemmed from a desire to move away from the London-centric attitude experienced in the past -- money was sent to London, the propaganda sent up was based on the experience in London, etc, etc -- and a view of the democratic deficit whereby Scotland gets run into the ground by right-wing governments that it didn't elect and has no power to remove.

Whether these things justify independence is a matter of debate, of course. Personally it isn't a big issue for me; but last I heard even the SWP were moving in the direction of being pro-independence.

On the subject of the SWP and the Scottish left more broadly, I see them about quite often, but never under the Solidarity banner. As far as I can tell Solidarity is more or less finished, and I'd expect them to fold pretty quickly if Tommy loses. Maybe then we can begin to move back towards a more unified left.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Wasn't it Stalin who was called the "Great Russian bully" by Lenin in one of his last works because of his position on the need for the Soviet Union as against the individual SSR's? I've never read too much into the detail but I'm pretty sure it was something similar.

Lenin wanted the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics uniting Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Transcaucasia. Stalin wanted an enlarged Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic encompassing the non-Russian territories. I'm with Stalin, and have some geography pics to prove it. :D

I called for local autonomy, "participatory budgeting," etc. in my programmatic work, but indeed autonomy isn't the same as the fuzzy term "self-determination," let alone the more concrete word sovereignty.