Left-wing nationalism- oxymoron?

[ComradeMan]

How can left-wing and nationalism be married as terms? Are they not, from a revolutionary leftist and internationalist position, contradictions in a political sense?

In Commonwealth Antonion Negri seems to argue that although nationalism may be progressive initially as a means of liberation it is inevitably doomed to become fundamentalist- ergo reactionary and protect the interests of property and the state. Rosa Luxemburg was also a critic of "nationalism" within a Bolshevik context.

Fundamentally are not ethnicities and nationalities social constructs therefore any form of nationalism is basically cementing a social construct? A social construct which, moreover, owes much of its origins to capitalism and the rise of nation states.

http://libcom.org/library/against-nationalism


The idea is that creating independent state-run economies can cut down the power of the dominant centers of capital and chart an independent course that gives expression to "national self-determination." National liberation only enhances the power of the local boss class.
http://libcom.org/library/every-nation-state-imperialist-nature-tom-wetzel

[Tablo]

If I am not mistaken, the term "left-wing nationalism" refers to internationalism...

[ComradeMan]

If I am not mistaken, the term "left-wing nationalism" refers to internationalism...

Yes and no- the idea always seems to be that but the reality is something else. If you have a look at some of those Libcom articles they are quite critical.

On a personal note, I don't see how any form of nationalism can translate itself into internationalism to be honest. The first creates a barrier whereas the second breaks them down.

[Tablo]

That is simply what I have come to understand based on what other people have told me. Obviously we should reject all nationalism. I was told in the past that it was a term interchangeable with internationalism.

[¿Que?]

I don't know because there are various forms of ethnic nationalism that have to be taken to account. If you are just going to bring up an abstract concept without considering the implications within the concrete, then you are basically doing that which you are trying to avoid, which is reification. Ethnic nationalism, as in Latina/o, Irish, African and such struggles are not always reactionary and often are fertile soil for breeding revolutionary thought (think liberation theology, not an ideal but at least a step in the right direction). Whereas nationalism in the sense of English or white nationalism are rarely going to permit the type of ideas we want to forge on the left and as revolutionaries.

[Revolutionair]

As far as I understand it, left-wing nationalism is an oxymoron used by 'textbook right-wingers' to attack Bolshevists. If I open a book from my school from when I was 14, I will read things like: "the Nazis were right-winged nationalists as opposed to the Bolsheviks who were left-winged nationalists."

I'm guessing it has an important propaganda function in our current society. Something along the lines of all of these extremists were nationalists, they loved their vision of what their country should be so much that they were willing to use violence to change it. The idea is that us civilized seculars should love our country the way it is and should not try to change it. It also eliminates any idea of internationalism in the common mind.

If someone uses the term in a debate just expose it for the oxymoron that it is, and give some examples of left-wing anti-nationalism.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Seeing as I'm a left-wing nationalist, I don't consider it an oxymoron.

I don't think sovereign nations are a hindrance to an "international union of socialist countries". At least not if you don't have ultra-patriotic nationalism.

[ComradeMan]

As far as I understand it, left-wing nationalism is an oxymoron used by 'textbook right-wingers' to attack Bolshevists. If I open a book from my school from when I was 14, I will read things like: "the Nazis were right-winged nationalists as opposed to the Bolsheviks who were left-winged nationalists."
.

I don't think school textbooks are the best place to begin really and I would hardly describe the people who publish articles on Libcom as "textbook right wingers" to be honest.

Libcom does have an anarchist slant of course yet the issues raised in their articles are fair enough. Rosa Luxemburg was not a rightwinger and Antonio Negri...?

The trouble with any form of nationalism is that, in my opinion, it will only ever go so far as a liberation struggle and once "liberated" inevitably becomes a form of orthodoxy within a nation state mechanism.

It also raises side-issues of socialism in one country as well.

Luxemburg in The National Question and Autonomy disputed the right to self-determination as being some abstract/metaphysical concept inasmuch as the “right to work” or "to eat from golden plates". Her opinion was that the independence of most small nations ran against the laws of economic development and would be reactionary. Of course Lenin disputed this and Luxemburg also seems to have missed a few points but then what Lenin said and wrote and what actually happened are not always the same.

ICT Source (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2010-09-15/the-national-question-today-and-the-poisonous-legacy-of-the-counter-revolution)- excerpt from

The National Question Today and the Poisonous Legacy of the Counter-revolution


Class Struggle against Nationalist struggle

The ICT , of which the CWO is a part, argues that nationalist struggles are simply disguised imperialist struggles and the wars they provoke are imperialist wars.


The only response communists can give to imperialist wars is the adoption of the politics of revolutionary defeatism. That is:

Opposition to the war on the basis of class
No support to either side in the struggle
Workers should continue the class struggle against their own bourgeoisie
Workers should give solidarity to workers from the opposing side in their struggle against their own bourgeoisie.
The orientation of this policy is towards turning the imperialist war into a civil war and the overthrow of bourgeois power. This was the policy adopted by the Bolsheviks during the First World War which was a decisive step towards the October Revolution. Today it remains the only proletarian response able to open the way to a communist world.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

It may be very idealistic, but James Connolly said this once, and I would like to think that one day it could be true:

Under a socialist system every nation will be the supreme arbiter of its own destinies, national and international; will be forced into no alliance against its will, but will have its independence guaranteed and its freedom respected by the enlightened self-interest of the socialist democracy of the world.

