National Liberation

[synthesis]

This was sidetracking the discussion about the "Ground Zero Mosque," here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mosque-controversy-and-t140473/index6.html), but I thought it was a good conversation and deserves a thread of its own. It might be better placed in Theory, though - I'm not sure.


I have never been to Beverly Hills, but I would imagine that you are right and they don't. However, it doesn't mean that imperialism isn't a world system.

True, but some benefit from that system, and others suffer from it. If we have to pick a side, why not the latter?


I think that there was a point within the development of capitalism where 'independent' nations were possible in a way that is not today. Look at examples like the unification of Germany and Italy. I think upon capitalism reaching the limits of its geographic expansion, which left it with no new markets to conquer, we entered the period of imperialism and national 'independence' became an impossibility.

I would argue that there's a difference between "unification" nationalism and "liberation" nationalism. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that some nations are hegemonic and others are subjected to that hegemony.


Only the great powers are 'relatively sovereign'. Unless capitalism is overthrown removing one 'empire's vassals' doesn't weaken the global system as a whole, but merely changes the balance of power within in. Britain was once the major world power. Its decline did not weaken the imperialist system, but merely strengthened the US, which in turn became the new world power.

Good point. National liberation movements are obviously tangential to the socialist struggle; however, would you really say this means that they cannot make progressive achievements in and of themselves?

[Devrim]

True, but some benefit from that system, and others suffer from it. If we have to pick a side, why not the latter?

Who benefits from imperialism? I would say the bourgeoisie does throughout out the world. You seem very close here to dropping any sort of class analysis and saying that 'Americans' benefit from imperialism.


I would argue that there's a difference between "unification" nationalism and "liberation" nationalism. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that some nations are hegemonic and others are subjected to that hegemony.

This point was in reply to your question about why I said that 'national independence' was impossible today. The examples I gave are very different from the struggle in Palestine, for example, but not because they were 'unification nationalism' as opposed to 'liberation nationalism', but because they took place in an era when national liberation was possible.


Good point. National liberation movements are obviously tangential to the socialist struggle; however, would you really say this means that they cannot make progressive achievements in and of themselves?

What do you mean by 'progressive achievements'?

Devrim

[synthesis]

Who benefits from imperialism? I would say the bourgeoisie does throughout out the world. You seem very close here to dropping any sort of class analysis and saying that 'Americans' benefit from imperialism.

Bourgeois Americans benefit from imperialism. Your assertion that I'm "dropping class analysis" here seems dogmatic to me.


This point was in reply to your question about why I said that 'national independence' was impossible today. The examples I gave are very different from the struggle in Palestine, for example, but not because they were 'unification nationalism' as opposed to 'liberation nationalism', but because they took place in an era when national liberation was possible.

I still don't know if I get why you say this. You said it was because of "the limits of capitalism's geographic expansion," but I just don't understand 1. what you mean specifically and 2. why that matters.


What do you mean by 'progressive achievements'?

Directly improving the material conditions of oppressed people?

[Devrim]

Bourgeois Americans benefit from imperialism. Your assertion that I'm "dropping class analysis" here seems dogmatic to me.

But so does the bourgeoisie in Iran.


I still don't know if I get why you say this. You said it was because of "the limits of capitalism's geographic expansion," but I just don't understand 1. what you mean specifically and 2. why that matters.

Basically the big imperialist powers had gobbled up all of the areas out side of the capitalist market, and imperial expansion could only take place by taking something from other powers. The world was divided into spheres of interest by the big imperialist powers, and national liberation struggles, unable to obtain any meaningful 'liberation' had a tendency to became tools in this conflict.


Directly improving the material conditions of oppressed people?

How is this to happen though. States, which win national independence today, just transfer from the orbit of one power to another. Do you think that their new masters won't want to extract surplus value too? Do you think that the laws of the market will suddenly be suspended, and capitalists won't need to make profits?

Devrim

[Elizabeth Jones 18]

National liberation is a useless and class colaborationist series of nationalist kovements, where class colaboration is upheld, along with stupid things like, Brits out, or Yanks out, but, how would Ireland be any better than Britain if it became capitalist, or "democratic socialist"?

Capitalism is the problem, and if the USA invaded England and occupied us, I would not be calling for english workers to die for the sake of british independence, I would be crying for socialist revolution.

You cannot liberate a nation, only a workforce, and why would i care what rag is flying from a pole.

Socialism is the only thing that stops oppression.

Look at south Africas workers, they fought for national liberation, not socialism, and they might have achieved the end of aparthied, but they are still treatred like animals and serfs by the rich, while mandella lives in a huge house and drives expensive cars.

[synthesis]

But so does the bourgeoisie in Iran.

To the same degree?


Basically the big imperialist powers had gobbled up all of the areas out side of the capitalist market, and imperial expansion could only take place by taking something from other powers. The world was divided into spheres of interest by the big imperialist powers, and national liberation struggles, unable to obtain any meaningful 'liberation' had a tendency to became tools in this conflict.

What I suppose did not come across in my question is this: why is territory the most important factor in determining the capacity of nations for "true independence"?


How is this to happen though. States, which win national independence today, just transfer from the orbit of one power to another. Do you think that their new masters won't want to extract surplus value too? Do you think that the laws of the market will suddenly be suspended, and capitalists won't need to make profits?

:confused:

No, I don't. If a revolution is not the product of a socialist movement, it will not bring socialism. I didn't think that needed saying. It seems to me that people are better off under their own national bourgeoisie than under that of a foreign empire. They still live in capitalism, but not all conditions are born equal.

I agree with what you're saying, in a general sense. I do think it's telling, however, that all the people who thanked you (minus the troll) are anarchists, because I have the same criticism for this position that I do for theirs; that is, it's an "all-or-nothing" philosophy, one that denies the possibility or usefulness of progress that does not exactingly match their normative political perspectives.

[KC]

No, I don't. If a revolution is not the product of a socialist movement, it will not bring socialism. I didn't think that needed saying. It seems to me that people are better off under their own national bourgeoisie than under that of a foreign empire. They still live in capitalism, but not all conditions are born equal.

I agree with what you're saying, in a general sense. I do think it's telling, however, that all the people who thanked you (minus the troll) are anarchists, because I have the same criticism for this position that I do for theirs; that is, it's an "all-or-nothing" philosophy, one that denies the possibility or usefulness of progress that does not exactingly match their normative political perspectives.

Yet this argument is simple apologism for one's own nativist bourgeoisie, much in the same way that many "socialist" organizations who call for a "strategic vote" for the democrats end up becoming apologists on the basis that they are "better than" republicans. This is opportunism at its most blatant, and a complete rejection of revolutionary theory and principle.

This argument has led countless thousands of committed worker activists, revolutionaries and communists to their deaths. It is essentially a stageist analysis which states that first one must throw off the "imperialist oppressors" before one can work towards a revolutionary movement. This is absurd on its face.

[synthesis]

But I'm not apologizing for my own native bourgeoisie. The context of this debate was my defense of Islamic radicalism as a means of national liberation, and I'm from the United States. I thought "opportunism" meant that one has to be deriving some measure personal benefit from their opportunist position...?

I also don't think that imperialism must be overthrown prior to revolution. I think that overthrowing imperialism can improve people's material conditions. If it seems absurd, perhaps you are just having trouble making sense of it.

[Niccolò Rossi]

True, but some benefit from that system, and others suffer from it. If we have to pick a side, why not the latter?

We do pick a side - the international proletariat.

Nic.

