The Vegan Marxist
17th November 2010, 00:57
“A nation has the right to arrange its life on autonomous lines. It even has the right to secede. But this does not mean that it should do so under all circumstances, that autonomy, or separation, will everywhere and always be advantageous for a nation, i.e., for its majority, i.e., for the toiling strata. The Transcaucasian Tatars as a nation may assemble, let us say, in their Diet and, succumbing to the influence of their beys and mullahs, decide to restore the old order of things and to secede from the state. According to the meaning of the clause on self-determination they are fully entitled to do so. But will this be in the interest of the toiling strata of the Tatar nation? Can Social-Democracy look on in differently when the beys and mullahs assume the leadership of the masses in the solution of the national question?” ~J. V. Stalin
This is a continuation to a past article of mine, Anti-Imperialism: Beyond the Contradictions (http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/anti-imperialism-beyond-the-contradictions/), in order to further implement a better understanding on anti-imperialism today, and what we, as Marxist-Leninists, should do during such time periods.
As shown above, Comrade Joseph Stalin gave out an interesting, but also important critique on the right to self-determination. The overall point in his critique was to try and point out the differences in options, as conclusions to said self-determination, to determine which are in the need of support and which are in the need of criticism.
During the present time, the most important struggle against imperialism today is that of Afghanistan. Many contradictions are being played out during this struggle. In which are in a need of better analyzing said contradictions in order to categorize them on the level of importance throughout each condition. For the time being, I find it to be important to first determine the primary antagonism in order to differentiate the level of importance between the said primary with secondary antagonisms.
The primary antagonism today is that of imperialism – countries seeking self-autonomy against those seeking puppet-rule on the interest of themselves. The secondary antagonism would be that of the working class seeking proletarian rule against the Bourgeois State. As I explained in my earlier article on anti-imperialism, our primary concern should be that of imperialism and each nation’s right to self-determination. Only then should we proceed further on waging an internal revolution towards Socialism. Does this mean that it’s impossible to wage a successful Socialist revolution while under the foreign intervention by imperialist aggressors? No, not exactly, but it’s best to protect the interests of the working class by first eliminating the primary oppressors.
Of course, Comrade Stalin spoke clearly on the possibility of secession and/or autonomy not being the best of choices to seek during certain conditions:
“In the middle of the nineteenth century Marx was in favour of the secession of Russian Poland; and he was right, for it was then a question of emancipating a higher culture from a lower culture that was destroying it. And the question at that time was not only a theoretical one, an academic question, but a practical one, a question of actual reality. . . .
“At the end of the nineteenth century the Polish Marxists were already declaring against the secession of Poland; and they too were right, for during the fifty years that had elapsed profound changes had taken place, bringing Russia and Poland closer economically and culturally. Moreover, during that period the question of secession had been converted from a practical matter into a matter of academic dispute, which excited nobody except perhaps intellectuals abroad.”1
What we have here are the disputes on whether or not secession is under the matter of interests to those of the majority, or if more harm will come about from it instead. In which, using Poland secession as an example, Stalin points out that the economic connection between Poland and Russia was of more importance than to dismantle such a connection. In which, if secession was to be implemented, it would’ve created another foreign antagonism that the Polish Marxists would need to deal with.
Stalin continues by stating:
“The solution of the national question is possible only in connection with the historical conditions taken in their development.
“The economic, political and cultural conditions of a given nation constitute the only key to the question how a particular nation ought to arrange its life and what forms its future constitution ought to take. It is possible that a specific solution of the question will be required for each nation. If the dialectical approach to a question is required anywhere it is required here, in the national question.”2
I find this to be a very important passage by Stalin, for it develops the necessity for each country to determine what dialectical approach one will pursue after anti-imperialist liberation.
Of course, there’s a difference between self-determination and self-autonomy/secession. Self-determination is merely the acts of determining how to move forward. Whether it be through autonomy, secession, or revolution. Understand that anti-imperialists call for the wars to end; for all foreign invaders to leave. This, of course, leads us at a victory against imperialism. On the other hand, whether or not a puppet-government was formed is needing to be asked as well, because this will ultimately effect the process for those residing in the now liberated country in determining which path to pursue.
