QuÃ©bec Nationalism [Archive]

JoeySteel

5th September 2011, 22:36

The position of Parti communiste révolutionnaire Revolutionary Communist Party (Canada) on the Quebec national question:

http://pcr-rcp.ca/fr/programme/7/ - Contre l'oppression nationale ! Contre le nationalisme et le chauvinisme ! Pour l'égalité absolue des langues et des nations !" english http://pcr-rcp.ca/en/programme/7/

part of it follows

L'État québécois : aujourd'hui, un oppresseur impérialiste à combattre !

Défendre les principes communistes sur la question nationale, c'est aussi procéder à l'analyse concrète de la situation réelle qui prévaut. Sur la question nationale québécoise en particulier, nous devons refuser les lieux communs et idées toutes faites propagées par la gauche réformiste et opportuniste. De dire que le Québec a joué historiquement le rôle d'une nation opprimée à l'intérieur du Canada est une chose. Refuser de voir les changements qui se sont produits après 40 ans de développement - voire d'hégémonie - du mouvement national québécois dirigé par la bourgeoisie en est une autre : il s'agit même d'une grave erreur. Nous pouvons rapidement résumer ainsi cette évolution :

Le Québec ne souffre pas aujourd'hui des contraintes d'un lien colonial ou néo-colonial, ni de la domination impérialiste ; les droits politiques généralement admis sous le régime bourgeois y sont reconnus ; à trois reprises au cours des 25 dernières années, des référendums constitutionnels ont eu lieu, par lesquels les Québécois et Québécoises ont pu exprimer librement (autant que faire se peut dans un contexte de démocratie bourgeoise) leur droit à l'autodétermination nationale.
Le mouvement national québécois des 30 à 40 dernières années, regroupé autour de la perspective souverainiste et indépendantiste, a généralement exprimé des intérêts bourgeois hostiles à la classe ouvrière. La perspective nationaliste a non seulement constitué un frein au développement de la lutte de classe contre la bourgeoisie mais elle a servi de marchepied à la constitution d'un « État fort » au service de sa fraction québécoise.
À l'intérieur du système impérialiste mondial, l'État du Québec et la bourgeoisie québécoise sont intégrés, non pas du côté des dominés, mais du côté des dominants. L'État québécois, les institutions dites « nationales », le réseau financier québécois, les grands monopoles, la moyenne bourgeoisie, les grands appareils idéologiques, les capitalistes dans les PME, partagent les attributs, les caractéristiques et les aspirations de l'impérialisme. Cela apparaît on ne peut plus clairement dans le rapport qu'entretient la nation québécoise avec les nations autochtones. Du statut de nation opprimée, le Québec est passé aujourd'hui à celui de nation oppressive.

Depuis 30 ans, la bourgeoisie québécoise a dicté, dominé et hégémonisé tous les discours et positions sur la question nationale au Québec, y compris au cœur même du mouvement ouvrier. Le résultat a été désastreux pour le prolétariat : aujourd'hui, aveuglé par 40 ans de chicanes savamment entretenues par les différentes fractions de la bourgeoisie, le mouvement syndical et populaire québécois est gagné au « consensus » créé par la bourgeoisie nationaliste incarnée par le PQ. Et il a complètement désarmé le prolétariat face aux attaques subies au nom de ce même consensus. C'est assez ! Il faut secouer le joug nationaliste et redonner au prolétariat, partout au pays, les armes qu'il faut pour reconstruire l'unité du prolétariat, quelque soit sa nationalité !

Today, the Québec state is an imperialist oppressor that we must fight!

To defend communist principles on the national issue means to analyze concretely the situation that exists today. Concerning the national question in Québec, we must reject commonplaces and clichés that the reformist Left and the opportunists propagate. To claim that Québec has played the part of an oppressed nation historically within Canada is one thing. To voluntarily blind oneself to its current reality and in the face of changes that have taken place after almost 40 years of domination—if not of hegemony—by the national movement in Québec: this is a big mistake, that has been made at the cost of the proletariat. Let’s conclude about that evolution:

Québec is not under colonial or semi-colonial rule, nor under the domination of an imperialist country. All political rights given within any bourgeois democracy are fully granted to Québec. In the last 20 years this province was able to hold three referendums on the constitutional issue. Quebecers were able to express themselves as freely as possible under bourgeois democracy (which is obviously relative), in order to exercise their right to self-determination.
The Québec national movement of the last 30 to 40 years that has rallied around the sovereignist and separatist outlook has for the most part harboured ideas contrary to the interests of the proletariat. This question not only acted as a brake in developing the struggle of the proletariat, but it also served to build a strong state in the service of the bourgeoisie.
The Québec state and its bourgeoisie are integrated in the worldwide imperialist system. It is not on the side of the dominated countries, but on the side of the dominating countries. The Québec state, its “national” institutions, its financial network, its big ideological apparatus, the capitalists in the middle-size firms, shares the attributes, the characteristics and the aspirations of imperialism. This is clearly demonstrated in its relationship with the First Nations. From a status of oppressed nation, Québec is now an oppressor nation.

For 30 years, the Québec bourgeoisie has completely dominated all talks about Québec’s national question. Their propaganda also succeeded in reaching the very heart of the workers movement. For the proletariat, this resulted in a disaster. After 40 years of squabbles subtly entertained between various fractions of the bourgeoisie, the trade union and grass roots movements in Québec have been won over to a “consensus” created by the bourgeoisie in the province, which is embodied by the P.Q. Taking full advantage of this “consensus,” it succeeds in attacking a disarmed proletariat. Enough is enough! We must rid ourselves of the yoke of nationalism. The proletariat throughout this country, of any nationality, must take the tools that will help us to unite!

Per Levy

5th September 2011, 22:40

So Marcuse was a nationalist when he praised the national liberation struggle in Vietnam?

you do know that these are 2 different kind of struggles right? quebec is not a colony, to my knowledge there arnt any colonial soldiers in quebec to hold down a rebelling populance. if quebec would become its own nation now it would be a bourgeois state were workers still have nothing to say.

I guess Lenin was too, right? For supporting the right to self-determination?

strawman

I never said any of that. The indigenous population is entitled to the same rights as the Quebecois.

so how many new states do you want now? should any indigenous tribe should have its own nation? and what exactly does that bring the working class? the poor?

Desperado

5th September 2011, 22:41

yes i read that. So nationalism is thinking you are better than anybody else?

No, not necessarily. Nationalism can be many things, revolutionary or reactionary.

Your problem is not the nationalism per se, it's that your "nationalist" politicians are using the nationalism as a cover for simply another capitalist state. My Welsh nationalism is entirely tied into my revolutionary anarchist beliefs - the only way I see my culture surviving (and indeed much other diversity on this earth) is by the abolition of the state and capital. The state and capital by default churn up any culture of the people and replace it with generic consumerism and an "official" "nation" in order to control the people and hide class conflict under the flag of their neat invented "nationalism".

There is nothing wrong with independence - the problem is independence for who? The independence of another capitalist-state will hardly advance the working class nor allow the people to enjoy their own culture. The successionist versus anti-succestionist paradigm is the false dichotomy of the bourgeoisie's world of nation states.

We need not their states for our nations - indeed, the two are necessarily in conflict.

Who?

5th September 2011, 22:48

you do know that these are 2 different kind of struggles right? quebec is not a colony, to my knowledge there arnt any colonial soldiers in quebec to hold down a rebelling populance. if quebec would become its own nation now it would be a bourgeois state were workers still have nothing to say.

While I respect the RCP and share many of their views I have to say that in my opinion Quebec is clearly oppressed, their interests are nearly impossible to represent given the structure of Canadian politics. Their culture is in danger, etc. The domination of English Canadians in politics is pretty obvious.

so how many new states do you want now? should any indigenous tribe should have its own nation? and what exactly does that bring the working class? the poor?

As many as it takes. If the tribes feel that they shoud leave they should leave.

Per Levy

5th September 2011, 22:49

The FLQ called for an independent socialist Quebec and the movement has long been associated with at least social democratic elements. You'd be a fool to deny this.

omg social democratic elements, the revolution is at the gates. seriously though, a socialistic quebec wouldnt survive, and social democratic parties world wide were and still are selling out.

When members pick and choose what forms of nationalism to support and conciously deny those forms of nationalism which would injure the imperialist Canadian state I suspect chauvinism, yes.

actually only your support some kinds of natonalism, most here dont support any nationalistic tendencies.

how would a independent quebec hurt canada exactly? sure, maybe the candadian pride would get hurt a little, but in the end quebec would still be dependent on canada anyway

NewSocialist

5th September 2011, 22:51

So Marcuse was a nationalist when he praised the national liberation struggle in Vietnam? I guess Lenin was too, right? For supporting the right to self-determination?

You're mixing apples and oranges. Self-determination is somewhat acceptable when it's applied to an oppressed people. In the case of Vietnam, they were suffering under colonialism by (coincidentally) the French. Self-determination or "progressive nationalism" stops being progressive the minute the international proletarian revolution happens. After that, to maintain borders is objectively reactionary.

However, the "Quebecois" are literally direct descendants of colonists. So they're losing their French language lately, cry me a fucking river. To compare their "plight" to that of indigenous peoples or the Vietnamese is BS. If you're so concerned about petty nonsense like Quebec nationalism, I suggest joining the fellas at scumfront or the Socialist Phailanx.

Per Levy

5th September 2011, 22:53

As many as it takes. If the tribes feel that they shoud leave they should leave.

and waht exactly will that achieve? i mean what would it bring if the world is devided in 1000 smalller nations? is that a way forward to socialism? what will that bring the workers in all these new nations, can they then rally behind new flags and show their natinalistic pride?