[synthesis]

Quite the nuanced analysis you have there ;)


Bourgeois Americans benefit from imperialism. Your assertion that I'm "dropping class analysis" here seems dogmatic to me.

[Devrim]

To the same degree?

Obviously not, but then all of the American bourgeoisie doesn't benefit to the same degree. I don't think it really matters.

Different workers are exploited to different degrees, but it doesn't make them any less workers.


What I suppose did not come across in my question is this: why is territory the most important factor in determining the capacity of nations for "true independence"?

I don't understand your question here, sorry.


It seems to me that people are better off under their own national bourgeoisie than under that of a foreign empire. They still live in capitalism, but not all conditions are born equal.

Why are they better off? To choose a small obscure example French Guiana has the highest GDP in South America, and the unemployed are paid French unemployment money. Why would the native bourgeoisie exploit workers less?


I agree with what you're saying, in a general sense. I do think it's telling, however, that all the people who thanked you (minus the troll) are anarchists, because I have the same criticism for this position that I do for theirs; that is, it's an "all-or-nothing" philosophy, one that denies the possibility or usefulness of progress that does not exactingly match their normative political perspectives.

I have just had a look at who thanked me, and only three from six are anarchists. I think that the point is important though. There are no progressive factions of the bourgeoisie any more. I think that what you characterise as an all or nothing approach is actually an instance on class politics. I also think this phrase 'denies the possibility or usefulness of progress that does not exactingly match their normative political perspectives' is one that essential is used to defend support for bourgeois politics.


But I'm not apologizing for my own native bourgeoisie. The context of this debate was my defense of Islamic radicalism as a means of national liberation, and I'm from the United States. I thought "opportunism" meant that one has to be deriving some measure personal benefit from their opportunist position...?

Obviously you are not defending your own bourgeoisie. If a political organisation in a 'country oppressed by imperialism' were to follow your line though, they would.

Devrim

[AK]

Nationality is nothing but a claim (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1160). The concepts of nationality and nationhood are completely unscientific - various nations of people bare huge resemblance and share nearly the same DNA (especially today, when we are rarely prevented from mixing with other gene pools). We should not be waging wars of national liberation, rather, oppression of cultures and ethnicities is something that should be opposed and stopped during working-class revolution simply for what it is: an authoritarian and bigoted action of the upper class that serves only to divide the working class and secure the hegemony of the bourgeoisie. Workers belong to no nation, and since nations are such ambiguous concepts that depend purely on an individual's perception, it is impossible to unite on a national basis and have any major social effects simply on the basis of "national" action.

[synthesis]

Obviously not, but then all of the American bourgeoisie doesn't benefit to the same degree. I don't think it really matters.

Different workers are exploited to different degrees, but it doesn't make them any less workers.

It seems like you're saying that exploitation and oppression are wholly synonymous terms of analysis, and I just don't agree with that.


I don't understand your question here, sorry.

You said that national liberation is not possible because "capitalism has reached its geographical limits." It seems like you're not accounting for neo-colonialism in your analysis.


Why are they better off? To choose a small obscure example French Guiana has the highest GDP in South America, and the unemployed are paid French unemployment money. Why would the native bourgeoisie exploit workers less?Would you say that workers are better off under IMF-backed neo-colonial proxy governments, or under their own native bourgeoisie?


I have just had a look at who thanked me, and only three from six are anarchists. I think that the point is important though. There are no progressive factions of the bourgeoisie any more. I think that what you characterise as an all or nothing approach is actually an instance on class politics.

Again, I don't see how you can make such a categorical statement as "there are no progressive factions of the bourgeoisie any more." It seems like you're tying that in to the "geographic limits" argument.

Again, I think that the faction of a nation's bourgeoisie that supports social democracy is better for that nation's proletarians than that faction which supports laissez-faire, IMF-style free-for-all capitalism. It's not socialism, but it does improve people's material conditions.


I also think this phrase 'denies the possibility or usefulness of progress that does not exactingly match their normative political perspectives' is one that essential is used to defend support for bourgeois politics.I think that a socialist can support elements of bourgeois politics as long as they are not under the illusion that it will bring about socialism. To paraphrase Marx, reformist struggles can have revolutionary implications.

I don't agree with the democratic-socialist illusion that participation in bourgeois politics can create genuine socialism in and of itself. I also don't agree with the Leninist/Maoist illusion that national liberation can create socialism, either. I think there are battles and then there are wars. (Not sure if that expression exists in Turkey.)


Obviously you are not defending your own bourgeoisie. If a political organisation in a 'country oppressed by imperialism' were to follow your line though, they would.

It depends on what you are asserting my line to be.

[synthesis]

Nationality is nothing but a claim (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1160). The concepts of nationality and nationhood are completely unscientific - various nations of people bare huge resemblance and share nearly the same DNA (especially today, when we are rarely prevented from mixing with other gene pools). We should not be waging wars of national liberation, rather, oppression of cultures and ethnicities is something that should be opposed and stopped during working-class revolution simply for what it is: an authoritarian and bigoted action of the upper class that serves only to divide the working class and secure the hegemony of the bourgeoisie. Workers belong to no nation, and since nations are such ambiguous concepts that depend purely on an individual's perception, it is impossible to unite on a national basis and have any major social effects simply on the basis of "national" action.

Nationalism is as real as people make it out to be. I agree that nationality has no biological basis in and of itself, but people can be oppressed as a nation, if for no other reason than that they all live under the same government.

[Devrim]

It seems like you're saying that exploitation and oppression are wholly synonymous terms of analysis, and I just don't agree with that.

No, I don't think that they are. My point is just that the bourgeoisie as a class benefits from imperialism. The fact that some make more profits and thus benefit more in neither here nor there.


You said that national liberation is not possible because "capitalism has reached its geographical limits." It seems like you're not accounting for neo-colonialism in your analysis.

I don't think that neo-colonialism comes into the analysis as it is not expanding capitalism into new markets. Today capitalists can not create new markets, but merely take markets from other capitalists. It is a key aspect of the age of imperialism, and is a part of any Marxist theory of imperialism.


Would you say that workers are better off under IMF-backed neo-colonial proxy governments, or under their own native bourgeoisie?

What exactly is a 'neo-colonial proxy government'? Are there any governments outside of the 'first world' world who are [Edit: typo should read 'not'] in tow to the IMF. I think that the question doesn't make much sense as the difference between the two isn't at all clear. Surely in Iraq, which is probably one of the best examples of a 'neo-colonial proxy government', it is actually managed by the 'local bourgeoisie' to a certain extent.


Again, I don't see how you can make such a categorical statement as "there are no progressive factions of the bourgeoisie any more." It seems like you're tying that in to the "geographic limits" argument.

Yes, I am. One of the key results of the fact that capitalism can no longer expand into new markets is that it intensifies the crisis. which apart from the post war boom has been permanent for the last century now. Capitalism has nothing left to offer the working class.


Again, I think that the faction of a nation's bourgeoisie that supports social democracy is better for that nation's proletarians than that faction which supports laissez-faire, IMF-style free-for-all capitalism. It's not socialism, but it does improve people's material conditions.

Do you mean like the social democrats who are instituting the austerity measures in Greece? All political factions manage the economy, and are subject to the dictates of the economy. Social-Democracy attacks working class living standards just as 'laissez-faire, IMF-style free-for-all capitalism' does.


I think that a socialist can support elements of bourgeois politics as long as they are not under the illusion that it will bring about socialism. To paraphrase Marx, reformist struggles can have revolutionary implications.