[DDR]

Oxymoron? Don't think so, few eamples of the national question by some good old lefties:

Fatherland and Nationality - Bakunin
The Right of Nations to Selfdetermination - Lenin
The National Question - Stalin (Well, most works of him are about the nation and the left)
Spain, Multinational State - Dolores Ibarruri (AKA La Pasionaria)
Leninism and the freedom of opressed nations - Ho Chi Min
Socialism and Nationalism - James Connolly

And many many others have writen about it. And of course we cannot overlook who nationalistic are the revolutions en Latin America, from the patriotism of the Cuban people to the slogan ¡Patria, Socialismo o Muerte! ¡Venceremos!

[RGacky3]

I don't find it as a total oxymoron (i'm against nationalism btw), you could very well have someone that wants economic democracy while they are patriotic as well.

That being said, ANYONE that identifies as a nationalist, chances are, they arn't really left wing, look more into their policies, chances are they are right wing.

[Palingenisis]

It depends how you define nationalist.

And depends how you define left-wing.

To some I would be an Irish nationalist but I wouldnt call myself that as I have nothing nice for the Faith and Fatherland anti-immigrant brigade.

[Revolution starts with U]

It would be, if the left/right dichotomy existed in any kind of definable sense.
Using my definition of leftism (anti-authority/heirarchy, anti aristocrat, pro civil and economic rights (and no, not economic freedom in a libertarian kind of anti-liberty), and pro internationalism... I wouldn't consider nationalism compatible with leftism, but what do I know?

[Palingenisis]

I would consider national chauvinism incompatible with leftism certainly though lets face it it has reared its ugly head even under socialism.

[#FF0000]

Yeah it's an oxymoron.

I like the ICT a lot btw.

[Palingenisis]

That is simply what I have come to understand based on what other people have told me. Obviously we should reject all nationalism. I was told in the past that it was a term interchangeable with internationalism.

Its not though....The Left-Nationalist Vietcong showed a great deal of national chauvinism towards the Cambodians.

[Palingenisis]

I like the ICT a lot btw.

Whats the dividing lines between them and the ICC?

Is it just they have a different theory of decadence and dont accept the stuff about Parasitism?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Once again i want to point out that its very much of a lingvistic thing, most times leftists talks about progressiv nationalism they refer to something called 'regionalism' which is as simpel as that the once livving in a certain are shoulb be the once to make all the decitions that affects them. Race, culture and language has nothing to do there.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

As far as I understand it, left-wing nationalism is an oxymoron used by 'textbook right-wingers' to attack Bolshevists. If I open a book from my school from when I was 14, I will read things like: "the Nazis were right-winged nationalists as opposed to the Bolsheviks who were left-winged nationalists."

I'm guessing it has an important propaganda function in our current society. Something along the lines of all of these extremists were nationalists, they loved their vision of what their country should be so much that they were willing to use violence to change it. The idea is that us civilized seculars should love our country the way it is and should not try to change it. It also eliminates any idea of internationalism in the common mind.

If someone uses the term in a debate just expose it for the oxymoron that it is, and give some examples of left-wing anti-nationalism.

Amusingly enough, I remember an old World Civilizations final that I took in high school which defined communism as a nationalist form of government in which the state controlled all things and repressed the people. :(

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Well, I think some people here are talking about the nationalism that the BNP stands for, the xenophobic kind.

But what about the nationalism of un-sovereign nations? Can one not be a nationalist and a leftist?

I would surely say of course you can, and I would point to the Irish struggle for independence which was in many ways also a class struggle. I can't find the specific quote but I'm very sure Lenin called the Easter Rising the first socialist uprising in Europe.

So in my opinion a struggle for independence and socialism can be interwoven.

[#FF0000]

Whats the dividing lines between them and the ICC?

Is it just they have a different theory of decadence and dont accept the stuff about Parasitism?

I'll PM you.

[ComradeMan]

Interesting ideas so far, there seems to be a lot of contradiction or mixed messages from the "Left" viz. nationalism.

[Che a chara]

From an Irish 'nationalist' perspective, the native Irish language and culture which was erased and criminalised by British imperialism and it's reintroduction is seen as an integral part of liberation from colonialism and oppression (moreso just the language) and as long as it is not at the expense of eradicating the current national aspects to society (unionist and ethnic minority culture) and having a supremacist mentality about it's status, then I don't see why it should necessarily be reactionary as unionist/British culture already dominates the occupied 6 counties and is in no way in any threat of being absorbed.

[Palingenisis]

From an Irish 'nationalist' perspective, the native Irish language and culture which was erased and criminalised by British imperialism and it's reintroduction is seen as an integral part of liberation from colonialism and oppression (moreso just the language) and as long as it is not at the expense of eradicating the current national aspects to society (unionist and ethnic minority culture) and having a supremacist mentality about it's status, then I don't see why it should necessarily be reactionary as unionist/British culture already dominates the occupied 6 counties and is in no way in any threat of being absorbed.