NewSocialist

5th September 2011, 22:56

My Welsh nationalism is entirely tied into my revolutionary anarchist beliefs

Isn't it a little bit of a contradiction to be an anarchist supporting nationalism? Or have the "National-Anarchists" been right all along? :laugh:

the only way I see my culture surviving (and indeed much other diversity on this earth) is by the abolition of the state and capital.Why are you so concerned with your culture "surviving"? Hypothetically, if it were to die after capitalism, wouldn't that be a small price to pay for human emancipation and international solidarity?

Who?

5th September 2011, 22:59

You're mixing apples and oranges. Self-determination is somewhat acceptable when it's applied to an oppressed people. In the case of Vietnam, they were suffering under colonialism by (coincidentally) the French. Self-determination or "progressive nationalism" stops being progressive the minute the international proletarian revolution happens. After that, to maintain borders is objectively reactionary.

However, the "Quebecois" are literally direct descendants of colonists. So they're losing their French language lately, cry me a fucking river. To compare their "plight" to that of indigenous peoples or the Vietnamese is BS. If you're so concerned about petty nonsense like Quebec nationalism, I suggest joining the fellas at scumfront or the Socialist Phailanx.

What are you on about? We're talking about nationlism in a modern context. Not after some international proletarian revolution. The Quebecois are the descendants of conquered colonists.

I'm not the nationalist here, as a matter of fact I suspect Canadian nationalism on your part. I personally have no ties to Quebec, I'm an American.

NewSocialist

5th September 2011, 23:08

We're talking about nationlism in a modern context. Not after som international proletarian revolution.

Call me crazy, but I think international proletarian revolution should be a higher priority to communists than nationalism of any kind.

The Quebecois are the descendants of conquered colonists. "Conquered colonists"? Really? Are they suffering under the sort of inhumane conditions their little ancestors made the American indigenous peoples suffer under? What's really the problem here, that their colonial culture is withering away? Yeah, that's a political goal worth pursuing.... Maybe we should take up the cause of Afrikaner nationalism while we're at it :rolleyes:

I'm not the nationalist here, as a matter of fact I suspect Canadian nationalism on your part.I'm American too and I couldn't care less whether the British colonial culture overtakes the French colonial culture in Canada, or vice versa. My point is Marxists shouldn't give a shit one way or the other.

Who?

5th September 2011, 23:18

Call me crazy, but I think international proletarian revolution should be a higher priority to communists than nationalism of any kind.

We're not in a revolutionary period, unfortunately.

"Conquered colonists"? Really? Are they suffering under the sort of inhumane conditions their little ancestors made the American indigenous peoples suffer under? What's really the problem here, that their colonial culture is withering away? Yeah, that's a political goal worth pursuing.... Maybe we should take up the cause of Afrikaner nationalism while we're at it :rolleyes:

Afrikaner nationalism? Now you're just acting foolish. Afrikaners oppressed 90% of their nation for years. The Quebecois were forbidden rights under British colonial (and eventually Canadian federal) law for years. They are incredibly different circumstances. Stop trying to make me out to be a fascist, it's making you come off as dishonest.

I'm American too and I couldn't care less whether the British colonial culture overtakes the French colonial culture in Canada, or vice versa. My point is Marxists shouldn't give a shit one way or the other.

We shouldn't care about the right of self-determination in a North American context? I personally think that this particular dialogue is extremely important, mianly because there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus on the issue. Even among Maoists who are a more homogeneous Marxist tendency.

NewSocialist

5th September 2011, 23:29

We're not in a revolutionary period, unfortunately.

My point obviously pertained to when we are and as I said: when that happens, trying to save cultures by maintaining arbitrary borders will be reactionary.

Afrikaners oppressed 90% of their nation for years.And now they can't. Does that make them "conquered colonists" too? If it does, than I say good.

The Quebecois were forbidden rights under British colonial (and eventually Canadian federal) law for years.What rights would those be? The "right" to separatism, to nationhood? What rights were they denied so badly that it would warrant giving them a separate nation state? Should African Americans and indigenous Americans also have their own nations? They suffered a hell of a lot more than the Quebecois ever did. I'm sure neo-nazis and conservatives across the U.S. would love the idea of getting them out of "their Aryan land."

They are incredibly different circumstances. Stop trying to make me out to be a fascist, it's making you come off as dishonest.Sorry, but when I read defenses of nationalism, fascism tends to pop in my mind.

We shouldn't care about the right of self-determination in a North American context?Because what good will it serve ultimately? We should be more concerned about overthrowing capitalism and opening the borders in North America, not creating even more borders.

jake williams

5th September 2011, 23:39

Le Rouge, to answer your question: it very much depends. The short answer is no, the longer answer is sometimes.

There's nothing wrong with liking Québec; there's nothing wrong with feeling that Québec and les Québecois are oppressed, because they are; there's nothing wrong with feeling that the people of Québec, and not foreign capitalists, should control Québec, because they should.

But, there's a whole lot wrong with thinking that there's something intrinsically good about the bourgeoisie in Québec, because there isn't; there's something wrong with being a racist or a chauvinist, which a lot of Québec nationalists are; there's something wrong, in general, about fighting for one particular nation rather than the working class as a whole.

The specifics of what this means, however, are not simple. Would state independence for be good for the working class? Should socialists fight for independence? There isn't a general answer. I can certainly imagine that there are circumstances where independence could in fact be important; if there were a revolutionary socialist movement specific to Québec, the federal state would be a major barrier and independence could be a solution.

But these are not the circumstances right now, and they might never be. Independence could mean fairly little, but it would probably push the left to talk less about nationalism and more about class struggle. But is this a reason to fight for independence? Probably not. Potentially, it could even make things worse, giving the Québecois bourgeoisie even more space for action. The nationalist part of the Québec bourgeoisie is actively using nationalism to weaken federal programs, for example to privatize healthcare even more.

So, there isn't a simple answer.

You are sounding ALOT like a White Nationalist. Let's replace some of the words in what you've said...
She sounds like a Palestinian nationalist, except less racist. There isn't such a thing as a "white nation" outside of racist mythology and were there one, it wouldn't be oppressed. Neither of these are true of Québec.

are they now? well i just had a look at the last elections in quebec, and it looks like that socialistic parties arnt to high on the minds of the quebecs. besides do you have any basis on your theories that the quebecian nationalism is progressive or are you just making things up to prove your point?
You're the one talking out your ass. To anyone who knows anything about the history or politics of Québec it's spectacularly obvious that progressive politics is much more advanced here than in English Canada. The working class is much better organized, and much more class conscious; there are stronger social programs, actively protected and expanded by the working class; there is actually an organized feminist movement; and so on. In Québec, the right wing of the student movement is the one not calling for an unlimited general strike of all workers and students until education is free. In English Canada the right wing of the student movement is the one actively demanding higher tuition fees. All this is taken for granted by anyone who knows anything about Canadian politics that Québec. I could go on for some time, but it seems superfluous.

Regarding the socialist parties, as such, the situation is a bit more complicated. There's a really messy relationship between the left of the national movement (and, for that matter, the right of the national movement, the fascists, the petty bourgeoisie and so on), and the socialist left. But, there also, things are and have historically been strong.

exactly, when members here are against the creation of another bourgeois state that would do nothing for the emancipation of the working class, they of course are pro canadian chauvinism...
The thing is, most of the English Canadian left are active anglo chauvinists. It's just that they're so ignorant, and their nationalist chauvinism so profound, that they don't even recognize the existence of a Québec nation that they could be oppressing. Québec is simply another province, albeit one where people are lazy and overpaid and we give them all our money and all they do is whine. There is sort of a progressive character to left-nationalism in English Canada actually - it is often a part of a movement for union democracy, for sovereignty over resources (not that in Canada or Québec this is uncomplicated because a lot of them are not 'our' resources so much as they are the resources of aboriginal peoples, but the point still stands), for the protection of social programs and so on. It's not uncomplicated; it also can be racist; it also can mean subjecting the working class to the national bourgeoisie. But, it's not the worst thing ever, and it's simply a fact of working in the working class in English Canada. The difference is, the Québecois nationalist movement, at its worst, still feels no claim to the colonial control of English Canada, no right to subject its language and culture to Québec, no demand that English Canada give up its national rights, its history or its heritage.

jake williams

5th September 2011, 23:49

However, the "Quebecois" are literally direct descendants of colonists.
Well, in a way this is true of Zulus too. There's lots of problems with Zulu nationalism too, but the notion that because their ancestors displaced a native population that Zulus have no rights, national or otherwise, is utterly absurd. The idea of holding French peasants responsible for the colonial activities of the French ruling class is absurd anyway; the idea of holding their working class descendants responsible is the height of reaction.

The Québecois are actually the descendants of Irish, English, French, and Italian immigrants, to name a few, along with the original French settler population, the aboriginal population and so on. Aside from the seigneurs and the church though, we're basically talking about peasants. These peasants were colonial subjects of France, and then of Britain. Until basically the latter part of the 20th century there really was not a Québecois bourgeoisie of much significance. Québecois workers and farmers were colonial subjects of an anglophone bourgeoisie living mainly in the west of Montréal and in Toronto. There's a lot of history between now and then of course, and the dynamics of capitalist development in Québec are complex, but those are the basic facts.

Desperado

5th September 2011, 23:57

Isn't it a little bit of a contradiction to be an anarchist supporting nationalism? Or have the "National-Anarchists" been right all along? :laugh:

Or have you not really done any research? :laugh:

I feel myself always the patriot of oppressed fatherlands … Nationality … is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance … Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principal of freedom

Why are you so concerned with your culture "surviving"?Because I believe it is beautiful. However I care only if people themselves wish it to survive (although I'll always enjoy it myself). I will fight anybody who forces a culture on a people, and that is entirely the crux of my argument.