Yet capitalism no longer has reforms to offer on the level of permanent increases in working class living standards. All that supporting different factions of the bourgeoisie does is choose between different austerity programmes.

Devrim

[Optiow]

National-liberation has changed since the years that have passed. The British, Russian and French empires have collapsed, along with many others. Most people are now 'liberated', to the extent that it is now their own elite who oppress them, instead of another countries one.

People need to focus on the fact that being 'liberated' is not in the sense of their lands being free from colonial empires, but liberated as in being free from oppressive bourgeois.

[synthesis]

No, I don't think that they are. My point is just that the bourgeoisie as a class benefits from imperialism. The fact that some make more profits and thus benefit more in neither here nor there.

Some bourgeois elements, with the help of their government, make more profits - by supporting military dictatorships, coups, paramilitary police states. But that's neither here nor there.


I don't think that neo-colonialism comes into the analysis as it is not expanding capitalism into new markets. Today capitalists can not create new markets, but merely take markets from other capitalists. It is a key aspect of the age of imperialism, and is a part of any Marxist theory of imperialism.

Where can I read more about this? I don't see how new markets cannot be created, either 1. through industrialization or 2. through establishing hegemony and then exploiting resources and labor markets which were not exploited beforehand, at least not to the same extent.

Even if new markets are indeed impossible to create - and I'm not sure I understand your definition of a "new market" - why does this mean that it is impossible to overthrow an especially oppressive manifestation of imperialism?


What exactly is a 'neo-colonial proxy government'?

Pinochet, Carlos Andres Perez, et al.


Are there any governments outside of the 'first world' world who are in tow to the IMF.

Seriously?


Surely in Iraq, which is probably one of the best examples of a 'neo-colonial proxy government', it is actually managed by the 'local bourgeoisie' to a certain extent.

No, objectively, Iraq is under military occupation, with assistance from an artificially created "local bourgeoisie." To me, that is a defining characteristic of colonialism, proper, not neo-colonialism. Do I really need to define "neo-colonialism" here?


Yes, I am. One of the key results of the fact that capitalism can no longer expand into new markets is that it intensifies the crisis. which apart from the post war boom has been permanent for the last century now. Capitalism has nothing left to offer the working class.

Sorry, to what specific crisis are you referring?


Do you mean like the social democrats who are instituting the austerity measures in Greece? All political factions manage the economy, and are subject to the dictates of the economy. Social-Democracy attacks working class living standards just as 'laissez-faire, IMF-style free-for-all capitalism' does.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't those austerity measures introduced as part of an IMF-backed "rescue package"? Again, c.f. Carlos Andres Perez, who originally supported "national liberation" then switched to IMF support for political purposes.


Yet capitalism no longer has reforms to offer on the level of permanent increases in working class living standards. All that supporting different factions of the bourgeoisie does is choose between different austerity programmes.

I know a lot of people in the U.S. who would like to have universal health care.

[Devrim]

Some bourgeois elements, with the help of their government, make more profits - by supporting military dictatorships, coups, paramilitary police states. But that's neither here nor there.

When the bourgeoisie needs to use those methods it does. When it needs to use democracy it does. Now in this country we have a democracy and haven't had a coup for over ten years, and not a major one for thirty. Certainly the period of military dictatorship after the 1980 coup was not as profitable for Turkish capitalism as was the period of civilian rule that followed it. I don't really see how this connects to the entire bourgeoisie, as a class, benefiting from imperialism.


Where can I read more about this?

Try this (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/decadence).


I don't see how new markets cannot be created, either 1. through industrialization or 2. through establishing hegemony and then exploiting resources and labor markets which were not exploited beforehand, at least not to the same extent.

Intensification of the rate of exploitation can happen, indeed it must to counter the falling rate of profit. It is not the same as creating new markets though as that can no longer be done as the whole world population, apart from a very few isolated tribes is now integrated into capitalism.


Even if new markets are indeed impossible to create - and I'm not sure I understand your definition of a "new market" - why does this mean that it is impossible to overthrow an especially oppressive manifestation of imperialism?

Outside of world communist revolution, the replacement of one manifestation of imperialism is another in all likelihood equally oppressive, and still just as concerned with extracting surplus value.


Seriously?

That was a typo, sorry. It was meant to say the opposite "...who are not in tow to the IMF?"


No, objectively, Iraq is under military occupation, with assistance from an artificially created "local bourgeoisie." To me, that is a defining characteristic of colonialism, proper, not neo-colonialism. Do I really need to define "neo-colonialism" here?

Yes, maybe you do, as I think it is a leftist/liberal buzzword which has no substance.


Sorry, to what specific crisis are you referring?

The permanent one with which with the exception of the '30 Golden Years' after world war two has been in existence, with peaks and troughs since the start of the last century.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't those austerity measures introduced as part of an IMF-backed "rescue package"?

Yes, but as I meant to say earlier, virtually every country in the world is a part of the IMF*, and almost all of the countries outside the first world are in hock to them. Why is this different from any other country?



Yet capitalism no longer has reforms to offer on the level of permanent increases in working class living standards. All that supporting different factions of the bourgeoisie does is choose between different austerity programmes. I know a lot of people in the U.S. who would like to have universal health care.

I would imagine that you do. The point is that it is not on offer. Neither of the two main bourgeois parties in America is offering anything even approaching it. More than that in the countries where there is universal health care, it is constantly under attack. The trend is in the opposite direction. Universal health care in the US is not on offer.

Devrim

*With the exception of Cuba (left in 1964), Taiwan (expelled in 1980), North Korea, Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Tuvalu and Nauru, all UN member states participate directly in the IMF

[~Spectre]

National Liberation struggles can be tools of Imperialist states, this is true. But to deny that certain outcomes in these struggles are preferable to others is tactically blind.

Outcomes that weaken the more oppressive states, help create working classes in areas that were previously unworkable, and expand the popularity of workers movements, are obviously preferable.

That isn't an endorsement of the incoming bourgeois, it's simply a lesser evil on the path to abolishing the exploitative system all together.

Similarly, someone brought up endorsing democrats over republicans. While obviously both parties by definition cannot have the interests of the working class in mind, it's simply idiotic to not concede that it is preferable in multiple ways to live under a bourgeoisie government less extreme than that of say, Bush the IInd term one.

[Devrim]

Outcomes that weaken the more oppressive states, help create working classes in areas that were previously unworkable, and expand the popularity of workers movements, are obviously preferable.


National liberation struggles weaken certain states and increase the power of their competitors. States are not Oppressive since they are bad, but because of the need to make profits. Capitalism is not expanding today and does not tend to create new working classes but myriads of slum dwellers. As for increasing the popularity of workers' movements, national liberation forces have more of a tendency to massacre them.

Devrim

[Ovi]

I agree with what you're saying, in a general sense. I do think it's telling, however, that all the people who thanked you (minus the troll) are anarchists, because I have the same criticism for this position that I do for theirs; that is, it's an "all-or-nothing" philosophy, one that denies the possibility or usefulness of progress that does not exactingly match their normative political perspectives.
I'm an anarchist and I don't oppose national liberation struggles per se. I do oppose those who rise simply out of nationalism. However, self determination is a core principle of anarchism and if the people of a nation wish to fight against foreign domination and even establish their own nation state, then be it. It's not about national liberation; you can't liberate a nation since it's an artificial construct, but only people. There are more forms of oppression other than wage slavery, such as institutionalized racism. People have the right to fight against any form of oppression and it would be very awkward for an anarchist to oppose that.