Let’s take Afghanistan for example. Currently, there’s a US-funded puppet-government being led by President Hamid Karzai. Foreign invasion is still very real in Afghanistan by Western imperialists. So the need for them to leave is, of course, our primary concern for the time being. Problem is that this cannot happen peacefully. Anti-imperialism is not just a pacifist cause, it is also a very violent cause against those who first brought violence to Afghanistan. With the Taliban being the most powerful anti-imperialists who reside within Afghanistan, they are a direct threat to the US’ foreign interests. So it’s no surprise in seeing everyday on the news about the US, with the help of the Afghan military, cracking down on Taliban militants.
With imperialism being a growing threat, there’s a necessity in supporting the Taliban against said imperialism. I was having a chat with a comrade of mine about this particular topic, and he thought it was best that we support those resisting the occupation, but not the Taliban. Of course, I pointed out that this would be rather difficult, given that those resisting the occupation are, in fact, siding with the Taliban as they continue to wage war against the Western aggressors. This support to the Taliban by the Afghani people come in all different sorts; such as giving aid, shelter, food, and other times militant solidarity.
My comrade then states that it was then our duty to make sure the Taliban was no longer the popular militants of Afghanistan. The problem with this notion is that it gives indirect support towards the imperialists. If we were to dismantle the most powerful anti-imperialist army in Afghanistan, then it would be only a matter of time until complete imperial control over Afghanistan succeeds. Therefore, we must show our support in the Taliban’s struggle against imperialism, whether we agree with their politics or not.
Now, whether or not those resisting wants the Taliban to gain power, or rather let the current puppet-government remain for the time being, is solely up to them. Those of us resisting imperialism from within the imperial nations, we are to make sure the imperial aggressors are to leave. What those who are now liberated do next is, again, solely up to them.
Though, it’s best to understand that whether or not the Taliban come to power again is not a matter of higher importance to worry over than that of the Western aggressors to remain in power. Fact of the matter is that, in areas where the Taliban have shadow governance over, there’s signs of economic improvements over those areas where the US have “liberated” them from the Taliban. Where the invaders see success, those invaded see a catastrophe. I say this because, recently, it was announced that the US had led a successful campaign in Arghandab Valley by eliminating a major portion of threat by the Taliban, in conclusion creating a more secure area:
““Arghandab is in a much better state than it was just six weeks ago,” said British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, commander of all troops in the coalition’s Regional Command – South, which includes Arghandab district in Kandahar province.
“Carter said the military operation was complimented by a focus on strengthening the local governing capacity of the Arghandab district. He said the district governor and a new police chief are more representative of the Arghandab’s tribal make-up and are proving successful at attempts to reach out to the district’s inhabitants in an effort to improve security.
““When you combine that with the need to conduct one or two clearing operations that took place over the last two calendar weeks, what you find in Arghandab is a more positive environment,” he said.”3
Of course, all this really brings about is an area with tighter security by the Western aggressors, furthering any chance in self-determination. Economic stability is then replaced for security, leaving these areas far worse than it was before. The US may see this campaign as a success, in which it is towards their own interests, but those who actually live in these “liberated” areas see things a bit more differently.4
The anti-imperialist cause holds all these structures of questions, contradictions, and conditions. So it’s best if we analyze wisely in order to make the best decisions in moving forward. Anti-imperialists will of course differentiate between those of the imperialist nation and those who are being invaded by the aggressors. Those who reside in the country being invaded, it is up to them on what path they take. For those of us who reside inside the belly of the beast, it is up to us to fundamentally oppose all acts of imperialist aggression – in contradiction, support all nation’s right to self-determination. This is what we, Marxist-Leninists, must do for the time being.
Red Love & Salutes!
1. Stalin, Joseph V. “Presentation of the Question.” Marxism and the National Question. 1954. Marxists Internet Archive. Web. http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MNQ12.html#c3
2. Ibid.
3. Ben Gilbert, “Latest Afghanistan Operation Called “Success,” but No Press Witnessed It”, Truth Out, October 17, 2010.
4. “US touts anti-Taliban offensive”, Aljazeera, November 4, 2010.