For us, Poland only begins, only truly exists where the labouring masses are and want to be Polish, it ends where, renouncing all particular links with Poland, the masses with to establish other national links

Hypothetically, if it were to die after capitalism, wouldn't that be a small price to pay for human emancipation and international solidarity?Of course. But fortunately people speaking Welsh isn't what props up capitalism, and indeed capitalism is stopping people from speaking Welsh. Human emancipation includes people having the right to live, create, enjoy and be proud of their own cultures, something which communism will for one of the first times in history allow fully. And differences of culture doesn't stop international solidarity, just as allowing the individuality doesn't stand against collective identity (these are bourgeois false dichotomies). By accepting their view of nations, comrade, you are helping to legitimise their nation-states.

Aspiring Humanist

6th September 2011, 00:12

American Xenophobes
Why should I have to press one for English in America?
Quebecois Xenophobes
Pourquoi devrais-je avoir à appuyer sur l'un pour le français au Québec?

Per Levy

6th September 2011, 00:54

You're the one talking out your ass. To anyone who knows anything about the history or politics of Québec it's spectacularly obvious that progressive politics is much more advanced here than in English Canada.

yeah that might be very well true, but i asked "who?" about what is so progressive about quebecian nationalism and s/he didnt awnser that question at all. so what was i to asume? that its progressive because someone is saying so without evidence?

The working class is much better organized, and much more class conscious; there are stronger social programs, actively protected and expanded by the working class; there is actually an organized feminist movement; and so on. In Québec, the right wing of the student movement is the one not calling for an unlimited general strike of all workers and students until education is free. In English Canada the right wing of the student movement is the one actively demanding higher tuition fees. All this is taken for granted by anyone who knows anything about Canadian politics that Québec. I could go on for some time, but it seems superfluous.

oh please go on, this is a learning forum and i dont know about this obviously, and since you're the only one actually giving me some awnsers to my questions id say go on.

The thing is, most of the English Canadian left are active anglo chauvinists. It's just that they're so ignorant, and their nationalist chauvinism so profound, that they don't even recognize the existence of a Québec nation that they could be oppressing. Québec is simply another province, albeit one where people are lazy and overpaid and we give them all our money and all they do is whine. There is sort of a progressive character to left-nationalism in English Canada actually - it is often a part of a movement for union democracy, for sovereignty over resources (not that in Canada or Québec this is uncomplicated because a lot of them are not 'our' resources so much as they are the resources of aboriginal peoples, but the point still stands), for the protection of social programs and so on. It's not uncomplicated; it also can be racist; it also can mean subjecting the working class to the national bourgeoisie. But, it's not the worst thing ever, and it's simply a fact of working in the working class in English Canada. The difference is, the Québecois nationalist movement, at its worst, still feels no claim to the colonial control of English Canada, no right to subject its language and culture to Québec, no demand that English Canada give up its national rights, its history or its heritage.

interestingly enough that sounds pretty similar to what some western gemrans said(and still say) about the eastgermans(the former gdr). first of all the west put so much money in the east, and the east germans are all unthankfull for what the west did for them, and that the eastgermans only complain and elect filthy socialists and so on. kinda interesting.

jake williams

6th September 2011, 01:36

oh please go on, this is a learning forum and i dont know about this obviously, and since you're the only one actually giving me some awnsers to my questions id say go on.
Some things are more anecdotal. So, in Canada today it's "Labour Day", a federal (I think) holiday introduced by the right wing to fight against the recognition of May Day. In English Canada, celebrating Labour Day with a picnic, parade, or similar event is often the main public activity of unions, who totally ignore May Day. In Québec, nothing really happens today, but the unions mobilize heavily for May Day. A few years ago (before I lived here), there were about 120 000 people at the demonstration. Most recently it was considerably less than that, about 20 000, which is basically the norm. I don't know how many people were in Toronto today, but it wasn't 20 000.

The reasoning behind the difference in labour days, from what I know (there may be more to it) is that it's intended as a symbol of international working class solidarity, something the Québec labour movement takes a lot more seriously than that in English Canada. In English Canada "internationalism" has often been understood as working with, or taking orders from, American unions. In Québec, there was much less of a tendency for the natural drive towards international working class solidarity to be deflected into simply working with US workers, so the movement is more complex.

Public demonstrations in general are larger in Québec - a large labour protest in Montréal (metro population 4 million) might get 30 000 people or more; a similar one in Toronto (metro population 6 million) might get 5000.

The histories of the labour movements are different. The history of the labour movement in English Canada is basically what it is in the US. In the 20s and 30s a massive organizational push by anarchists, communist parties and others created powerful industrial unions centred on the auto industry that formed the backbone of the labour movement basically until the 80s. Since then things have mostly stagnated, however. The left has mostly gone with it.

In Québec things are different. It was sort of a semi-feudal colony run by the church and a few anglophone oligarchs until basically the 60s. The modern labour movement (and social democratic left) is fairly new, and comes out of a massive anti-colonial struggle that at one point involved arms training with the PLO, tanks on the streets in Montréal, violent repression of the left, and so on. At points the unions in Québec have come surprisingly close to getting rid of governments (not to say the state itself, of course. We shouldn't have any delusions about the strength, organizational or political, of the movement, but it is a lot stronger than in English Canada.

One consequence of this is that the labour movement in Québec is a bit more "modern" than in English Canada. It is a bit more attentive to economic changes, to new industries, and so on. There was a major strike at the Journal de Montréal that focused mainly on the nuances of anti-scab laws (which Québec labour law has, but which other provinces don't, I think BC might) relating to work done online. I have a really hard time seeing the labour movement in, say, Ontario, being able to sustain anywhere near as long a strike based on the legality of digital labour. Anti-scab laws are only one example of more pro-worker labour laws in Québec. Over the last couple years I've been involved with two union drives on two university campuses, on in Ontario and one in Québec, each for academic staff and each of about 1500 workers. They each got about equal support, but the one in Ontario failed while the one in Québec succeeded because in Québec getting a clear majority of cards signed gets you a union, while in Ontario the university administration was able to win the "vote". Again, I could go on.

Another aspect of this "modernization" is that it's a lot more explicitly anti-sexist. There is a large feminist organization, the FFQ (Fédération des femmes du Québec), that includes most of the unions and which is pretty visible and active. It has a lot of problems, liberal reformism, even some racism, but there isn't even anything to compare it to in English Canada. That's important too.

interestingly enough that sounds pretty similar to what some western gemrans said(and still say) about the eastgermans(the former gdr). first of all the west put so much money in the east, and the east germans are all unthankfull for what the west did for them, and that the eastgermans only complain and elect filthy socialists and so on. kinda interesting.
Yes, there are some analogies actually. Obviously the history is different, but there are some analogies. So, while it's true that we shouldn't have any sympathy for the bourgeoisie in either part of the country, the east providing a cheap labour pool for mostly western capitalists is a major part of the economic dynamics of the country. There is a similar story in Québec. There is a Québecois big bourgeoisie - there's Bombardier that does a lot of locomotive and aerospace, there's the Péladeaus (Quebecor, which owns the Journal de Montréal) in media and telecommunications, there's Jean Coutu in retail, and so on. But, in general, the Québecois bourgeoisie is small and not very powerful. I'm not saying we should be sympathetic to them at all or that their interests are at all our own. In fact, they're mostly staunch federalists, because they depend on the federal state to maintain the oppression - class and national oppression - of the Québecois working class. (The big bourgeoisie, that is - the petty bourgeoisie is mostly nationalist and sometimes actively independentist).

I don't know how any of that compares in Germany, but I'd be surprised if there weren't some similarities.

Misanthrope

6th September 2011, 01:57

Like all nationalism it distracts from class politics, therefore an enemy.

black magick hustla

6th September 2011, 02:04

lol a fucking settler state being "opressed", cry me a fucking river. you guys are spitting on lenin's corpse. even in its "marxist leninist" treatment, imperialism is not a little bit of "cultural chauvinism" being thrown here and there, it is an economic phenomenon. fuck the quebecois nationalists. the quebecois are not an "oppressed nation", i am a direct descendant of a people that were routinely murdered and fucked over by the french, don't need to deal with this francophone identity bullshit

jake williams

6th September 2011, 02:22

even in its "marxist leninist" treatment, imperialism is not a little bit of "cultural chauvinism" being thrown here and there, it is an economic phenomenon.
Which is true of Québec as well. It's a lot less true today than it used to be, but then again there's an increasingly large national bourgeoisie in, say, India, not to compare the two. Historically however the bourgeoisie in Québec was almost entirely anglophone.

i am a direct descendant of a people that were routinely murdered and fucked over by the french, don't need to deal with this francophone identity bullshit
This is a bullshit argument. Québecois peasants, unless you think they somehow led Québec society, aren't responsible for French colonialism in Québec, much less elsewhere. I could equally say that the Irish can't possibly be oppressed because my family got fucked over by the British empire.

It's true that on a subjective level the colonial domination of Québec has always been much, much less brutal than colonial domination elsewhere, or of aboriginal peoples within Canada and Québec. But someone else having worse cancer isn't a cure for cancer.

black magick hustla

6th September 2011, 02:31

Which is true of Québec as well. It's a lot less true today than it used to be, but then again there's an increasingly large national bourgeoisie in, say, India, not to compare the two. Historically however the bourgeoisie in Québec was almost entirely anglophone.
to be honest, i don't by in the argument that imperialism is an "imperialist" side oppressing an other "side". at least not anymore, i think of imperialism as a world system.

even if we take for granted the old imperialism of ancient, leftist dinosaurs as true though, imperialism is much more than what language the bosses speak. it requires the immiseration of a particular nation, and the super profits being flown into other "imperialist" nations. the truth is that quebec has a very dynamic economy, the quebecois are not working misery wages for Alberta to get super profits.