[bricolage]

Intensification of the rate of exploitation can happen, indeed it must to counter the falling rate of profit. It is not the same as creating new markets though as that can no longer be done as the whole world population, apart from a very few isolated tribes is now integrated into capitalism.
One thing that has always confused me here is the continued existence of primitive accumulation, or rather what David Harvey calls accumulation by dispossession, across many areas of the world, especially in Africa. If in this respect capitalism is still establishing private property relations in areas where the did not previous exist could it not be said to still be expanding? While I accept that if we take states as the unit of measurement then the whole world is integrated into capitalism what about if we looked beyond that to areas within, or across, states that are not integrated.

[Zanthorus]

I do oppose those who rise simply out of nationalism. However, self determination is a core principle of anarchism and if the people of a nation wish to fight against foreign domination and even establish their own nation state, then be it.

Yes, I have tried to tell the Maoists on this board in the past that the 'right of nations to self-determination' is anarchism through and through, and that any consistent Leninist (Which, unfortunately, did not include Lenin himself), would have to oppose this so-called principle.

Thankyou for confirming to us all that self-management is a poison for the working-class.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes, I have tried to tell the Maoists on this board in the past that the 'right of nations to self-determination' is anarchism through and through

but I thought that it was a principle derived from classical liberalism...

[Zanthorus]

One thing that has always confused me here is the continued existence of primitive accumulation, or rather what David Harvey calls accumulation by dispossession, across many areas of the world, especially in Africa. If in this respect capitalism is still establishing private property relations in areas where the did not previous exist could it not be said to still be expanding? While I accept that if we take states as the unit of measurement then the whole world is integrated into capitalism what about if we looked beyond that to areas within, or across, states that are not integrated.

tbh, I don't see the question of wether or not capitalism is still "expanding" as important. The ICC's theory of saturated markets is disproven by Marx's reproduction diagrams, which show the possibility of production for the sake of production (Meaning that capitalism can realise surplus-value within it's own boundaries). The saturated markets theory is flawed to begin with, as it relies on a Keynesian methodology of finding the crisis of capitalism in circulation rather than in production relations.


but I thought that it was a principle derived from classical liberalism...

Lots of anarchists have noted the influence of liberalism on anarchism...

I'm not necessarily saying that the right of nations to self-determination is a position held by anarchists, but you have to admit there are elements in the anarchist movement that have used the "anti-authority" stuff to support nationalism.

[Lyev]

Yes, I have tried to tell the Maoists on this board in the past that the 'right of nations to self-determination' is anarchism through and through, and that any consistent Leninist (Which, unfortunately, did not include Lenin himself), would have to oppose this so-called principle.

Thankyou for confirming to us all that self-management is a poison for the working-class.If Leninism isn't based in the writings and thought of Lenin, then what is it based in? What I mean, is how can one uphold a "Leninist" position that Lenin himself didn't uphold? Whatever the position is, call it what you want, but surely this is self-defeating; the "right of nations to self-determination" wasn't upheld by him so I am confused as to how it can be Leninist. Also, please could you elaborate on why you think "self management is a poison for the working-class"? Thanks comrade.

[Lyev]

As regards the general issue on a whole, I found this interesting (a little paragraph from a 2004 International Review article):
It is quite true that the war in Afghanistan is about the maintenance and reinforcement by America of its position as the world's only superpower. But this status is not determined by specific economic factors, like the control of oil, as the IBRP puts forward. It is rather dependent on geo-strategic questions, on the ability of the US to achieve a military supremacy in key areas of the world, and to prevent its rivals from seriously contesting its positions. Areas of the world like Afghanistan which proved their strategic worth to the imperialist powers long before oil became known as 'black gold'. It was not for oil that the 19th century British Raj twice sent armies into Afghanistan, and eventually succeeded in setting up a puppet ruler there. The importance of Afghanistan is not because it is a potential vehicle of an oil pipeline, but because it is at the geographical hub of the main imperialist powers of the Middle and Far East, and of South Asia, control of which will greatly increase US power not only in this region but in relation to the major European imperialisms.As I understand it, a Left-Communist etc. analysis of Afghanistan would be that, when some organisations place their support in the Taleban (or similarly with Hamas in Palestine) as a vehicle for nationally-based emancipation, this actually obfuscates class struggle and the end-goal of socialism. But on the other hand, I think other folks, like Maoists (?), may argue that socialism is not even on the agenda until an alliance with the national bourgeoisie in said country is made, thereby ridding the country of imperialist hegemony.

I also think that, especially in a situation as complicated and volatile as Afghanistan's, political campaigning from a socialist perspective would be incredibly difficult. On the other hand, perhaps not; I remember reading that a slogan used briefly (by the Second International perhaps) was something to the effect of "turn the national war into a revolutionary civil war". I don't know, I've not formed a concrete position on the issue yet.

[bricolage]

On the other hand, perhaps not; I remember reading that a slogan used briefly (by the Second International perhaps) was something to the effect of "turn the national war into a revolutionary civil war". I don't know, I've not formed a concrete position on the issue yet.
I believe it was Lenin who first said it;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s+w/ch01.htm

[Niccolò Rossi]

One thing that has always confused me here is the continued existence of primitive accumulation, or rather what David Harvey calls accumulation by dispossession, across many areas of the world, especially in Africa. If in this respect capitalism is still establishing private property relations in areas where the did not previous exist could it not be said to still be expanding? While I accept that if we take states as the unit of measurement then the whole world is integrated into capitalism what about if we looked beyond that to areas within, or across, states that are not integrated.

The advocates of the theory of the saturation of extra-capitalist markets (eg. the defenders of Luxemburg's analysis of economic crisis and imperialism) do not say that extra-capitalist markets do not cease to exist. Their line is that they are insufficient to realise the entire mass of surplus-value produced within the limits of the capitalist economy.

Nic.

[Ovi]

Yes, I have tried to tell the Maoists on this board in the past that the 'right of nations to self-determination' is anarchism through and through

I'm not talking simply about national self determination, as I've already stated. If a single community wishes to govern itself outside the influence of anyone else then let them do so. Self governing does not imply nationalism.

[Devrim]

tbh, I don't see the question of wether or not capitalism is still "expanding" as important. The ICC's theory of saturated markets is disproven by Marx's reproduction diagrams, which show the possibility of production for the sake of production (Meaning that capitalism can realise surplus-value within it's own boundaries). The saturated markets theory is flawed to begin with, as it relies on a Keynesian methodology of finding the crisis of capitalism in circulation rather than in production relations.

This is interesting, but a bit off topic. Why not start another thred?

Devrim

[Devrim]

I also think that, especially in a situation as complicated and volatile as Afghanistan's, political campaigning from a socialist perspective would be incredibly difficult. On the other hand, perhaps not; I remember reading that a slogan used briefly (by the Second International perhaps) was something to the effect of "turn the national war into a revolutionary civil war". I don't know, I've not formed a concrete position on the issue yet.

Afghanistan is a country with a tiny working class with about 80% of the labour force in agriculture. I imagine that it would be immensely difficult for socialists operating there.

That doesn't mean that there would be any advantage to dropping class politics and linking up with a gang supported by some foreign power or other.

Devrim

[revolution inaction]

I'm an anarchist and I don't oppose national liberation struggles per se. I do oppose those who rise simply out of nationalism. However, self determination is a core principle of anarchism and if the people of a nation wish to fight against foreign domination and even establish their own nation state, then be it.