Unionism is a political idealogy rather than a culture (based around a fetishistic worship of the Royal Family and the British Armed Forces)....Near to a majiority of Ulster Protestants spoke Irish until the 19 th century.

Irish nationalism generally refers to a reactionary idealogy driven by Roman Catholicism which puts the various Jacobite wars on a par with the national liberation struggle.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I think it's wrong to say that the Irish struggle was reactionary. Yes the Irish had their own country 700 years before the Republic was proclaimed, but the struggle was in many ways also a struggle for social equality, where the Catholics had been downtrodden by the protestant-English imperialists.
For example The Penal Laws which severely limited the rights of the Catholic majority, was one of the major factors that spurred on the Irish rebellion.

[#FF0000]

Loren Goldner has a p. baller on how dumb "Left-Wing Nationalism" is. (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Elrgoldner/turkey.html)


The “anti-imperialist” ideology of the 1960’s and early 1970’s died a hard death by the late 1970’s. Western leftist cheerleaders for “Ho- Ho- Ho Chi Minh” in London, Paris, Berlin and New York fell silent as Vietnam invaded Cambodia, and China invaded Vietnam, and the Soviet Union threatened China. China allied with the U.S. against the Soviets in the new Cold War, and the other “national liberation movements” that had taken power in Algeria, and later in Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau…disappointed.

Today, a vague mood of “anti-imperialism” is back, led by Venezuela’s Chavez and his Latin American allies (Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia), more or less (with the exception of Stalinist Cuba) classical bourgeois-nationalist regimes. But Chavez in turn is allied, at least verbally and often practically, with the Iran of the ayatollahs, and Hezbollah, and Hamas, as well as newly-emergent China, which no one any longer dares call “socialist”. The British SWP allies with Islamic fundamentalists in local elections in the UK, and participates in mass demonstations (during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, summer 2007) chanting “We are all Hezbollah”. Somehow Hezbollah, whose statutes affirm the truth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is now part of the “left”; when will it be “We are all Taliban”? Why not, indeed?

Such a climate compels us to turn back to the history of such a profoundly reactionary ideology, deeply anti-working class both in the “advanced” and “underdeveloped” countries, by which any force, no matter how retrograde, that turns a gun against a Western power becomes “progressive” and worthy of “critical” or “military” support, or for the less subtle, simply “support”

[Palingenisis]

I have had plenty of arguments with people in Ireland about supporting Political Islam.

(Here is a brillant article on it from an Anti-Revisionist persecptive which differs radically from the MonkeySmashesHeaven one in that understands the importance of the contradiction between the working class and capitalism which they dont seem to give a fuck about... http://www.monthlyreview.org/1207amin.htm ).

Anti-Imperialism can be taken to absurd and reactionary lengths (this is a good article on Chavez's "socialism"... http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/cp-of-greece-kke-on-the-theory-of-21st-century-socialism/ ).

However to my mind the Left Communist position is just the flip side of the coin to Maoism Third Worldism....Left Nationalism has improved people's lives and struck real blows against Imperialism and indeed capitalism (can anyone seriously imagine May 68 without the previous national liberation war in Algeria?).

[#FF0000]

However to my mind the Left Communist position is just the flip side of the coin to Maoism Third Worldism....Left Nationalism has improved people's lives

Sure, but that doesn't make it revolutionary are conducive towards revolutionary goals. In America, President Roosevelt's policies during World War 2 improved things for people, but that doesn't mean voting's a good idea.


and struck real blows against Imperialism and indeed capitalism (can anyone seriously imagine May 68 without the previous national liberation war in Algeria?).

Yeah but by the same token can you imagine the Bolshevik Revolution without World War One? Of course this doesn't mean we should support World Wars. The bourgeoisie of one nation fighting another is to be expected in capitalism. It doesn't mean we have to take sides.

[Palingenisis]

How do you define nationalism Bestmod?

[#FF0000]

How do you define nationalism Bestmod?

I don't know. Same as you guys, I think. I just don't think that nationalism meshes with an internationalist perspective and I don't think that national liberation is a good tactic.

[Palingenisis]

I don't know. Same as you guys, I think. I just don't think that nationalism meshes with an internationalist perspective and I don't think that national liberation is a good tactic.

I dont know about that....Some Left-Communists/"Internationalist" Anarchist seem to consider anyone who believes in the existence of nations as a nationalist...For instance the Workers Solidarity Movement which is an anarchist group in Ireland has been called nationalist but I dont think they are at all..

http://www.wsm.ie/anarchism/imperialism

Again Ive been called a nationalist here but those who call themselves nationalists in Ireland though we might agree about the six counties would otherwise have pretty huge differences with me on a lot of things....So it would be good to get a definition of what it means.

[Redstar226]

How can left-wing and nationalism be married as terms? Are they not, from a revolutionary leftist and internationalist position, contradictions in a political sense?