This is a bullshit argument. Québecois peasants, unless you think they somehow led Québec society, aren't responsible for French colonialism in Québec, much less elsewhere. I could equally say that the Irish can't possibly be oppressed because my family got fucked over by the British empire.

settler states were started by the poor and criminals. doesn't make them less of settler states. i think it is preposperous that white descendants of the french, and other european nations think of themselves as an "opressed nation". having english as a second language in schools is not "being opressed". a bit of cultural chauvinism by anglophones is not "being opressed".

It's true that on a subjective level the colonial domination of Québec has always been much, much less brutal than colonial domination elsewhere, or of aboriginal peoples within Canada and Québec. But someone else having worse cancer isn't a cure for cancer.

lol quebec was a colony, it is not subject to "colonial domination". it is a white settler state built upon the backs of dead native americans, and this is why native american organizations don't considered the quebecois an opressed nature. what an inflated, self-righteous, and inconsiderate proclamation.

black magick hustla

6th September 2011, 02:33

http://bermudaradical.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/some-thoughts-on-the-quebec-sovereigntist-movement/

written by a native american trotskiyst btw

black magick hustla

6th September 2011, 02:45

I never said any of that. The indigenous population is entitled to the same rights as the Quebecois.

this is funny, because if we where following that logic it would mean that the quebecois would have to pack their bags and get the fuck out of canada and give it to the natives. so are the perks of being a nationalist. the working class has no culture, to hell with those who protect culture.

jake williams

6th September 2011, 02:56

to be honest, i don't by in the argument that imperialism is an "imperialist" side oppressing an other "side". at least not anymore, i think of imperialism as a world system.
While I don't exactly disagree, to be very honest I see this line of argument (along with a lot of other ultra-left garbage) as being a way to ignore the concrete realities of particular situations.

imperialism is much more than what language the bosses speak. it requires the immiseration of a particular nation, and the super profits being flown into other "imperialist" nations. the truth is that quebec has a very dynamic economy, the quebecois are not working misery wages for Alberta to get super profits.
Of course, but you see, "anglophone" in that sense is a sort of a shorthand. Basically in Québec you had the descendants of a small number of British oligarchs who lived in a small part of Montréal, and then a very large working class and peasant population in the rest of Québec. It was not unlike the situation in many other colonies, where business was in fact conducted in the colonial cities and only a part of the capital actually exported to the colonizing country. The physical presence of individuals from the oppressor nation in the oppressed nation isn't a marker of national equality.

Of course, again, the situation is considerably different now. The national bourgeoisie in Québec is very much strengthened (not that the English Canadian bourgeoisie doesn't continue to more or less dominate politics at the federal level if not the Québec level, though the latter happens more than you might think). Also, the situation for workers in Québec has dramatically improved, basically entirely due to a very nationalist, anti-colonialist labour movement. But the history is still the history.

settler states were started by the poor and criminals. doesn't make them less of settler states.
Horseshit. Settler states are started by ruling classes, first feudal ruling classes and then capitalist ruling classes. Typically if you wanted to take a white slave, unlike a black slave, you had to call them a "criminal" in order to kidnap them, ship them across the Atlantic, and make them work for you. This, however, was when being poor was basically a crime, so it wasn't too difficult.

If you actually think that the main criminals of history are French peasants, you've got a pretty sick view of history (morally and analytically) and you really don't belong on the left.

i think it is preposperous that white descendants of the french, and other european nations think of themselves as an "opressed nation".
Then you're just a bigot. If you actually believe that people can't be oppressed if they're French, or white, then again, you don't belong on the left. If you actually don't believe that social relationships between the people of Québec and the rest of the world exist that constitute national oppression that's fine, and there's a real argument to be made there, but to suggest that it CAN'T be the case because of who their ancestors are is totally preposterous. To go one of the many ridiculous places you could go with that - the Métis are also partly descendants of the French, I'm sure they're doing swell too. How many drops of French blood make you bourgeois?

You're also being totally inconsistent. Is imperialism a "global system" where nationality is irrelevant, or does having some French great-grandparent make you automatically an imperialist? It can't be both.

native american organizations don't considered the quebecois an opressed nature.
The situation is a whooole lot more complicated than that. I know a lot of aboriginal sovereignty activists in Québec who actively support the independentist project as part of a coalition of oppressed nations against the Canadian federal state. I could tokenistically pick them out too, if you like.

But that's not the important point. The relationship between the state in Québec and the state in Canada and their respective aboriginal populations is historically complex. In some capacity the Québec state absolutely has been more vicious in its internal colonization, and to a limited extent this has been related to the national project. At the same time, for most of its history, the Québecois state has been run by the very anglo bourgeoisie against which the national movement has been struggling.

In modern times, however, it's been common for (very right wing, and very racist) Canadian federalists to try to exploit divisions between aboriginal peoples and Québec to undermine the national movement. It's a pretty cynical sort of game to play.

Whether or not the Québecois nation will be able to find some sort of just and equal relationship with aboriginal peoples in the modern territory of Québec is going to depend on a lot of hard work. That work, of course, is not being done by right wing federalism in Canada, and it won't be done by undermining the national and democratic rights of Québec; it'll be done by an international movement, in Québec and elsewhere, against national oppression (and, of course, capitalism).

black magick hustla

6th September 2011, 03:15

While I don't exactly disagree, to be very honest I see this line of argument (along with a lot of other ultra-left garbage) as being a way to ignore the concrete realities of particular situations.

i love the slur ultra-left. its a funny slur because a lot of the people who belong the dinosaur left use it as a way to argue that something is too extreme or utopian. but in reality, people who talk about lenin's imperialism today and "imperialist nations" are completely irrelevant and belong to another era.

Of course, but you see, "anglophone" in that sense is a sort of a shorthand. Basically in Québec you had the descendants of a small number of British oligarchs who lived in a small part of Montréal, and then a very large working class and peasant population in the rest of Québec. It was not unlike the situation in many other colonies, where business was in fact conducted in the colonial cities and only a part of the capital actually exported to the colonizing country.

yes, and the settler colonies were not oppressed, even when subject to the crown. the whole idea that the american colonies, for example, were opressed, is american, nationalist mythmaking. they were not opressed at least in the way we mean when talking about imperialism.

The physical presence of individuals from the oppressor nation in the oppressed nation isn't a marker of national equality.

nobody said otherwise.

Horseshit. Settler states are started by ruling classes, first feudal ruling classes and then capitalist ruling classes. Typically if you wanted to take a white slave, unlike a black slave, you had to call them a "criminal" in order to kidnap them, ship them across the Atlantic, and make them work for you. This, however, was when being poor was basically a crime, so it wasn't too difficult.

If you actually think that the main criminals of history are French peasants, you've got a pretty sick view of history (morally and analytically) and you really don't belong on the left.

oh poor you, im sorry that i hurt your francophone national pride. the truth is that i don't give a fuck "who is to blame" in circumstances like this. i am not some bankrupt nationalist. my whole point is that under at least marxist jargon, the quebecois are not an oppressed nation. its like saying europeans are opressed by america because a lot of them are subject to american buisness interests and culture.

Then you're just a bigot. If you actually believe that people can't be oppressed if they're French, or white, then again, you don't belong on the left. If you actually don't believe that social relationships between the people of Québec and the rest of the world exist that constitute national oppression that's fine, and there's a real argument to be made there, but to suggest that it CAN'T be the case because of who their ancestors are is totally preposterous. To go one of the many ridiculous places you could go with that - the Métis are also partly descendants of the French, I'm sure they're doing swell too. How many drops of French blood make you bourgeois?
im sorry i hurt your francophone pride. white people can be opressed, but they are not an "opressed nation", opressed nation is a technical term that does not apply to the fucking quebecois.

You're also being totally inconsistent. Is imperialism a "global system" where nationality is irrelevant, or does having some French great-grandparent make you automatically an imperialist? It can't be both.
not really, i was using your dumb simplistic model of "imperialists vs colonies" against you. the truth is that i don't care about native american self determination either.

Die Neue Zeit

6th September 2011, 03:19

i love the slur ultra-left. its a funny slur because a lot of the people who belong the dinosaur left use it as a way to argue that something is too extreme or utopian. but in reality, people who talk about lenin's imperialism today and "imperialist nations" are completely irrelevant and belong to another era.

And what about those who glorify riots while openly slandering leftists who prefer more institution-based organization as "fascists"? What does that say about their shifting class background? :rolleyes:

black magick hustla

6th September 2011, 03:20

And what about those who glorify riots while openly slandering leftists who prefer more institution-based organization as "fascists"? What does that say about their shifting class background? :rolleyes:

i didnt call you a fascist. kleber did. i dont read your posts. you are crazy, go away

Die Neue Zeit

6th September 2011, 03:23

The truth is that i don't care about native american self determination either.

This is typical Imperialist Economism that ultra-left tendencies aren't immune from.

Die Neue Zeit

6th September 2011, 03:58

The thing is, most of the English Canadian left are active anglo chauvinists. It's just that they're so ignorant, and their nationalist chauvinism so profound, that they don't even recognize the existence of a Québec nation that they could be oppressing. Québec is simply another province, albeit one where people are lazy and overpaid and we give them all our money and all they do is whine. There is sort of a progressive character to left-nationalism in English Canada actually - it is often a part of a movement for union democracy, for sovereignty over resources (not that in Canada or Québec this is uncomplicated because a lot of them are not 'our' resources so much as they are the resources of aboriginal peoples, but the point still stands), for the protection of social programs and so on. It's not uncomplicated; it also can be racist; it also can mean subjecting the working class to the national bourgeoisie. But, it's not the worst thing ever, and it's simply a fact of working in the working class in English Canada. The difference is, the Québecois nationalist movement, at its worst, still feels no claim to the colonial control of English Canada, no right to subject its language and culture to Québec, no demand that English Canada give up its national rights, its history or its heritage.