Right and if people want to support political parties so be it, if the want scab let them, if they join the police thats there choice,, if they support fascism then thats there business, we can't be telling people what to do, or have any criticism whatsoever, that'd be like, authoritarian.

For fuck sake, since when did anarchism mean supporting the formation of states if people "want" them?! from your logic we'd support the government in countries with elections, after all the people voted for them.

if self determination means being ruled by people born in the same area as you then what the fuck has it to do with anarchism? i thought anarchism was about people taking direct control of there lives, but now its about having rulers from roughly the same region as your self. how the fuck could i have been so wrong?



It's not about national liberation; [d]you can't liberate a nation since it's an artificial construct, but only people.[/b] There are more forms of oppression other than wage slavery, such as institutionalized racism. People have the right to fight against any form of oppression and it would be very awkward for an anarchist to oppose that.

this directly contradicts the first part of you post


Yes, I have tried to tell the Maoists on this board in the past that the 'right of nations to self-determination' is anarchism through and through, and that any consistent Leninist (Which, unfortunately, did not include Lenin himself), would have to oppose this so-called principle.

Thankyou for confirming to us all that self-management is a poison for the working-class.

fuck off you wanker.

[Ovi]

Right and if people want to support political parties so be it, if the want scab let them, if they join the police thats there choice,, if they support fascism then thats there business, we can't be telling people what to do, or have any criticism whatsoever, that'd be like, authoritarian.

For fuck sake, since when did anarchism mean supporting the formation of states if people "want" them?! from your logic we'd support the government in countries with elections, after all the people voted for them.

if self determination means being ruled by people born in the same area as you then what the fuck has it to do with anarchism? i thought anarchism was about people taking direct control of there lives, but now its about having rulers from roughly the same region as your self. how the fuck could i have been so wrong?

So let's consider teh most evil empire evar, nazi Germany. If they would have won the war and some people from the occupied territory would have had the chance to break out of their oppression and establish their own state, would you have opposed that? It's pretty lame to use the nazis to make a point, but you get the idea. And no, I wouldn't have opposed them (assuming they weren't nazis too, lol)

[Zanthorus]

If Leninism isn't based in the writings and thought of Lenin, then what is it based in?

Perhaps Leninism was sort of a vague term, however generally 'Leninism' as a branch of Marxism is associated with the principle of centralism and discipline in organisation. For example, Lenin was against the existence of a seperate organisation in Russia specifically for Jewish workers. In terms of the state, Lenin also marks himself out in favour of a democratic yet centralised state in his famous work on the subject. Marx, of course, was also in favour of centralised organisation, but there are many people calling themselves 'Marxists' who reject such.


What I mean, is how can one uphold a "Leninist" position that Lenin himself didn't uphold?

Because there is an inconsistency, Lenin claimed to be for centralism, yet on the national question he maintained a very uncentralist position. Rosa Luxemburg's position is consistently centralist, without being chauvinist.


Also, please could you elaborate on why you think "self management is a poison for the working-class"? Thanks comrade.

Because capital is not a management structure. Emphasis on 'self-management' tends to lead people into seeing things like worker co-operatives as being 'progressive'.


I remember reading that a slogan used briefly (by the Second International perhaps) was something to the effect of "turn the national war into a revolutionary civil war". I don't know, I've not formed a concrete position on the issue yet.

It was "Turn the imperialist war into a civil war!", and it was the position of the RSDLP (Bolshevik) on the first world war:


The conversion of the present imperialist war into a civil war is the only correct proletarian slogan, one that follows from the experience of the Commune, and outlined in the Basle resolution (1912); it bas been dictated by all the conditions of an imperialist war between highly developed bourgeois countries. However difficult that transformation may seem at any given moment, socialists will never relinquish systematic, persistent and undeviating preparatory work in this direction now that war has become a fact.

It is only along this path that the proletariat will be able to shake off its dependence on the chauvinist bourgeoisie, and, in one form or another and more or less rapidly, take decisivo steps towards genuine freedom for the nations and towards socialism.http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/sep/28.htm

[zimmerwald1915]

So let's consider teh most evil empire evar, nazi Germany. If they would have won the war and some people from the occupied territory would have had the chance to break out of their oppression and establish their own state, would you have opposed that? It's pretty lame to use the nazis to make a point, but you get the idea. And no, I wouldn't have opposed them (assuming they weren't nazis too, lol)
Or, instead of rollicking about in this fantasy world of yours, we could look at what national liberation actually meant in the context of Nazi Europe. The Nazis, after all, weren't about simple empire-building, and did actively encourage nationalist movements when these were aligned with their own goals. As an example, let's take the situation of the Croats in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and the actions of the Nazi-aligned Croatian state after the invasion of that country.

Now, by all measures that nationalists like to use, the Croats were an oppressed nationality within the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. There was proportionally little representation for ethnic Croats in the councils of government, election districts were gerrymandered to create a preponderance of Serbs in the Parliament, there was little support given to schools using the latin script and the Croatian language, heck the existence of the Croatian language was systemically denied. So, understandably, there were some Croatian nationalists who supported the German "liberation" of their country. What did this liberation entail? The ruthless crushing of any resistance to the nationalist regime, especially a pre-emptive strike against any possible workers' resistence on a massive scale.

Now, let's look at the liberation of France by the Allied powers. Once again, we have a nationality that was subjected to another: French factories were producing for German needs, French land was the battleground chosen by the Nazis. Indeed, it fits your example more closely, as it was subjected to the "Nazi Empire" rather than being "liberated" by it. However, once again we have the same actions by the "liberators": military and police moves, particularly by the Allies' allies in the French Resistence, against any elements that might have compromised the "national" struggle by asserting class demands.

The real content of national liberation in Nazi Europe, by both sides of the war, (given the alignment of the Resistance, the Italian and Yugoslav Partisans, and other anti-fascist and nationalist groups with the Allied powers, one could reasonably assume that such alignment would continue even if Germany had been able to force an end to the formal war; after all, there was no way for Germany to actually invade and occupy the US or UK) entirely anti-working class. Its real content was thus entirely opposed to the real liberation of humanity.

[Zanthorus]

I'm not talking simply about national self determination, as I've already stated. If a single community wishes to govern itself outside the influence of anyone else then let them do so. Self governing does not imply nationalism.

I don't think you can uphold this position of the self-determination of communities and maintain a consistently anti-capitalist politics. The industrial development brought about by the bourgeois epoch, the creation of the world-market and the international division of labour has brought most communities of the world into contact with the world at large. The current world-system cannot be broken down into self-governing communities, in fact that would be a massive step backwards. They only way for them to interact economically without giving up their autonomy would be through the market.

We can illustrate with a tale borrowed from one of my favourite Marxist economists, Andrew Kliman. Imagine that community X makes honey and community Y makes honeypots. In general, the citizens of X are feeling go-getting this year, so they make five hundred gallons of honey. But Y were not feeling so enthusiastic so they only made enough honeypots for two hundred gallons.

The example is obviously absurd, but the principle it demonstrates is, I believe, sound. A consistent anti-capitalist would have to advocate the subordination of the interests of each community to a common plan.

[revolution inaction]

So let's consider teh most evil empire evar, nazi Germany. If they would have won the war and some people from the occupied territory would have had the chance to break out of their oppression and establish their own state, would you have opposed that? It's pretty lame to use the nazis to make a point, but you get the idea. And no, I wouldn't have opposed them (assuming they weren't nazis too, lol)

I would oppose them establishing a state, if there was a anarchist movement with enough members to make a difference it would be fucking stupid to put there efforts into supporting a new state (which would shot them just hte same in event of revolution) it would make much more sense to organise/fight for an anarchist revolution throughout the nazi territories.