One Afghani villager states that:
“The community is in pieces. We’ve lost 90% of our income. Everything is being destroyed. There is suffering and pain.”
While another Afghani villager stated:
“I went to complain to the Americans. ‘What are you doing? You’ve made a road through my field. You’re destroying my crop.’”
This is a continuation to a past article of mine, Anti-Imperialism: Beyond the Contradictions (http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/anti-imperialism-beyond-the-contradictions/), in order to further implement a better understanding on anti-imperialism today, and what we, as Marxist-Leninists, should do during such time periods.
As shown above, Comrade Joseph Stalin gave out an interesting, but also important critique on the right to self-determination. The overall point in his critique was to try and point out the differences in options, as conclusions to said self-determination, to determine which are in the need of support and which are in the need of criticism.
During the present time, the most important struggle against imperialism today is that of Afghanistan. Many contradictions are being played out during this struggle. In which are in a need of better analyzing said contradictions in order to categorize them on the level of importance throughout each condition. For the time being, I find it to be important to first determine the primary antagonism in order to differentiate the level of importance between the said primary with secondary antagonisms.
The primary antagonism today is that of imperialism – countries seeking self-autonomy against those seeking puppet-rule on the interest of themselves. The secondary antagonism would be that of the working class seeking proletarian rule against the Bourgeois State. As I explained in my earlier article on anti-imperialism, our primary concern should be that of imperialism and each nation’s right to self-determination. Only then should we proceed further on waging an internal revolution towards Socialism. Does this mean that it’s impossible to wage a successful Socialist revolution while under the foreign intervention by imperialist aggressors? No, not exactly, but it’s best to protect the interests of the working class by first eliminating the primary oppressors.
Of course, Comrade Stalin spoke clearly on the possibility of secession and/or autonomy not being the best of choices to seek during certain conditions:
“In the middle of the nineteenth century Marx was in favour of the secession of Russian Poland; and he was right, for it was then a question of emancipating a higher culture from a lower culture that was destroying it. And the question at that time was not only a theoretical one, an academic question, but a practical one, a question of actual reality. . . .
“At the end of the nineteenth century the Polish Marxists were already declaring against the secession of Poland; and they too were right, for during the fifty years that had elapsed profound changes had taken place, bringing Russia and Poland closer economically and culturally. Moreover, during that period the question of secession had been converted from a practical matter into a matter of academic dispute, which excited nobody except perhaps intellectuals abroad.”1
What we have here are the disputes on whether or not secession is under the matter of interests to those of the majority, or if more harm will come about from it instead. In which, using Poland secession as an example, Stalin points out that the economic connection between Poland and Russia was of more importance than to dismantle such a connection. In which, if secession was to be implemented, it would’ve created another foreign antagonism that the Polish Marxists would need to deal with.
Stalin continues by stating:
“The solution of the national question is possible only in connection with the historical conditions taken in their development.
“The economic, political and cultural conditions of a given nation constitute the only key to the question how a particular nation ought to arrange its life and what forms its future constitution ought to take. It is possible that a specific solution of the question will be required for each nation. If the dialectical approach to a question is required anywhere it is required here, in the national question.”2
I find this to be a very important passage by Stalin, for it develops the necessity for each country to determine what dialectical approach one will pursue after anti-imperialist liberation.
Of course, there’s a difference between self-determination and self-autonomy/secession. Self-determination is merely the acts of determining how to move forward. Whether it be through autonomy, secession, or revolution. Understand that anti-imperialists call for the wars to end; for all foreign invaders to leave. This, of course, leads us at a victory against imperialism. On the other hand, whether or not a puppet-government was formed is needing to be asked as well, because this will ultimately effect the process for those residing in the now liberated country in determining which path to pursue.