I make no pretenses about which side of the federalist/separatist divide I'm on (because of where I am). However, I'm sure that the rest of the English Canadian left doesn't see Quebec as "lazy and overpaid and recipients of federal money while whining all the time," and I'm also sure a Canadian left party would put this debate in the backburner (because, realistically, a federalist Quebec left and a not-so-federalist Anglo left wouldn't resonate among workers much). I'm more wary about the influence of Albertan provincialism on federal politics.

HEAD ICE

6th September 2011, 04:03

just to jump in here to undertake some advertisement for my tiny group the IWG, even though we are basically non-existent in the US the organization is based out of Quebec and is majority Francophone (with one Anglophone member I think). In any case they echo the same exact sentiments as black magick hustla and like all thinking people reject nationalism and even moreso give belly laughs at the idea that Quebec is an "oppressed" nation.

talk about Quebec, home to one of the most dominant cities in the global capitalist market, is 'oppressed' makes me want to actually argue in favor of labor aristocracy at just how unreal this shit is.

Hopefully y'all support the right of self-determination for the Southern nation in the USA. black and white workers generally share the same culture, contains its own independent dialect, independent and distinct culture from the rest of the USA, and the Southern working class from the very beginning have been the most immiserated and exploited of all the workers in America to the point of almost being completely lumpenized. the case for an independent Southern state is 10000000000000000x stronger than Quebec nationalist jokes. for an independent nation in the US south! for protracted peoples war in the ozarks!

oh wait a minute that is stupid as fuck. just like quebec nationalism (still lollin').

Die Neue Zeit

6th September 2011, 04:17

^^^ I'm in favour of a major reconfiguration of the federal and provincial/federated state structures of Canada and the US, one that:

1) Consolidates the excessive number of US states;
2) Includes an intact Quebec;
3) Recognizes bigger First Nations territories such as Lakotah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah), in addition to existing recognitions such as Nunavut for the Inuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut), while Canadian-izes overall North American relations with the rest (because US First Nations are treated horribly);
4) Recognizes African-American self-determination ("New Afrika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_New_Afrika)"); and
5) Results in provinces/federated states with more natural borders (Cascadia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement))).

black magick hustla

6th September 2011, 04:23

long live dixie fuck the yankees

black magick hustla

6th September 2011, 04:31

4) Recognizes African-American self-determination ("New Afrika"); and

L0L anybody who speaks about black self determination today is either not black and has a weird fetish for 1930s CPUSA politics or is part of a loon group like the NBPP or FRSO

Who?

6th September 2011, 04:31

^^^ I'm in favour of a major reconfiguration of the federal and provincial/federated state structures of Canada and the US, one that:

1) Consolidates the excessive number of US states;
2) Includes an intact Quebec;
3) Recognizes bigger First Nations territories such as Lakotah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah), while Canadian-izes overall North American relations with the rest (because US First Nations are treated horribly);
4) Recognizes African-American self-determination ("New Afrika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_New_Afrika)"); and
5) Results in provinces/federated states with more natural borders (Cascadia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement))).

Do you have a map by any chance?
This actually makes a lot of sense.

HEAD ICE

6th September 2011, 04:31

The racial divide in the US south keeps the southern working class the most debased of all the working classes in the United $nakkkes of Amerikkka. However, old Marxist tactics have failed to unite workers black and white. The only way we can unite the Southern working class is not by class struggle (which has failed), but in a nationalist movement for the secession and independence of the culturally distinct nation in the US south.

Uniting black and white will be easier in a nationalist fervor, where we highlight the tasks taken by the Northern bourgeoisie and the southern comprador bourgeoisie to divide the working class on racial lines, how the imperialist North has since the beginning levied crippling tariff's on our nation which amplified slavery to provide raw materials to the Northern bourgeoisie.

Since the abolition of slavery the situation has remained almost identical. The Northern bourgeoisie in collusion with the Southern comprador capitalists to undertake anti-democratic and racial oppression to provide a cheap source of labor for Northern industry. Our markets have been flooded with goods produced by Northern industrialists. Our dependence on the imperialist Northern states has been a part of our common history.

We must unite black, white, workers and progressive bourgeoisie to end the imperialist, chauvinist historical oppression of the South by the Northern states. This can only be done through seceding from the U$A and establishing our own independent, sovereign nation. The Northerners let us know all the time how different we all are from them. They are right. We are a culturally rich and distinct from the rest of the country. We are the true source of "American" culture, which has been appropriated by the Northern imperialists since the beginning. Rock, jazz, blues, literature. All from the South.

They let us know that we sound weird. That is true as well. We have our own separate dialect that separates us from the rest of the U$A. The evidence that the South is a culturally distinct nation is damning, and any denial that we are our own separate nation is simply Northern chauvinism.

For protracted peoples war in the Southern states!

Against the imperialist north!

Yankee go home!

For self-determination of the Southern peoples!

Die Neue Zeit

6th September 2011, 04:32

Do you have a map by any chance?
This actually makes quite a lot of sense.

They're all in the wiki links I gave, but no I don't have a single map that meshes them all together. :(

L0L anybody who speaks about black self determination today is either not black and has a weird fetish for 1930s CPUSA politics or is part of a loon group like the NBPP or FRSO

Given the broader framework I just laid out, you really don't know what I'm talking about in very simple terms. :glare:

mosfeld

6th September 2011, 15:41

PCR-RCP in Canada considers the principal National Question to be that of the natives, not Québec. Comrade JMP talks a bit on Québec in the post below:

The Fall of the Bloc and the Ideology of Losing Colonialism

What I find most interesting about the recent federal elections (aside from the fact that again around 40% of registered voters refused to participate) was the crushing defeat of the Bloc Quebecois. Normally this Quebec nationalist party dominates its province: it is not only as "social democratic" as the NDP (if not more so), but its Francophone nationalist line tended to make it more appealing to many left-inclined French Canadians. This year, however, like the Liberal party it was completely decimated.

The Revolutionary Communist Party Canada (PCR-RCP) that emerged in Quebec, and in the midst of Quebecois left struggle, has long argued that Quebec nationalism is a dead project: "as a nation, Quebec is no longer subjected to any form of oppression that would prevent its own development and would then justify––as some people still want us to believe––a national liberation struggle." Furthermore, the PCR-RCP argued that the entire Quebec national movement "has for the most part harboured ideas contrary to the interests of the proletariat" and that Quebec "is not on the side of the dominated countries, but on the side of the dominating countries." These insights were proved this election when the majority of the people who would normally vote for the sovereigntist Bloc voted NDP instead––now even the lingering ideology of Quebec nationalism no longer holds sway in the imagination of the average Quebecois voting participant. And yet Gilles Duceppe went out in a Quebec sovereigntist blaze of glory, ranting about how Quebec "liberation" was somehow still a relevant issue when, if anything, it is only the issue of racist cultural nationalists who would rather vote for the retrograde Parti Quebecois than the Bloc.

Quebec nationalism, though providing important moments of revolutionary struggle (i.e. the Front de Libération du Québec), was by-and-large a false revolutionary nationalism. While it is true that the francophone sovereigntist struggle emerged in response to anglo-chauvinism, it was still the product of a nation of losing colonizers. The French arrived to settle, enslave, and genocide this hemisphere's indigenous population––just like the English––they just happened to lose a colonial war and become a nation of subjugated colonizers. Even when they were under the economic domination of the Anglophones, they remained a parasitic settler-colonial nation: they would send their police to smash indigenous resistance, their sovereigntism was most often a denial of anti-colonial struggle because the only national struggle it recognized was a struggle of settlers. And this nationalism is, to paraphrase Fanon and Cesaire, ultimately nothing more than "a war amongst brothers."

And yet, for a long time, the Canadian left has tried to argue that Quebec nationalism is the only nationalism that counts––the primary national liberation demand of Canada, more important than actual anti-colonial struggle. This conception of false revolutionary nationalism, the focus on Quebec's right to secede as a nation, is still defended by certain sectors of the left: for example, some groups still argue (and do so publicly) that only Quebec constitutes a "nation", whereas the various indigenous nations do not, and so while the former has the revolutionary right to secede, the latter should just integrate. The terribly economistic and chauvinist theory behind this assertion is that only Quebec possesses a "real political economy." Although how its political economy is any different from other provincial political economies, and how it is not integrated into the overall colonial-capitalist state of Canada, is a question conjured away behind this supposedly robust claim about nationhood. At the end of the day, despite any rhetorical flourishes and despicable sophistries, the argument is nothing more than colonial ideology: indigenous people cannot constitute "nations" because they are supposed to be outside of history, frozen in time, apparitions of a landscape no different from trees or other roaming animals––this was the racist thinking behind colonial ideologies like terra nullius.

The national question that emerged in the Leninist period of marxism––discussed to its most minute details by Lenin and by the participants of the Third International's Second Congress––should not be reduced to such pathetic colonial qualifications. Of course, those who defend this false conception of the national question do so because they benefit, as so many of us do, from colonial-capitalism and this benefit, this privilege, produces and ideological mindset: it is in our interests to reject a concrete analysis in a concrete situation of the national question… far better to apply it to a population of losing colonizers who, if they ever secede from the rest of Canada, will maintain colonialism and capitalism.

And many of these groups who still push Quebec nationalism as the only revolutionary nationalism that counts were extremely angered by the PCR-RCP's analysis of the national question that rejects Quebec nationalism in favour of anti-colonial indigenous nationalism. This is a more concrete and revolutionary understanding of the national question, and one that even takes anglo-chauvinism into account, because it understands that capitalism in Canada grew out of colonial conquest––a colonialism initiated, and now maintained, by English and French alike.