[Ovi]

We can illustrate with a tale borrowed from one of my favourite Marxist economists, Andrew Kliman. Imagine that community X makes honey and community Y makes honeypots. In general, the citizens of X are feeling go-getting this year, so they make five hundred gallons of honey. But Y were not feeling so enthusiastic so they only made enough honeypots for two hundred gallons.

The example is obviously absurd, but the principle it demonstrates is, I believe, sound. A consistent anti-capitalist would have to advocate the subordination of the interests of each community to a common plan.
I don't see how that requires subordination of Y to someone else. It's a matter of organizing. They agree on making so many pots and split the production among the producers the way they see fit. Forcing certain workers to work more to fulfill someone else's plan doesn't seem like a solution to me.

I would oppose them establishing a state, if there was a anarchist movement with enough members to make a difference it would be fucking stupid to put there efforts into supporting a new state (which would shot them just hte same in event of revolution) it would make much more sense to organise/fight for an anarchist revolution throughout the nazi territories.
What if there isn't any anarchist movement at all?

[lyng]

I think it's kind of like reform or revolution. Reform is just the regulation of exploitation, never a threat to exploitation. But sometimes regulation or not may be essential for the existence of the working class/proletariat/people, ultimately even our physical survival. The same with national liberation, it may be the necessary strategy against a barbarous oppressor. There are no shortcuts for a concrete analysis of every situation

[zimmerwald1915]

I don't see how that requires subordination of Y to someone else. It's a matter of organizing. They agree on making so many pots and split the production among the producers the way they see fit. Forcing certain workers to work more to fulfill someone else's plan doesn't seem like a solution to me.
I don't think that the concept of an economic plan necessarily implies the principle of heirarchy of one group to another, or of both groups to a third, just as the concept of a free market doesn't necessarily imply equality of power between buyers and sellers.


What if there isn't any anarchist movement at all?
Then we've travelled to an alternate universe where not only the Nazis have won, but where the point of divergence from our reality was somewhere back in the 1840s. Try harder.

[revolution inaction]

I don't see how that requires subordination of Y to someone else. It's a matter of organizing. They agree on making so many pots and split the production among the producers the way they see fit. Forcing certain workers to work more to fulfill someone else's plan doesn't seem like a solution to me.

What if there isn't any anarchist movement at all?

then whatever we do really makes no difference

[Ovi]

I don't think that the concept of an economic plan necessarily implies the principle of heirarchy of one group to another

And who said it does?


Then we've travelled to an alternate universe where not only the Nazis have won, but where the point of divergence from our reality was somewhere back in the 1840s. Try harder.
Yes, because anarchists have defeated the nazis and established a free society in the whole of Europe. Thus, any opposition to the nazis outside of anarchism would have been highly counter productive thus we should oppose anyone who opposes the nazis and is not an anarchist, no matter what :rolleyes:

[Zanthorus]

Yes, because anarchists have defeated the nazis and established a free society in the whole of Europe. Thus, any opposition to the nazis outside of anarchism would have been highly counter productive thus we should oppose anyone who opposes the nazis and is not an anarchist, no matter what :rolleyes:

Now we're getting somewhere. Only expand 'anarchists' out into 'Revolutionary Internationalists'.

[zimmerwald1915]

And who said it does?
Um...you, in the post I quoted and responded to?


Forcing certain workers to work more to fulfill someone else's plan doesn't seem like a solution to me.


Yes, because anarchists have defeated the nazis and established a free society in the whole of Europe. Thus, any opposition to the nazis outside of anarchism would have been highly counter productive thus we should oppose anyone who opposes the nazis and is not an anarchist, no matter what :rolleyes:
What the heck are you talking about? You assumed a situation where no anarchist movement existed. In order to get that situation, you have to prevent anarchism from developing, or crush it so completely that it had no chance of developing in response to events, and certainly no chance of effecting them. The latter the Nazis, despite twelve years of trying very hard, never accomplished, and there's no reasonable way to assume that they would have succeeded if simply given more time. Basically, your hypothetical could not have existed, and thus any hypothetical responses within that paragdim are entirely irrelevant.

Of course, neither do we live in a world where anarchists have "established a free society in the whole of Europe". But we don't live in a world with a victorious Nazi Empire either. One hypothetical is just as useless as the other.

[Ovi]

Now we're getting somewhere. Only expand 'anarchists' out into 'Revolutionary Internationalists'.
Because the invasion by the USSR of eastern europe is an act of revolutionary internationalists and socialism in eastern europe was created by worker revolutions.

[zimmerwald1915]

Because the invasion by the USSR of eastern europe is an act of revolutionary internationalists and socialism in eastern europe was created by worker revolutions.
Now you're raving. Zanthorus doesn't believe that and you'd be hard-pressed to find a left-communist who does. If I were a betting man and had a credit card and paypal account, I'd stake money on it.

[Ovi]

Um...you, in the post I quoted and responded to?

I'm not the one who assumes economic planning means you have to use force to make people abide by it.


What the heck are you talking about? You assumed a situation where no anarchist movement existed. In order to get that situation, you have to prevent anarchism from developing, or crush it so completely that it had no chance of developing in response to events, and certainly no chance of effecting them. The latter the Nazis, despite twelve years of trying very hard, never accomplished, and there's no reasonable way to assume that they would have succeeded if simply given more time.
The whole point was than we should not support any opposition to the nazis if they're not anarchists, because that would mean we would fight against the free society that anarchists will create otherwise. That's false.

[Ovi]

Now you're raving. Zanthorus doesn't believe that and you'd be hard-pressed to find a left-communist who does. If I were a betting man and had a credit card and paypal account, I'd stake money on it.
The way I understood it, Zanthorus agrees that revolutionary internationalists defeated the nazis. Maybe I got it wrong

[Zanthorus]

Because the invasion by the USSR of eastern europe is an act of revolutionary internationalists and socialism in eastern europe was created by worker revolutions.

I don't believe either of those things. Nice try though.


The way I understood it, Zanthorus agrees that revolutionary internationalists defeated the nazis. Maybe I got it wrong

I was trying to say that any opposition to the Nazi's outside of revolutionary internationalists would have been, and was, counter-productive. Fascism springs naturally from the ground of bourgeois-democracy, and can only be destroyed as a movement by destroying the capital-state regime it acts to uphold.

[Lyev]

I might sound like a ranting Maoist or something here (I mean when they shout "well where are your revolutions then!?"), but have Left-Communists tactics regarding national liberation ever been applied successfully? In the Left-Communist usergroup devoration1 said the "alternative is for communist revolutionaries to keep a clear class line (correct interpretation of current events), agitate against the war, support revolutionary defeatism and to intervene in the struggles of workers." Also, how does one justify the belief that the USSR was imperialist? I assume this is the presumption, as regards a case like Vietnam. Here's what the zimmerwald1915 said:
Left communists reject the distinction between imperialist and oppressed nations not because some nations clearly win and because some nations clearly lose in the imperialist game, but because all nations have no choice but to play. Even if the part they play is puppet or toady to some stronger power, these nations are part of the imperial system. "National liberation" has never managed to remove a nation from the imperial system. All it has ever achieved is moving a nation from one imperialist camp to another. You bring up the Vietnamese national liberation struggle. Essentially all that was accomplished was the absorption of the American-aligned South Vietnam by the Russian-aligned North Vietnam, which was then strong enough to act as the Russian proxy in the region (propping up pro-Russian governments in Laos and Cambodia, warring with American-aligned China and disputing the Spratley Islands IIRC with that country). There was no liberation for the working class of Vietnam, who were then and are today some of the most exploited on the planet.And to those who uphold national liberation, can you cite or argue an example where struggle for national-based emancipation [which necessarily entails class-collaborationism(?)] has actually liberated the native people of a country or region? I am not asking these questions to deliberately be contentious or sectarian, I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit so I can work out my position on the issue.