In Commonwealth Antonion Negri seems to argue that although nationalism may be progressive initially as a means of liberation it is inevitably doomed to become fundamentalist- ergo reactionary and protect the interests of property and the state. Rosa Luxemburg was also a critic of "nationalism" within a Bolshevik context.

Fundamentally are not ethnicities and nationalities social constructs therefore any form of nationalism is basically cementing a social construct? A social construct which, moreover, owes much of its origins to capitalism and the rise of nation states.


The idea is that creating independent state-run economies can cut down the power of the dominant centers of capital and chart an independent course that gives expression to "national self-determination." National liberation only enhances the power of the local boss class.


Nationalism doesn't have to necessarily mean that one promotes the idea of a nation-state. For men like James Connolly, there was nothing strange about loving your country and being a Socialist. And certainly there's nothing wrong with having a distinct feeling of cultural identity, though when that stretches to discrimination its another matter.

[#FF0000]

I dont know about that....Some Left-Communists/"Internationalist" Anarchist seem to consider anyone who believes in the existence of nations as a nationalist...For instance the Workers Solidarity Movement which is an anarchist group in Ireland has been called nationalist but I dont think they are at all..

Well, what do you mean "believe in the existence of nations"? Nations exist now, sure, but they're social constructs and arbitrary lines.

[Palingenisis]

Well, what do you mean "believe in the existence of nations"? Nations exist now, sure, but they're social constructs and arbitrary lines.

But what cant be called a social construct?They are cultural realities (note that I said cultural and NOT racial) Whats more they are political entities (even when they lack a state).

I believe that regional differences will always exist even within the global community that all Communists are seeking.

[#FF0000]

I believe that regional differences will always exist even within the global community that all Communists are seeking.

Of course but that doesn't mean they should be recognized with legal boundaries.

[L.A.P.]

Left-wing nationalism is based on equality and popular sovereignty and is usually anti-imperialist as opposed to most nationalism that is fascist and imperialist in nature. The 26th of July Movement and the Black Panther Party are examples of left-wing nationalists.

[Palingenisis]

Of course but that doesn't mean they should be recognized with legal boundaries.

The problem is that the planet has long histories of national oppression and chauvinism. That legacy cannot be overcome overnight. First they need to be removed before a stateless global community can truelly emerge.

[Palingenisis]

Also in an Irish context the main subject I use to see if someone's "nationalism" now matter how anti-British Imperialism they are is progressive or not is their attitude to recent Immigrants...If someone is anti-immigrant I could them reactionary no matter what other views they have. Do other people consider thats to crude?

[Redstar226]

Also in an Irish context the main subject I use to see if someone's "nationalism" now matter how anti-British Imperialism they are is progressive or not is their attitude to recent Immigrants...If someone is anti-immigrant I could them reactionary no matter what other views they have. Do other people consider thats to crude?

Not really. Anti-Immigration is a reactionary idea; therefore, people who are anti-Immigration are reactionary.

[#FF0000]

The problem is that the planet has long histories of national oppression and chauvinism. That legacy cannot be overcome overnight. First they need to be removed before a stateless global community can truelly emerge.

Yeah but what people call Anti-Imperialism nowadays isn't going to help that much considering most "anti-imperialist struggles" are pretty much proxy wars for larger countries anyway.

[Palingenisis]

Yeah but what people call Anti-Imperialism nowadays isn't going to help that much considering most "anti-imperialist struggles" are pretty much proxy wars for larger countries anyway.

Who are FARC (who I consider Left Nationalist and not Communist) a puppet of?

Who is the kid in Cornwall, Wales or Brittany with a petrol bomb a puppet of?

In principle I see nothing wrong with playing one Imperialism off another...But its a dangerous game.

[TC]

While leftists recognize that all national identity is socially constructed, we also recognize that when oppressed nations self organize to resist colonialism and neo-liberalism - it is only superficially a war between nations - it is in fact a war between classes. The fact that the organized proletarian of colonial nations has adopted a nationalist form of rhetoric (sometimes for ideological reasons, sometimes for purely pragmatic strategic reasons) rather than a marxist internationalist form of rhetoric is of rhetorical significance but need not fundamentally change the material facts on the ground of the oppressed rising against their oppressors.

It would be silly and arrogant for leftists to refuse to extend solidarity to such struggles simply because they failed to use our preferred type of political discourse.

[ComradeMan]

While leftists recognize that all national identity is socially constructed, we also recognize that when oppressed nations self organize to resist colonialism and neo-liberalism - it is only superficially a war between nations - it is in fact a war between classes. The fact that the organized proletarian of colonial nations has adopted a nationalist form of rhetoric (sometimes for ideological reasons, sometimes for purely pragmatic strategic reasons) rather than a marxist internationalist form of rhetoric is of rhetorical significance but need not fundamentally change the material facts on the ground of the oppressed rising against their oppressors.

It would be silly and arrogant for leftists to refuse to extend solidarity to such struggles simply because they failed to use our preferred type of political discourse.

The ICT don't seem to think so.