If anything, the fall of the Bloc demonstrates that French Canadian voters do not care about this false understanding of the national question promoted by antiquated "marxist" organizations who still imagine that they're living sixty years ago. Quebec sovereignty must no longer be relevant to the Quebec middle class if all of their class needs are being satisfied by a Canadian capitalism that now treats French Canadians no different from English Canadians. And the Quebec proletariat probably does not care if the exploiting bourgeoisie is Francophone or Anglophone, either. As the PCR-RCP argued in the chapter of their programme that defends native sovereignty over and above Quebec sovereignty:

"To claim that Québec has played the part of an oppressed nation historically within Canada is one thing. To voluntarily blind oneself to its current reality and in the face of changes that have taken place after almost 40 years of domination – if not hegemony – by the national movement in Québec: this is a big mistake, that has been made at the cost of the proletariat."

Hopefully the Bloc's humiliating defeat in these recent federal elections will finally exorcise the ghost of that predatory nationalism that has lingered over the mass graves of indigenous peoples since its emergence.

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/05/fall-of-bloc-and-ideology-of-losing.html

Nox

6th September 2011, 16:27

Nox

6th September 2011, 16:33

She sounds like a Palestinian nationalist, except less racist. There isn't such a thing as a "white nation" outside of racist mythology and were there one, it wouldn't be oppressed. Neither of these are true of Québec.

She's spewing out the same crap that all nationalists say

"Our culture is being destroyed"
"I don't want to have to speak another language"
"We're a minority"
"We're being oppressed"
"The government wants to wipe us out"

Boo-fucking-hoo

The Quebecois are not oppressed, and secession will solve nothing.

black magick hustla

6th September 2011, 23:26

Hello.
Alot of things are happening here in the province of Québec (Canada)
There is a neat regression of french speakers here. And it looks like our federal government have nothing against it.

Is it wrong to be a Québec nationalist/secessionist? Knowing that what the federal government want is we become a minority. I just don't want to see english speakers here (no offence). This region has been french since so long. becoming a minority here would just destroy our culture, our language. I don't want to have to speak english in Québec...it's total nonsence.

Pour les Québecois : Avez-vous déja été au quartier dix-30? Avez-vous remarqué que 50% des gens y parlent en anglais?

fuck your right for self determination whitey. i hope all your tv shows are in english

Le Rouge

7th September 2011, 00:24

fuck your right for self determination whitey. i hope all your tv shows are in english

Woah man could you just calm the fuck down. I said i understood it's wrong. What do you want more? Cookies? Cookies are good.

Die Neue Zeit

7th September 2011, 02:53

The French-speaking people of Quebec being oppressed by the English-speaking people had got to be the most hilarious pile of bullshit I've ever heard.

How the hell are you being oppressed? Give us some examples that don't involve culture/language (being taught English as a second language doesn't count as oppression).

Well, there is a difference between exploitation and oppression. I'm sure much of the latter has gone down in this century, but things weren't so rosy way before.

Nox

7th September 2011, 08:10

A minority language slowly becoming extinct is not 'oppression', it's natural and anyone with a thread of common sense would realise that.

Kornilios Sunshine

7th September 2011, 08:55

Red Planet

17th November 2011, 08:50

Wow, I hate to resurrect a dead thread, but I can't believe "leftists" are still grappling with the "national question." :rolleyes:

There are no fucking nations apart from bourgeois constructs. We are all ONE "nation."

Fuck nationalism, and fuck threads like these. This asshole should get his ass over to Socialist Phailanx or some other shitty site like it.

Parvati

17th November 2011, 15:58

In fact, I think that in a lot of places in the worls, the "national question" is something that the youth associated with progress and revolution; even if it's generally wrong. And I think it's pretty good to talk about it; anyway I'm in favor of debating each questions that we can find in the proletariat and nationalism is a big one.

For the concept of nations, I understand that we should aspire to be one nation, with different cultural/traditional backgrounds and arts, but for now it is not the case : some "nations" are still oppressed, don't have to remember Palestine, Natives, African-american, and so on. We should certainly destroy this idea of nation, but it's not the case today.

For being a communist Quebecer who talks a lot with people on the street and on our neighbourhoods, Quebecer oppression is an issue that oftenly come back, especially among the youth. The history that we learn in school (elementary to university) subsitute people's struggle and marxism-leninism ideology of the '60's and 70's by a "Quebecer nationalism" and the Rise of the Parti Québécois. This error misconducts a lot of young people that honnestly want some change to believe that Quebec sovereignty is the social revolution we need.

Anyway, I encourage people to ask their questions and other one to not answer if they don't want to do it sincerely.

Parvati

17th November 2011, 16:10

Tomhet

17th November 2011, 16:13

The Quebec nationalist movement is very much a waste of time. The focus needs to be on uniting workers, not dividing them on national lines.

Precisely, this goes for reactionary Newfoundland 'patriots' as well...

Die Rote Fahne

17th November 2011, 20:46

Precisely, this goes for reactionary Newfoundland 'patriots' as well...

Though, our Newfoundland nationalists are a very small threat.

danyboy27

17th November 2011, 21:19

Quebec nationalism these day reek of xenophobia and ignorance and have little to do with leftism in general.

Sure a lot of Nationalists here are in support of governement programs like healthcare, but frankly it will never make it up for all their reactionary views on immigrants, poor peoples and english speaking peoples.

Nationalism will always divide people between 2 camps; us(the chosen peoples) and them(the bad peoples).

Craig_J

17th November 2011, 21:30

Hmm Yeah. I see. it was pretty stupid from me.
I have nothing against other cultures, i love ethnics and cultures. I make efforts to be able to communicate.
I'm pretty confused.

What you've said is wrong.

However, despite your delivery I don't think your prejudice/ xenophobic.

I believe you are just a traditionalist who doesn't want to see your region change from what makes it unique.

I can be quite conservative in my views of preserving certain thigns and culture is something I never like to see die out. However, I'm afraid there's no clear way you can approach this situation without treading on someones toes and excluding certain people. And the exclusion of people is something I'm even more passionate about then conservation.

I can't blame you at all for your confusion, I've only read the first few posts so perhaps someone has posted an idea which could work so exscuse me if someone has already.

But all I can think of is to try and keep that historic culture in the minds of people. Whether they're from that area or not if they feel any degree off atachment to it they should respect it and embrace the fact that the others around them want to embrace their tradiitonal culture.

But at the same time I think it's inevitable that no culture can last for ever.*

* Unless you count religon but even that has the potential of changing from traiditonailists ways or dieing very slowly.

NewSocialist

17th November 2011, 22:27

In fact, I think that in a lot of places in the worls, the "national question" is something that the youth associated with progress and revolution; even if it's generally wrong.

:rolleyes: and Mussolini and Hitler claimed their movements were "progressive" too, whats your point? Just because *a lot* of people believe a certain thing doesnt mean we should accept it too, especially if it's false! argumentum ad populum

And I think it's pretty good to talk about it; anyway I'm in favor of debating each questions that we can find in the proletariat and nationalism is a big one.

so I take it you support an open platform policy for fascists too then?

For the concept of nations, I understand that we should aspire to be one nation, with different cultural/traditional backgrounds and arts, but for now it is not the case : some "nations" are still oppressed, don't have to remember Palestine, Natives, African-american, and so on. We should certainly destroy this idea of nation, but it's not the case today.

the only way to liberate the oppressed nations is to fight for the liberation of *all* peoples. do you really think justice will be achieved for Palestine, African Americans or Native Americans as long as most of the world remains capitalist? dream on, friend.

For being a communist Quebecer who talks a lot with people on the street and on our neighbourhoods, Quebecer oppression is an issue that oftenly come back, especially among the youth.

:rolleyes: being an american communist, Kim Kardashian is an issue that often is raised, especially among the youth, whats your point? Just because the descendants of *colonists* are pissed off about having their newspapers being published in english doesnt mean we communists should waste time and resources babying them and encouraging the chauvinism of one group of colonists over another.

The history that we learn in school (elementary to university) subsitute people's struggle and marxism-leninism ideology of the '60's and 70's by a "Quebecer nationalism" and the Rise of the Parti Québécois. This error misconducts a lot of young people that honnestly want some change to believe that Quebec sovereignty is the social revolution we need.

then its up to *us* to teach them to look beyond there petty nationalism and learn the *true* causes of their misery --capitalism, racism, monogamy, sexism, the family and racism.

Parvati

17th November 2011, 22:59

Red Planet

18th November 2011, 06:15

I really don't understand your intervention NewSocialism.
I never said that nationalism was a good thing, I said that in many areas, such as Quebec where I live and so where I speak to the proletariat of Quebec it is something that people talk a lot. Nationalism IS NOT the answer to oppression.

Alarming segments of the proletariat are also turning to Nazism and other filth. That is what nationalism is. Québecians have no right to ask for any "self-determination" (stupid concept). What you should be doing is teaching them why it is wrong to want to separate yourself from your fellow proletarians. Also, perhaps they should question their own legitimacy as the descendants of colonialists. :rolleyes:

But yes, I believe that communists must be among the masses, support progressive views and denouncing the erroneous views. And some part of the proletariat are nationalist, racist, sexist, reactionnary. We could not just be blind and say "Damn, racism is a bad thing. I don't want to talk about it."The part of the proletariat that is racist, nationalist, sexist, homophobic, etc., is the lumpenproletariat! They are reactionaries and deserve no support nor camaraderie from us.

And yes, if in a society much of the proletariat, leaning toward fascism, I think we should really talk about, you know like hm, everyday? Not to open any "debate space," but because it would be a f*** big problem. So, you want to try to reason with fascists? Because that's what you're implying. Talking or debating? Clearly you'd have to do both. Yes, I'm sure that is a fine strategy. Hitler would be proud. :rolleyes:

The only "space" we should give fascists is the space between their bodies and the floor as we smash their faces!