[zimmerwald1915]

I'm not the one who assumes economic planning means you have to use force to make people abide by it.
Except that you said that economic planning implies force used by the planners.


The whole point was than we should not support any opposition to the nazis if they're not anarchists, because that would mean we would fight against the free society that anarchists will create otherwise. That's false.
But the counterargument, to which you have not responded, is that any conceivable nationalist "alternative" to Nazi rule, either Nazi puppet governments, Allied governments in exile, or Soviet satellites would be just as objectively anti-worker, and quite repressive of revolutionaries. Why should we, therefore, support one over the other, particularly when it is so important to keep alive propaganda for workers' revolution?


The way I understood it, Zanthorus agrees that revolutionary internationalists defeated the nazis. Maybe I got it wrong
Pretty sure he meant "we should oppose anyone who opposes the nazis and is not [a revolutionary internationalist], no matter what". Thus leading to the conclusion "we should oppose the Allied and Russian imperialisms to the same extent we do the German imperialism, and with the same proposed alternative: international workers' revolution".

[Ovi]

I was trying to say that any opposition to the Nazi's outside of revolutionary internationalists would have been, and was, counter-productive. Fascism springs naturally from the ground of bourgeois-democracy, and can only be destroyed as a movement by destroying the capital-state regime it acts to uphold.
That's a good point, but does that mean you would have opposed the USSR or US actions against the nazis because they're not socialist?

[Palingenisis]

I was trying to say that any opposition to the Nazi's outside of revolutionary internationalists would have been, and was, counter-productive. Fascism springs naturally from the ground of bourgeois-democracy, and can only be destroyed as a movement by destroying the capital-state regime it acts to uphold.

In that fascism arises "naturally" out of the contradictions in capitalism yes...But otherwise no....This reminds me of an argument I had on this forum with a revolutionary nationalist about whether the PSNI were the same as the RUC....Qualitively they might be, but quantively no...And the quantive differences between fascism and capitalist democracy make HUGE differences to people's lives. I live in probably the most repressive state in western Europe (we have internment on the Police's "hunch" here)....But its far from being the Third Reich.

[Ovi]

Except that you said that economic planning implies force used by the planners.

Um, no. Zanthorus stated that a community would need to subordinate itself towards others for economic planning to work. I said that it's not necessary.


But the counterargument, to which you have not responded, is that any conceivable nationalist "alternative" to Nazi rule, either Nazi puppet governments, Allied governments in exile, or Soviet satellites would be just as objectively anti-worker, and quite repressive of revolutionaries. Why should we, therefore, support one over the other, particularly when it is so important to keep alive propaganda for workers' revolution?

Nope, I never said that. I already stated that I don't support national liberation that simply rise out of nationalism, nor any such struggle if it fails to end the oppression that it fights against, such as institutionalized racism.


Pretty sure he meant "we should oppose anyone who opposes the nazis and is not [a revolutionary internationalist], no matter what". Thus leading to the conclusion "we should oppose the Allied and Russian imperialisms to the same extent we do the German imperialism, and with the same proposed alternative: international workers' revolution".
I never really understood what the heck left communists are. Leninists bash them, and they're anything but anarchists.

[zimmerwald1915]

I might sound like a ranting Maoist or something here (I mean when they shout "well where are your revolutions then!?"), but have Left-Communists tactics regarding national liberation ever been applied successfully? In the Left-Communist usergroup devoration1 said the "alternative is for communist revolutionaries to keep a clear class line (correct interpretation of current events), agitate against the war, support revolutionary defeatism and to intervene in the struggles of workers."

Also, how does one justify the belief that the USSR was imperialist? I assume this is the presumption, as regards a case like Vietnam.
It's nice to be quoted :)

I'm not sure what you mean by your first question. That line of action has been applied whenever left communist organizations have been faced with a war since there have been left communist organizations, as such, in wartime. If you mean "successfully" as in "with the outcome of actually formenting a workers' revolution", then it has never been applied "successfully". Then again, choosing sides in imperialist conflicts has never helped the Stalinists or Trotskyists successfully forment a workers' revolution either.

As for the USSR, the analysis of its imperialist status comes from the analysis of the counter-revolution that took place there. That counter-revolution necessarily implies the rolling back of workers' power and the imposition of capitalism. It comes further from its behavior as a typical "great power" in the thirties and forties, behavior which is expected from capitalist and imperialist states jockeying for international position (and of course from its actions thereafter, but I'm talking about the origins of the analysis here).

[Zanthorus]

That's a good point, but does that mean you would have opposed the USSR or US actions against the nazis because they're not socialist?

Not necessarily opposed, I would not have given support and advocated the maintanence of proletarian class autonomy from these efforts. I would also have continued to advocate the overthrow of both regimes.


In that fascism arises "naturally" out of the contradictions in capitalism yes...But otherwise no....This reminds me of an argument I had on this forum with a revolutionary nationalist about whether the PSNI were the same as the RUC....Qualitively they might be, but quantively no...And the quantive differences between fascism and capitalist democracy make HUGE differences to people's lives. I live in probably the most repressive state in western Europe (we have internment on the Police's "hunch" here)....But its far from being the Third Reich.

Yes, I recognise that it's probably a lot worse to live under a Fascist regime than a bog-standard liberal democracy, even though the latter are still fairly opressive. The point is that Fascism as a movement cannot be defeated without overthrowing capitalism, and advocating the dissolution of working-class autonomy from the bourgeois-state regime in the name of defending the nation and/or waging and imperialist war has serious effects on the ability of communist militants to win the class over to their positions.


I never really understood what the heck left communists are. Leninists bash them, and they're anything but anarchists.

Left-Communism is the movement that grew out of the left-wing of the Communist International which broke with the Comintern line before Trotskyism. We oppose participation in parliamentary elections, joining in with 'united fronts', 'anti-fascist people's fronts' etc, reject the idea of trade unions as being potential revolutionary organs, oppose the subjection of the proletariat to various nationalist movements and so on.

[zimmerwald1915]

Um, no. Zanthorus stated that a community would need to subordinate itself towards others for economic planning to work. I said that it's not necessary.
No he didn't. He said that totally independent decision-making by communities (or individuals, or workplaces, or what have you) is antithetical to economic planning. However, the alternative could be consultation and consensus just as easily as it could be strict subordination to a third body. Economic planning does not necesarily imply subordination. Looks like we agree.


Nope, I never said that. I already stated that I don't support national liberation that simply rise out of nationalism, nor any such struggle if it fails to end the oppression that it fights against, such as institutionalized racism.
But national liberation unaffiliated with any other power, and indeed outside the imperial system of states, does not and cannot exist. National liberation has always failed and must fail to address "the oppression that it fights against", because it cannot situate itself outside capitalist society.


I never really understood what the heck left communists are. Leninists bash them, and they're anything but anarchists.
We're sentient slime molds.