BTW- WTF is an Anarcho-Guevarist? One of the 26th of July Movement that then went on to exile themselves? I'm not sure El Che was big on anarchism nor that anarchists are big on El Che.

[#FF0000]

It would be silly and arrogant for leftists to refuse to extend solidarity to such struggles simply because they failed to use our preferred type of political discourse.

But a lot of these folks do use leftist rhetoric. That's not the issue. The issue is that the material facts on the ground are that these anti-imperialist struggles often class collaborationist, with the workers on the ground dying to fight off one oppressor for the benefit of the local ones.

[ComradeMan]

But a lot of these folks do use leftist rhetoric. That's not the issue. The issue is that the material facts on the ground are that these anti-imperialist struggles often class collaborationist, with the workers on the ground dying to fight off one oppressor for the benefit of the local ones.

Look at South Africa for example....

I agree.

[HEAD ICE]

While leftists recognize that all national identity is socially constructed, we also recognize that when oppressed nations self organize to resist colonialism and neo-liberalism - it is only superficially a war between nations - it is in fact a war between classes.

If it is a war between classes... why not make it a war between classes? Turn the nationalist war into a class war. There is no such thing as an oppressed nation under imperialism (imperialism being a stage in the development of capitalism). Only less powerful capitalist states.

What you are arguing for is for the "oppressed" nation to graduate into an oppressor nation. Capitalism is a global system, and it doesn't matter if a nation-state on the periphery of American capitalism kicks back "neo-liberalism", they are going to be integrated right back into capitalism.

Every country is a capitalist country in this day and age for the simple fact that to survive, they must play by the rules of the capitalist system. If a nation is no longer exploited, in order for the national bourgeoisie to continue existing, they must exploit other nations. The fact that an oppressed nation is no longer dominated by American capital (lets face it, anti-imperialism is actually analogous to anti-Americanism) doesn't make proletarian revolution closer by one single step.

Look at a hero of the American left and aspiring imperialist Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez isn't an anti-imperialist, Chavez represents the interests of Venezuelan capital against American capital. Chavez has been pushing to drop the dollar, engages in military trade with China Iran and Russia, and wants to build a gigantic oil pipeline that will run from Venezuela to Argentina that will benefit Venezuela oil. Chavez is representing the necessity of Venezuelan capital to expand, because in order for capital to continue returning larger profits it must expand into new markets.

If Venezuelan capital gets stronger, Chavez will out of necessity start subjecting and exploiting other nations in the favor of Venezuelan capital. This isn't because Chavez is a big meanie. It is because this is how capitalism works. To think Venezuela, China, Russia, or Iran would somehow behave differently than America if they became the largest capitalist powers is to reject Marxism.

America doesn't invade and make war on countries because America is mean. America doesn't overthrow nationalist leaders to replace them with leaders favorable to American capital because America are assholes. It is because America is the home of the greatest concentration of capital, especially finance capital, and in order to survive the bourgeoisie must do these things.


The fact that the organized proletarian of colonial nations has adopted a nationalist form of rhetoric (sometimes for ideological reasons, sometimes for purely pragmatic strategic reasons) rather than a marxist internationalist form of rhetoric is of rhetorical significance but need not fundamentally change the material facts on the ground of the oppressed rising against their oppressors.

It is more than "rhetorical significance." Organizing around "the fatherland" instead of your class is inherently class collaborationist, and doesn't advance working class liberation a single step. Either foreign or local, all bourgeoisies have the same interests and their relationship towards the proletariat is no different. Foreign or local, it is the same struggle.


It would be silly and arrogant for leftists to refuse to extend solidarity to such struggles simply because they failed to use our preferred type of political discourse.

It wouldn't be silly or arrogant, it would be a total rejection of working class politics.

It is the duty of revolutionaries to turn national conflicts into a class struggle. It is our responsibility to tell oppressed people how to go about their struggle. This is considered horrible by white American liberals but it is our job. We must intervene and struggle on the class terrain.

[Baseball]

While leftists recognize that all national identity is socially constructed, we also recognize that when oppressed nations self organize to resist colonialism and neo-liberalism - it is only superficially a war between nations - it is in fact a war between classes. The fact that the organized proletarian of colonial nations has adopted a nationalist form of rhetoric (sometimes for ideological reasons, sometimes for purely pragmatic strategic reasons) rather than a marxist internationalist form of rhetoric is of rhetorical significance but need not fundamentally change the material facts on the ground of the oppressed rising against their oppressors.

It would be silly and arrogant for leftists to refuse to extend solidarity to such struggles simply because they failed to use our preferred type of political discourse.

Of course, in such a circumstance, the Leftists would also have to decide amongst themselves whether in fact the claims of the oppressed were accurate. That itself is yet another area for dispute.

Were the National Socialists correct in claiming the Jews were oppressing the Germans? It is difficult to see many leftists, today, agreeing or sympathizing with such claims. However, based upon the discussion such far, such a claim could not be dismissed by the Left out of hand.