Let’s take Afghanistan for example. Currently, there’s a US-funded puppet-government being led by President Hamid Karzai. Foreign invasion is still very real in Afghanistan by Western imperialists. So the need for them to leave is, of course, our primary concern for the time being. Problem is that this cannot happen peacefully. Anti-imperialism is not just a pacifist cause, it is also a very violent cause against those who first brought violence to Afghanistan. With the Taliban being the most powerful anti-imperialists who reside within Afghanistan, they are a direct threat to the US’ foreign interests. So it’s no surprise in seeing everyday on the news about the US, with the help of the Afghan military, cracking down on Taliban militants.
With imperialism being a growing threat, there’s a necessity in supporting the Taliban against said imperialism. I was having a chat with a comrade of mine about this particular topic, and he thought it was best that we support those resisting the occupation, but not the Taliban. Of course, I pointed out that this would be rather difficult, given that those resisting the occupation are, in fact, siding with the Taliban as they continue to wage war against the Western aggressors. This support to the Taliban by the Afghani people come in all different sorts; such as giving aid, shelter, food, and other times militant solidarity.
My comrade then states that it was then our duty to make sure the Taliban was no longer the popular militants of Afghanistan. The problem with this notion is that it gives indirect support towards the imperialists. If we were to dismantle the most powerful anti-imperialist army in Afghanistan, then it would be only a matter of time until complete imperial control over Afghanistan succeeds. Therefore, we must show our support in the Taliban’s struggle against imperialism, whether we agree with their politics or not.
Now, whether or not those resisting wants the Taliban to gain power, or rather let the current puppet-government remain for the time being, is solely up to them. Those of us resisting imperialism from within the imperial nations, we are to make sure the imperial aggressors are to leave. What those who are now liberated do next is, again, solely up to them.
Though, it’s best to understand that whether or not the Taliban come to power again is not a matter of higher importance to worry over than that of the Western aggressors to remain in power. Fact of the matter is that, in areas where the Taliban have shadow governance over, there’s signs of economic improvements over those areas where the US have “liberated” them from the Taliban. Where the invaders see success, those invaded see a catastrophe. I say this because, recently, it was announced that the US had led a successful campaign in Arghandab Valley by eliminating a major portion of threat by the Taliban, in conclusion creating a more secure area:
““Arghandab is in a much better state than it was just six weeks ago,” said British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, commander of all troops in the coalition’s Regional Command – South, which includes Arghandab district in Kandahar province.
“Carter said the military operation was complimented by a focus on strengthening the local governing capacity of the Arghandab district. He said the district governor and a new police chief are more representative of the Arghandab’s tribal make-up and are proving successful at attempts to reach out to the district’s inhabitants in an effort to improve security.
““When you combine that with the need to conduct one or two clearing operations that took place over the last two calendar weeks, what you find in Arghandab is a more positive environment,” he said.”3
Of course, all this really brings about is an area with tighter security by the Western aggressors, furthering any chance in self-determination. Economic stability is then replaced for security, leaving these areas far worse than it was before. The US may see this campaign as a success, in which it is towards their own interests, but those who actually live in these “liberated” areas see things a bit more differently.4
The anti-imperialist cause holds all these structures of questions, contradictions, and conditions. So it’s best if we analyze wisely in order to make the best decisions in moving forward. Anti-imperialists will of course differentiate between those of the imperialist nation and those who are being invaded by the aggressors. Those who reside in the country being invaded, it is up to them on what path they take. For those of us who reside inside the belly of the beast, it is up to us to fundamentally oppose all acts of imperialist aggression – in contradiction, support all nation’s right to self-determination. This is what we, Marxist-Leninists, must do for the time being.
Red Love & Salutes!
1. Stalin, Joseph V. “Presentation of the Question.” Marxism and the National Question. 1954. Marxists Internet Archive. Web. http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MNQ12.html#c3
2. Ibid.
3. Ben Gilbert, “Latest Afghanistan Operation Called “Success,” but No Press Witnessed It”, Truth Out, October 17, 2010.
4. “US touts anti-Taliban offensive”, Aljazeera, November 4, 2010.
One Afghani villager states that:
“The community is in pieces. We’ve lost 90% of our income. Everything is being destroyed. There is suffering and pain.”
While another Afghani villager stated:
“I went to complain to the Americans. ‘What are you doing? You’ve made a road through my field. You’re destroying my crop.’”