[Lyev]

It's nice to be quoted :)

I'm not sure what you mean by your first question. That line of action has been applied whenever left communist organizations have been faced with a war since there have been left communist organizations, as such, in wartime. If you mean "successfully" as in "with the outcome of actually formenting a workers' revolution", then it has never been applied "successfully". Then again, choosing sides in imperialist conflicts has never helped the Stalinists or Trotskyists successfully forment a workers' revolution either.

As for the USSR, the analysis of its imperialist status comes from the analysis of the counter-revolution that took place there. That counter-revolution necessarily implies the rolling back of workers' power and the imposition of capitalism. It comes further from its behavior as a typical "great power" in the thirties and forties, behavior which is expected from capitalist and imperialist states jockeying for international position (and of course from its actions thereafter, but I'm talking about the origins of the analysis here).Sorry, it wasn't worded very well. Ignore the silly bit at the start about Maoists. My criteria for success was rather ambiguous. but I think you answered it sufficiently. But, to elaborate, were there ever any left communists in Vietnam, Algeria etc.? (Obviously taking into account even if they did have a presence there, they most likely would have been suppressed, as Trotskyists were). Also, are there any left communists present in Palestine or Israel etc.? And I suppose most (if not all) left communist uphold Lenin's concept of revolutionary defeatism (whilst also asserting that every modern war is also imperialist).

[zimmerwald1915]

Sorry, it wasn't worded very well. Ignore the silly bit at the start about Maoists. My criteria for success was rather ambiguous. but I think you answered it sufficiently. But, to elaborate, were there ever any left communists in Vietnam, Algeria etc.? (Obviously taking into account even if they did have a presence there, they most likely would have been suppressed, as Trotskyists were).
I can't think of any. Honestly, I would be surprised if there were left communist organizations active in Vietnam (slightly less so in Algeria), and I'm not well enough informed to talk about the positions of individuals. I agree that any that may or may not have existed would probably have been the target of repression.


Also, are there any left communists present in Palestine or Israel etc.? And I suppose most (if not all) left communist uphold Lenin's concept of revolutionary defeatism (whilst also asserting that every modern war is also imperialist).
I can't think of any. I have heard of Iranian (not sure whether they're exile or in-country) left communists, for what it's worth. And obviously there's left communists in imperialist Turkey.

[Ovi]

No he didn't. He said that totally independent decision-making by communities (or individuals, or workplaces, or what have you) is antithetical to economic planning. However, the alternative could be consultation and consensus just as easily as it could be strict subordination to a third body. Economic planning does not necesarily imply subordination. Looks like we agree.

The alternative according to Zanthorus's post was not consultation


The example is obviously absurd, but the principle it demonstrates is, I believe, sound. A consistent anti-capitalist would have to advocate the subordination of the interests of each community to a common plan.
And I said

I don't see how that requires subordination of Y to someone else. It's a matter of organizing. They agree on making so many pots and split the production among the producers the way they see fit. Forcing certain workers to work more to fulfill someone else's plan doesn't seem like a solution to me.What exactly from what I said you don't agree with?


We're sentient slime molds.
Now that makes sense. Finally.
While so many revolutionary socialists oppose any sort of fight for independence no matter what simply because it doesn't bring about socialism, I wonder how many such socialists will refuse to vote on California's Proposition 19 for being a reform :D.

[zimmerwald1915]

The alternative according to Zanthorus's post was not consultation
Subordination to a plan is not subordination to a third group. What is in question is the plan's origin: whether in consultion and consensus of the two communities in question ("we're going to produce x ounces of honey and 2x half-ounce honeypots") or in the minds of a third ("you're going to produce x ounces of honey and you're going to produce 2x half-ounce honeypots"). Zanthorus' post gave no indication either way. What it said was that, the plan having come into existence, it would be followed.

[Zanthorus]

I do enjoy reading this hair-splitting discussion on what I said, now I know how Marx would feel if he was alive today :D

[zimmerwald1915]

I do enjoy reading this hair-splitting discussion on what I said, now I know how Marx would feel if he was alive today :D
Happy to flatter. Or derail, as the case may be. :)

[Devrim]

But, to elaborate, were there ever any left communists in Vietnam, Algeria etc.? (Obviously taking into account even if they did have a presence there, they most likely would have been suppressed, as Trotskyists were). Also, are there any left communists present in Palestine or Israel etc.?

The ICC has sections in (non European ones in bold) France, Great Britain, Mexico, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Venezuela, Brazil, Sweden, India, Italy, USA, Switzerland, Philippines and Turkey.

The ICT has sections in Italy, UK, France, Germany, and North America.

The ICP which was once the biggest left communist organisation but fell apart in 1982 had section amongst other places in Algeria and Lebanon.

There are also left communist groups not attached to any of these organisations in many Latin American countries, South Korea, and some Eastern European countries.


And I suppose most (if not all) left communist uphold Lenin's concept of revolutionary defeatism (whilst also asserting that every modern war is also imperialist).

Yes, it would be all of them.

Devrim

[Ovi]

Subordination to a plan is not subordination to a third group. What is in question is the plan's origin: whether in consultion and consensus of the two communities in question ("we're going to produce x ounces of honey and 2x half-ounce honeypots") or in the minds of a third ("you're going to produce x ounces of honey and you're going to produce 2x half-ounce honeypots"). Zanthorus' post gave no indication either way. What it said was that, the plan having come into existence, it would be followed.
Ok. Let's go back further

If a single community wishes to govern itself outside the influence of anyone else then let them do so.I assume this community has plans of its own.

A consistent anti-capitalist would have to advocate the subordination of the interests of each community to a common plan.This was the response. Obviously, there can't be consensus as you say if the community in cause doesn't agree.

[Devrim]

While so many revolutionary socialists oppose any sort of fight for independence no matter what simply because it doesn't bring about socialism, I wonder how many such socialists will refuse to vote on California's Proposition 19 for being a reform :D.

We would.

Devrim

[zimmerwald1915]

I assume this community has plans of its own.

This was the response. Obviously, there can't be consensus as you say if the community in cause doesn't agree.
Why does it have plans of its own? Does it consider itself an island of socialism in a sea of capitalism? Does it want to separate itself on national grounds? "Everybody should be free to do what they wish" is an inadequate response to the situation, and only seems adequate because the situation posited is so vague as to be meaningless.

[Ovi]

Why does it have plans of its own? Does it consider itself an island of socialism in a sea of capitalism? Does it want to separate itself on national grounds? "Everybody should be free to do what they wish" is an inadequate response to the situation, and only seems adequate because the situation posited is so vague as to be meaningless.
And who's going to decide if they are allowed to do so or not?

[Palingenisis]

Yes, I recognise that it's probably a lot worse to live under a Fascist regime than a bog-standard liberal democracy, even though the latter are still fairly opressive. The point is that Fascism as a movement cannot be defeated without overthrowing capitalism, and advocating the dissolution of working-class autonomy from the bourgeois-state regime in the name of defending the nation and/or waging and imperialist war has serious effects on the ability of communist militants to win the class over to their positions..

Im going to start a thread soon about why the Communist Parties in France and Italy didnt press on after the defeat of Hitlerism to impose socialism...Never the less under conditions of Imperialist aggression and/or fascism it only makes tactical sense to unite as many forces behind you in battles that if lost could very well lead to annihilation...Forms of capitalism quantively differ greatly and those quantive differences have huge effects on working people's lifes.

[zimmerwald1915]

And who's going to decide if they are allowed to do so or not?
Refusing to clarify the situation is not going to make it any easier to propose a possible solution. Of course, this is another hypthetical, subject to all their attendant faults.