[Robert]

It is our responsibility to tell oppressed people how to go about their struggle.Don't let them give you any back talk either, bro! :thumbup1:

[HEAD ICE]

Don't let them give you any back talk either, bro! :thumbup1:

It is the job of revolutionaries to intervene in the struggles of the working class to advance a communist program. I see you are restricted but I wouldn't don't some other self described communists would find humor in your sarcasm, unfortunately.

[TC]

The ICT don't seem to think so.

BTW- WTF is an Anarcho-Guevarist? One of the 26th of July Movement that then went on to exile themselves? I'm not sure El Che was big on anarchism nor that anarchists are big on El Che.

1. the ICT don't seem to think so is not an argument,

2. an anarcho-guevarist is a fairly transparent joke, click the link. I thought it was funny, so I made it my primary tendency.

For what its worth though, anarchism and focoism are not theoretically incompatible, in fact many early anarchists advocated a type of focoism by other names.

[TC]

Of course, in such a circumstance, the Leftists would also have to decide amongst themselves whether in fact the claims of the oppressed were accurate. That itself is yet another area for dispute.

Obviously what I wrote applies not to the "claims" but to actual class conditions.


Were the National Socialists correct in claiming the Jews were oppressing the Germans? It is difficult to see many leftists, today, agreeing or sympathizing with such claims. However, based upon the discussion such far, such a claim could not be dismissed by the Left out of hand.Thats obviously ridiculous since the Germans were not a people colonized and controlled by a foreign state - and Jewish Germans were/are domestic members of the same nation. The nationalism that could be a front for class struggle is nationalist rhetoric against foreign states and occupiers not internal minorities.

[TC]

If it is a war between classes... why not make it a war between classes?
Turn the nationalist war into a class war.
Well the national liberation struggles I'm describing (such as vietnamese nationalism against America) were already wars between classes - it makes no sense to undermine oppressed people for the sake of getting your preferred termonology.


There is no such thing as an oppressed nation under imperialism (imperialism being a stage in the development of capitalism). Only less powerful capitalist states.

You obviously don't understand the concept of imperialism. The national liberation movements I'm referring to in any case are primarily non-state actors rebelling against the colonial puppets of imperialists.



What you are arguing for is for the "oppressed" nation to graduate into an oppressor nation.
No, and claiming that doesn't do the job of arguing for it, its just an empty claim on your part. Often times movements with nationalist rhetoric (the cuban revolution, the early days of the bolivarian revolution, both chinese and vietnamese revolutions) will, once they've liberated themselves from their colonial oppressors, adopt socialist ideology and practice.


Capitalism is a global system, and it doesn't matter if a nation-state on the periphery of American capitalism kicks back "neo-liberalism", they are going to be integrated right back into capitalism.

Again you don't seem to understand imperialism. Of course it matters. Capitalism is a global system but it is asymmetrical and trade between socialist societies and capitalist ones need not invalidate the experiences and advances of the socialist society won through the real struggle of oppressed people, except to some idealist, purist type rarely involved in winning real victories for oppressed people.



Every country is a capitalist country in this day and age for the simple fact that to survive, they must play by the rules of the capitalist system. If a nation is no longer exploited, in order for the national bourgeoisie to continue existing, they must exploit other nations. The fact that an oppressed nation is no longer dominated by American capital (lets face it, anti-imperialism is actually analogous to anti-Americanism) doesn't make proletarian revolution closer by one single step.

You're just spewing dogma without a single argument for the claims you've made.


Look at a hero of the American left and aspiring imperialist Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez isn't an anti-imperialist, Chavez represents the interests of Venezuelan capital against American capital. Chavez has been pushing to drop the dollar, engages in military trade with China Iran and Russia, and wants to build a gigantic oil pipeline that will run from Venezuela to Argentina that will benefit Venezuela oil. Chavez is representing the necessity of Venezuelan capital to expand, because in order for capital to continue returning larger profits it must expand into new markets.

This is bullshit and anyone who knows anything about Venezuelan politics would realize that Chavez has been dismantling the Venezuelan bourgeois and the bourgeois, far from believing that Chavez represents their interests, have appealed to American help and have worked tirelessly to overthrow Chavez, instigating multiple coup attempts.

You are therefore, empirically wrong.


It is our responsibility to tell oppressed people how to go about their struggle.

LOL yes I can imagine now the world listening to you as their great leader.

[HEAD ICE]

Well the national liberation struggles I'm describing (such as vietnamese nationalism against America) were already wars between classes - it makes no sense to undermine oppressed people for the sake of getting your preferred termonology.

I think you using the Vietnamese example says a lot about your views. The Vietnam War was a proxy war between two imperialist powers, the USA and the USSR (this is during when even the most hardened Stalinist would say that the USSR had become counter-revolutionary). The Vietnamese national liberation movement served the interests of Russian imperialism and over a million people died. This is the result of national liberation, not class struggle.



You obviously don't understand the concept of imperialism. The national liberation movements I'm referring to in any case are primarily non-state actors rebelling against the colonial puppets of imperialists.

Can national liberation end imperialism? Or will it maybe only weaken American imperialism? I suggest you take a look at the modern history of decolonization and hopefully it will be clear to you how decolonization served the interests of capitalism and other imperialist powers.