Thus, I never said that the liberation of one notion could be achieved, I said that "acting like there is no nations today (which means that nobody is oppressed on a national base) is wrong".
There are no nations! Nations are relics just like race and gender. To pretend that there are is chauvinist, and this usually takes the form of racism. The left must spit on nationalism.

And them I'm sorry but when you're talking you people, you know in real life, you could not talk like this :

Proletarian dude : "This system doesn't work, I have a bad pay, a bad rent, a lot of debts and this is caused by the fact that our enterprises belong to Anglophones/US, we should make Quebec Sovereignty"

Supposed communist dude : "You're a waste of time. You're a chauvinist and a colonist."

or like this

Young proletarian dude : "There's no place for me in this society, the only job I've got are underpaid, what we learn in school is bullshit. I think we should change the system; if we have our own country we could make it. You know, we should struggle like people durings the '60's and 70's".

Supposed communist dude : "You're a waste of time. You're a chauvinist and a colonist."

Quebec sovereignty is a erroneous idea; it's not going to release anyone else except the Quebec Bourgeoisie. But because the bourgeoisie has become powerful through the creation of a strong Quebec capitalist state, it has an interest in that people associate social struggles and independence. People live under capitalism and are influenced by these ideas. That does not means that these ideas are good, it means that these ideas exist and they are often used by proletarian people.

Finally, although I am not an American Communist, I'm pretty sure that if you say to young american people
"There's no future for us under capitalism,"
They Will not answer: "Kim Kardashian is pretty sexy" ...

All you have to do is tell them that nationalism is a tool used by the bourgeoisie to oppress minorities. If they deny this, then they are clearly racists, as that is such an easy cop out that nationalists use. If they assert any identity apart from the proletarian identity, then they are rejecting unity with the rest, and they are therefore reactionaries.

hatzel

18th November 2011, 10:40

The part of the proletariat that is racist, nationalist, sexist, homophobic, etc., is the lumpenproletariat! They are reactionaries and deserve no support nor camaraderie from us.

Excuse me? Are you trying to claim that being racist, nationalist, sexist, homophobic, etc. automatically makes you 'lumpen,' rather than proletarian? Or are you claiming that there are no racist, nationalist, sexist, homophobic, etc. proles, and that the only people who are racist, nationalist, sexist, homophobic, etc. are these mysterious 'lumpen'? Or do you perhaps have no idea what you're saying and are instead just spouting vaguely leftist-sounding rhetoric?

Iron Felix

18th November 2011, 10:58

A perfect solution would be the abandonment of both English and French in Quebec. Quebec should speak Russian from now on.

danyboy27

18th November 2011, 13:26

One of the main problems Quebec have that promote nationalism is its isolationism that is caused by both by its geographic position and the language barrier.

We are french speaking people living in north america, can you really be more isolated?

It would be perfectly possible to overcome this problem if there was a better accessibility for french canadian to learn foreign languages and learn about other cultures.

Right now, the main source of information for Quebecker are Le journal de Québec and TVA news, that pretty much where your avearge french canadian get his ''facts'', things that we can relate too, wich mean, nothing about the world outside our province.

Tim Finnegan

18th November 2011, 14:29

Generally, nationalist movements are just ridiculous,pseudo-revolutionary and instead of thinking about how bad capitalism is,they fight with Pakistanis,Turks etc and if you tell them your opinion they beat the fuck out of you.
You realise that you have Cuban flags in your signature, don't you?

A minority language slowly becoming extinct is not 'oppression', it's natural and anyone with a thread of common sense would realise that.
In what sense is the hegemony of one particular cultural group over others "natural", exactly? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gif

There is a difference, I would argue, between seeking to preserve a particular culture against assimilation and advocacy of bourgeois nationalism. That a lot of bourgeois nationalists do not grasp this does not give you, the nominal anarchist, license to show a similar lack of comprehension.

danyboy27

18th November 2011, 14:37

In what sense is the hegemony of one particular cultural group over others "natural", exactly? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gif

This is not what happening in Quebec at all.

hatzel

18th November 2011, 16:26

In what sense is the hegemony of one particular cultural group over others "natural", exactly? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gifThis is not what happening in Quebec at all.

Perhaps not, but treating French in Québec as a minority language which would 'naturally' disappear is a bit strange. Minority languages which may 'naturally' disappear include, for example, the German spoken by merchants in port cities around the Baltic. Surrounded by other languages, it could be expected that these German-speakers would come to adopt the language of the country they found themselves in, in order to facilitate interaction with the other, say, 90% of the city; this happened in Stockholm centuries ago, and was perhaps helped along a little bit in Tallinn, Riga etc., but even in these places, the language would most likely have faded away without any external influence. The languages spoken by very small immigrant communities (n.b. very large minority communities, such as Turks in some German cities, may be able to maintain their culturo-linguistic integrity in the absence of extraneous political factors, and as such should be considered separately) also have a tendency to disappear, as they become superfluous when people want to talk to more than just their linguistic fellows, who may number only a dozen or so. This may be claimed to be a 'natural' vanishing of a minority language.

French in Québec, on the other hand, obviously isn't a minority language. It's a minority language in the Canadian State, yes, but is spoken by the vast majority over a quite substantial territory. There is no 'natural' need for French-speakers in Québec to adopt English in order to interact with people they meet on the street, because the people they meet on the street speak French, too. If French were to disappear in Québec (which we have been led to believe is a 'natural' process), it would most likely be for political reasons, the direct result of the French-speakers being made a minority by a much larger State; in the absence of said State, the likelihood of French-language abandonment would plummet sharply, challenging the idea that it would be a 'natural' process, rather than a human-made/-promoted process.

It would be as 'natural' for the French-speakers of Québec to adopt English as it would be for the Hungarians to adopt German (Hungarian speakers live quite near German speakers, and there are considerably more German speakers than Hungarian speakers, so the demographic situation resembles that of Canada, if we ignore the existence of the State, which of course no anti-statist should factor into what they consider 'natural' processes), that is to say not very natural at all; the only way I could envisage Hungarians adopting German (without a mass migration of tens of millions of German-speakers to Hungary, so that Hungarian would become an extreme minority language) would be through the establishment of a German-speaking ruling class in Hungary, either through conquest or some other means, bringing about some kind of culturo-linguistic hegemony. Or through German-speakers exerting some other intense force on the Hungarians, short of establishing their direct rule over them. The same can be said of Québec, where the abandonment of French would most likely not be a 'natural' process, but a direct result of the political situation.

This is not, however, to say that I believe there is any conscious effort on the Canadian State's part to eradicate the French language within its borders (as such I agree with your original comment), nor do I believe the French language in Canada is particularly endangered. But if it were, given the demographics, it would have to be blamed on cultural hegemony, most likely through the Canadian State, rather than being a 'natural' process.

The issue here is that cultural hegemony is so fundamentally tied up with the workings of State (here I refer not only to the influence of one cultural group over another, but also the influence of an 'official' culture over those of the same group, such as through the creation of a unified language out of the many disparate dialects spoken by 'real people') that those with a serious commitment to the preservation of organic cultures must necessarily oppose the State in all its forms; nation States do nothing to protect the integrity of the nation they claim to represent, instead turning them into a frozen caricature of themselves.

Red Planet

18th November 2011, 17:14

Excuse me? Are you trying to claim that being racist, nationalist, sexist, homophobic, etc. automatically makes you 'lumpen,' rather than proletarian? Or are you claiming that there are no racist, nationalist, sexist, homophobic, etc. proles, and that the only people who are racist, nationalist, sexist, homophobic, etc. are these mysterious 'lumpen'? Or do you perhaps have no idea what you're saying and are instead just spouting vaguely leftist-sounding rhetoric?

I would say that if they persisted with such outlooks, then they are definitely lumpenproles. They can't achieve class consciousness because they are not sufficiently liberated of reaction.

"Vaguely leftist." We sure have lowered our standards here lately. :rolleyes:

danyboy27

18th November 2011, 17:53

French language isnt disappearing anytime soon.
Quebec isolation from the rest of the world on the other hand is still verry strong.

Nox

18th November 2011, 18:13

In what sense is the hegemony of one particular cultural group over others "natural", exactly? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gif

It was in response to someone saying that only 50% of youths in Quebec can speak French, my main point was 'who gives a shit?'. I then said that it's natural for a minority language to decline in a country that's dominated by English speakers. I did not take into account the isolationism of Quebec, but the point still stands.

NewSocialist

18th November 2011, 18:16

French language isnt disappearing anytime soon.

even if it were to theorhetically disappear, would that really be such a bad thing? languages, like nations and borders, serve as a barrier between peoples. right now english is becoming a global language but I would support the formation of a totally new language after the revolution -why cling onto a language like english that only became international due to the legacy of colonialism and white supremascism? in the mean time these petty “national struggles“ between colonial oppressor nations should not concern those of us interested in communist revolution except as a way to locate the more reactionary segements of the working class so we can then educate them to understand that nationalism is a harmful and useless distraction.

what you say about isolationism in Quebec is a concern for sure, which is why we internationalists are so vital to the class struggle in Quebec.

tir1944

18th November 2011, 18:17

The Quebecoise have a right for national self-determination.
Why is this even a question?

tir1944

18th November 2011, 18:19

even if it were to theorhetically disappear, would that really be such a bad thing?
Yes because a huge part of the world's cultural heritage would disappear/become inaccessible to us.
Sure you can read Victor Hugo in English,but that's not the same...

Nox

18th November 2011, 18:22

The Quebecoise have a right for national self-determination.
Why is this even a question?

Self determination shouldnt be based on nationality, in fact nothing should be based on nationality.

NewSocialist

18th November 2011, 18:24

tir1944: The Quebecoise have a right for national self-determination.
Why is this even a question?