No, and claiming that doesn't do the job of arguing for it, its just an empty claim on your part. Often times movements with nationalist rhetoric (the cuban revolution, the early days of the bolivarian revolution, both chinese and vietnamese revolutions) will, once they've liberated themselves from their colonial oppressors, adopt socialist ideology and practice.

Interesting examples you give. So Cuba, China, and Vietnam are socialist to you? Certainly you realize how weakened Cuba was after the fall of the USSR in relation to American capital. China is the biggest threat to American imperialism today not because of socialist ideology but as a capitalist competitor in the control of cheap labor, raw materials, and world finance. Vietnam is also wholly dependent on capitalism, in fact cheer leading foreign investment in their country.



Again you don't seem to understand imperialism. Of course it matters. Capitalism is a global system but it is asymmetrical and trade between socialist societies and capitalist ones need not invalidate the experiences and advances of the socialist society won through the real struggle of oppressed people, except to some idealist, purist type rarely involved in winning real victories for oppressed people.

I don't disagree that national liberation can liberate the oppressed bourgeoisie, I am arguing that it does nothing to liberate the working class. I don't see what is wrong with being a purist, but I am certainly not an idealist. My opposition to national liberation struggles is rooted firmly in the materialist conception of history. The rise of nationalism was the bourgeoisie's way of routing feudalism during the rise of capitalism. Marx and Engels supported national liberation struggles on the basis that it would help further development of the capitalist mode of production within the given geohistorical area. However, capitalism has now spread to every corner of the globe and every country is ruled by the laws of capitalism whether they like it or not. Just look at the fact that the current financial crisis is a global crisis instead of it occurring within the borders of a single nation state.


You're just spewing dogma without a single argument for the claims you've made.

I was making the assumption that most people would understand that capital can only survive if it keeps on expanding.


This is bullshit and anyone who knows anything about Venezuelan politics would realize that Chavez has been dismantling the Venezuelan bourgeois and the bourgeois, far from believing that Chavez represents their interests, have appealed to American help and have worked tirelessly to overthrow Chavez, instigating multiple coup attempts.

You are therefore, empirically wrong.

The CIA tried a coup in Venezuela because Chavez' defense of Venezuelan capital runs counter to the interests of American capital. Chavez has been dismantling the bourgeoisie that serves the interests of American capital.

[BIG BROTHER]

How can left-wing and nationalism be married as terms? Are they not, from a revolutionary leftist and internationalist position, contradictions in a political sense?

In Commonwealth Antonion Negri seems to argue that although nationalism may be progressive initially as a means of liberation it is inevitably doomed to become fundamentalist- ergo reactionary and protect the interests of property and the state. Rosa Luxemburg was also a critic of "nationalism" within a Bolshevik context.

Fundamentally are not ethnicities and nationalities social constructs therefore any form of nationalism is basically cementing a social construct? A social construct which, moreover, owes much of its origins to capitalism and the rise of nation states.

http://libcom.org/library/against-nationalism


The idea is that creating independent state-run economies can cut down the power of the dominant centers of capital and chart an independent course that gives expression to "national self-determination." National liberation only enhances the power of the local boss class.
http://libcom.org/library/every-nation-state-imperialist-nature-tom-wetzel



Well to give an example the Black Panthers were black nationalists who were revolutionary.

This happens because they are an oppressed nationality. It puts them at odds against capitalism and Imperialism.

[Baseball]

Obviously what I wrote applies not to the "claims" but to actual class conditions.

Which itself is subject to debate and dissagreement.


Thats obviously ridiculous since the Germans were not a people colonized and controlled by a foreign state

Actually, Germans had been for centuries divided amongst various principalities and also divided up amongst various nations and peoples. One of the claims of the National Socialists was that such a situation was a result of machinations of foreigners to exploit Germans for their (foreigners) own benefit. An objective of the National Socialists was for ALL germans to live in one state, and to control their own destinies.

Or to put it another way: Was Hitler supporting national liberation when he demanded that Poland, or Czechoslovakia give up land their lands which had sizeable German minorities residing within? Or how about demanding that Austrians (who are after all Germans and for centuries Austria having been the dominant German state) join the single German nation? How about when he supported Germans in those countries who wanted to be "freed" from Czeck or Austrian control?




- and Jewish Germans were/are domestic members of the same nation.

Not according to the National Socialists.


The nationalism that could be a front for class struggle is nationalist rhetoric against foreign states and occupiers not internal minorities.

And if the argument is that those "internal minorities" are somehow responsible for the oppressed plight of the majority... What if in fact that internal minority is NOT in fact a member of the "nation" but of some different "nation?"

[black magick hustla]

While leftists recognize that all national identity is socially constructed, we also recognize that when oppressed nations self organize to resist colonialism and neo-liberalism - it is only superficially a war between nations - it is in fact a war between classes. The fact that the organized proletarian of colonial nations has adopted a nationalist form of rhetoric (sometimes for ideological reasons, sometimes for purely pragmatic strategic reasons) rather than a marxist internationalist form of rhetoric is of rhetorical significance but need not fundamentally change the material facts on the ground of the oppressed rising against their oppressors.
its not a war between classes by the way. the maoists understand this that is why they have nonsense theories like "bloque of four classes" and comprador versus imperialist bourgeosie. the stalinists understood this the best when they called for a popular front.

too bad this alliance always ends up with communists up against the wall. the iranian communists still remember when they were murdered and tortured by the reactionary anti imperialist mullahs. the turkish communists remember when the kemalists murdered them off with comintern gold.







It would be silly and arrogant for leftists to refuse to extend solidarity to such struggles simply because they failed to use our preferred type of political discourse.[/QUOTE]

[Chris]

While leftist nationalism is an oxymoron, leftist regionalism I think is not. Regions who face different problems would necessarily also need different solutions and develop a regional identity. Now I'm talking more in terms of, say, a village in a valley and a village in a peak would develop a different culture, although no such difference would supercede class interests.
One such difference I've found is between me and my neighbours (from a farming area) and people from the city/urban areas in terms of certain priorities and mentality towards certain things. These are actual differences, and not constructs like a nation. Of course, no amount of regional interests would supercede class interests.

[ComradeMan]

While leftist nationalism is an oxymoron, leftist regionalism I think is not. Regions who face different problems would necessarily also need different solutions and develop a regional identity. Now I'm talking more in terms of, say, a village in a valley and a village in a peak would develop a different culture, although no such difference would supercede class interests.
One such difference I've found is between me and my neighbours (from a farming area) and people from the city/urban areas in terms of certain priorities and mentality towards certain things. These are actual differences, and not constructs like a nation. Of course, no amount of regional interests would supercede class interests.

Yeah- no one is suggesting that the idea of one world state/government would be desirable or practicable.

Good points...

I would like a network of cooperating yet autonomous geographical regions with bottom-up structures.

[Fabrizio]

I'm in favour of left-wing nationalism. Why shouldn't underdeveloped countries form blocks to resist imperialist-monopoly domination, and develop a fully functioning capitalism. This may not be communist - I don't claim to be - but it is certainly lelft-wing and progressive. Not all left-wingers are necessarilly communist.

[∞]

When a race is being racially oppressed by another race,it is only fair for that group to exhibit a form of nationalism. Take the Black Panthers for example, they didn't align themeselves with supremacy, but did however, aid poor hispanics, blacks and whites, yet still organized a movement against racists.

Now there is another form of socialism that was originally called yellow "socialism", and patriotic socialism which degenerated into third-positionist fascism.

[ComradeMan]

When a race is being racially oppressed by another race,it is only fair for that group to exhibit a form of nationalism. Take the Black Panthers for example, they didn't align themeselves with supremacy, but did however, aid poor hispanics, blacks and whites, yet still organized a movement against racists.

Now there is another form of socialism that was originally called yellow "socialism", and patriotic socialism which degenerated into third-positionist fascism.

Races don't oppress races, classes oppress classes. Whilst black men and women were sold as slaves to Europeans and Arabs, black "chiefs" (bourgeoisie) were making money and gaining power from it- Africans sold other Africans into slavery. Let's not forget that.

[Fabrizio]

Races don't oppress races, classes oppress classes. Whilst black men and women were sold as slaves to Europeans and Arabs, black "chiefs" (bourgeoisie) were making money and gaining power from it- Africans sold other Africans into slavery. Let's not forget that.

By the same token, some proletarians help to oversee the oppression of other proletarians...

Question to ask yourself is, were those black leaders (bad as they were) really at the top fo the chain, or were they just opportunistically fitting into a foreign dominated system?

[ComradeMan]

By the same token, some proletarians help to oversee the oppression of other proletarians...

A proletarian who does that is not a proletarian but a class traitor.


Question to ask yourself is, were those black leaders (bad as they were) really at the top fo the chain, or were they just opportunistically fitting into a foreign dominated system?

It doesn't matter.

[Fabrizio]

A proletarian who does that is not a proletarian but a class traitor.


Maybe the elites int he third world are traitors to the country...why make such a unique case out of the proletariat? It's just as valid to define a national interest as a class interest.



It doesn't matter.


I think it matters. Lots of empires ruled through subordinate native leaders, it didn't stop them being empires.

[∞]

Races don't oppress races, classes oppress classes. Whilst black men and women were sold as slaves to Europeans and Arabs, black "chiefs" (bourgeoisie) were making money and gaining power from it- Africans sold other Africans into slavery. Let's not forget that.

Racial bias does emerge.

[ComradeMan]

Racial bias does emerge.

Of course, but racial bias emerges because of class oppression not vice-versa.

When Indians were being treated badly under their own rulers it was down to the caste system or religious differences, then the British came and it became a race issue- however at the same time the Indians were living as perhaps "second-class" citizens, the Maharajas were sending their children to the most exclusive private schools and universities in England. Like I've said before, if you've got the "class" and the "money" it doesn't matter about your suntan ;)

[zeppelin935]

im not a leftist but how do you define leftism because i heard it meant that you sought radical change