:rolleyes: the fascists in Quebec would surely agree. “self-determination“ is only progressive when applied to oppressed peoples -like the Native Americans which the French forefathers of modern day Quebec citizens massacred- not lilly white beneficiaries of centuries worth of colonialism and white supremacism. even for oppressed peoples self-determination should only be seen as a very brief means to an end -the end being *communism* which is *stateless* despite what you may have been told.

NewSocialist

18th November 2011, 18:28

Yes because a huge part of the world's cultural heritage would disappear/become inaccessible to us.
Sure you can read Victor Hugo in English,but that's not the same...

anything of historic value would surely be translated and incorporated into the new global culture. preserving languages, cultures, nations, just for the sake of preservation is completely conservative and reactionary.

danyboy27

18th November 2011, 18:29

The Quebecoise have a right for national self-determination.
Why is this even a question?

Beccause Quebec nationalism is a xenophobic creation of the French canadian bourgeoisie.

It make Quebecker forget that their fellow english-speaking workingmen and workingwomen sweat, bleed and get screwed has much has they are by their bosses.

Red Planet

18th November 2011, 18:30

The Quebecoise have a right for national self-determination.
Why is this even a question?

All right, David Duke.

Quebecoise aern't even an oppressed group. They are white descendants of colonialists. you can't even justify their nationalism on the basis of past oppression and white supremacy.

tir1944

18th November 2011, 18:48

If "Quebec nationalism" is indeed a a xenophobic creation of the French canadian bourgeoisie then it shouldn't be supported.
What's the official stance of the Canadian/Quebecois Comparty on this issue anyway?

hatzel

18th November 2011, 19:32

languages [...] serve as a barrier between peoples

If you unite people(s) by eradicating their uniqueness then you have achieved nothing. If you overcome prejudice and discrimination between different groups by eliminating their differences then you haven't overcome anything. You've just redirected its possibility, pushed people into creating new in- and out-groups to discriminate between. Abolishing different languages would only lead to an illusionary unity (at the very best), one in which division and discrimination still lie dormant, waiting to resurface when difference arises. As it inevitably will.

hatzel

18th November 2011, 19:45

I would say that if they persisted with such outlooks, then they are definitely lumpenproles. They can't achieve class consciousness because they are not sufficiently liberated of reaction.

"Vaguely leftist." We sure have lowered our standards here lately. :rolleyes:

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. The proletariat is an economic class, as anybody who uses the word should know. You don't have to identify as a proletarian to be one; class consciousness doesn't make you a proletarian, it just makes you aware that you are. That inglorious word 'lumpen' also refers to an economic class. Apparently. Weltanshauung plays no part in your class. You can be a neo-Nazi and still a proletarian - most are proles, actually - because it doesn't matter what you think or how you act or anything else: sell your labour to a cappie and you're a prole, end of story. Socialism 101.

Red Planet

18th November 2011, 21:39

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. The proletariat is an economic class, as anybody who uses the word should know. You don't have to identify as a proletarian to be one; class consciousness doesn't make you a proletarian, it just makes you aware that you are. That inglorious word 'lumpen' also refers to an economic class. Apparently. Weltanshauung plays no part in your class. You can be a neo-Nazi and still a proletarian - most are proles, actually - because it doesn't matter what you think or how you act or anything else: sell your labour to a cappie and you're a prole, end of story. Socialism 101.

Where did I separate the term from its economic roots? Lumpenproles are still part of the "proletariat," but they are the undesirable segment with no prospects for class consciousness. Marxism 101.

Don't correct me unless you know what you're jabbering about. :rolleyes:

rundontwalk

18th November 2011, 21:47

anything of historic value would surely be translated and incorporated into the new global culture. preserving languages, cultures, nations, just for the sake of preservation is completely conservative and reactionary.
In the case of languages, this statement is completely wrong. Some things can't be translated first of all, and secondly preserving languages allows for the community where the language was spoken to decide to revive it should they want to down the road.

rundontwalk

18th November 2011, 22:02

French in Québec, on the other hand, obviously isn't a minority language. It's a minority language in the Canadian State, yes, but is spoken by the vast majority over a quite substantial territory.
Dialects can differ greatly tho. It's a bit like saying Cajun French should not be saved because French is spoken by millions of people around the world, even though Cajun French is completely different from French proper.

(I'm not sure how different Quebec French is from French French - and even French French has a shit load of different dialects - but the point remains that dialects are worth saving as well.)

Red Planet

18th November 2011, 22:04

In the case of languages, this statement is completely wrong. Some things can't be translated first of all, and secondly preserving languages allows for the community where the language was spoken to decide to revive it should they want to down the road.

And why would they want to bring back a dead langauge just to draw further divisions between peoples? That sounds reactionary to me.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

18th November 2011, 22:07

even if it were to theorhetically disappear, would that really be such a bad thing? languages, like nations and borders, serve as a barrier between peoples. right now english is becoming a global language but I would support the formation of a totally new language after the revolution

Youd almost think it's not possible to be multilingual ... :rolleyes: language diversity is NOT a barrier. And inventing a totally new language is more trouble than it's worth.

rundontwalk

18th November 2011, 22:08

And why would they want to bring back a dead langauge just to draw further divisions between peoples? That sounds reactionary to me.
D:

Language revival is a beautiful thing. I saw this (http://www.wgby.org/events/westilllivehere.html) documentary last night about the attempts to revive Wampanoag and it was pretty awesome to see a child who (seven generations after the language was originally wiped out) was growing up a native speaker.

Language revival provides a means of solidarity within a community, and it makes the world more interesting and all sorts of things.

Youd almost think it's not possible to be multilingual ... :rolleyes: language diversity is NOT a barrier. And inventing a totally new language is more trouble than it's worth.
It's not even possible to create a global language tbh. Like, Esperanto is mainly Indo-European. Why should Indo-European languages be the building block of a global language, etc?

You'd face that problem with any attempt to create one.

Red Planet

18th November 2011, 22:14

D:

Language revival is a beautiful thing. I saw this (*link*) documentary last night about the attempts to revive Wampanoag and it was pretty awesome to see a child who (seven generations after the language was originally wiped out) was growing up a native speaker.

Language revival provides a means of solidarity within a community, and it makes the world more interesting and all sorts of things.

Like NewSocialist already pointed out above, this is pretty much fascist argument numero uno. "Perserving our heritage is our right. Diversity is interesting and beautiful." all of these are cheap arguments to justify discrimination and supremacy.

hatzel

18th November 2011, 22:20

Where did I separate the term from its economic roots?

Well...

The part of the proletariat that is racist, nationalist, sexist, homophobic, etc., is the lumpenproletariat!

I would say that if they persisted with such outlooks, then they are definitely lumpenproles.

What's any of that got to do with the relationship to the means of production? You've distinguished between the two based on, in your own words, their "outlooks." There is absolutely no possibility within Marxism to distinguish between economic classes based on individuals' opinions. No amount of being racist, nationalist, sexist or homophobic will turn a prole into a lumpenprole. Never ever ever.

Not that I even buy into all this make-believe lumpenprole crap, but if you're going to use the word you'd might as well use it to mean something other than "proles with opinions I disagree with." That is to say, use it 'properly' according to Marxist class analysis. You could check the thread going on right now about it, perhaps, I dunno...

rundontwalk

18th November 2011, 22:24

Like NewSocialist already pointed out above, this is pretty much fascist argument numero uno. "Perserving our heritage is our right. Diversity is interesting and beautiful." all of these are cheap arguments to justify discrimination and supremacy.
You need to read ''Language Death'' by David Chrystal imo. It's on scribd.

He sums up why it is your position is worrisome better than I can.

Red Planet

18th November 2011, 22:38

Well...

What's any of that got to do with the relationship to the means of production? You've distinguished between the two based on, in your own words, their "outlooks." There is absolutely no possibility within Marxism to distinguish between economic classes based on individuals' opinions. No amount of being racist, nationalist, sexist or homophobic will turn a prole into a lumpenprole. Never ever ever.

Not that I even buy into all this make-believe lumpenprole crap, but if you're going to use the word you'd might as well use it to mean something other than "proles with opinions I disagree with." That is to say, use it 'properly' according to Marxist class analysis. You could check the thread going on right now about it, perhaps, I dunno...

Whatever, pal, that is your take on the matter. LumpenPROLE implies an economic relationship. As far as impeding class consciousness and the revolution as a result because of bourgeois prejudices, the characters i described are definitely lumpen.

Tim Finnegan

18th November 2011, 23:28

Like NewSocialist already pointed out above, this is pretty much fascist argument numero uno. "Perserving our heritage is our right. Diversity is interesting and beautiful." all of these are cheap arguments to justify discrimination and supremacy.
After all, nothing screams "anti-fascism" like the mobilisation of bourgeois class power behind a project of cultural assimilation... :rolleyes:

NewSocialist

18th November 2011, 23:54

After all, nothing screams "anti-fascism" like the mobilisation of bourgeois class power behind a project of cultural assimilation... :rolleyes:

where did he say anything about establishing a global culture under *capitalism*, dipshit? Engels said "the nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property" if you were a communst you'd know that all of these petty cultural differences are going to fade away once capitalism is abolished anyway. if you or any of the reactionary culture preservationist on this thread got a problem with that join scumfront or something.

Red Planet

19th November 2011, 00:19

where did he say anything about establishing a global culture under *capitalism*, dipshit? Engels said "the nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property" if you were a communst you'd know that all of these petty cultural differences are going to fade away once capitalism is abolished anyway. if you or any of the reactionary culture preservationist on this thread got a problem with that join scumfront or something.

better yet, they should join that new shitty site Phailanx. THey can wallow in their barely concealed neo-fascist rhetoric and stay away from genuine leftists. At least they can pretend over there... I swear, I've been following this forum for years, and it's as though a slew of reactionary views has suddenly emerged as "acceptable."

rundontwalk

19th November 2011, 00:25

better yet, they should join that new shitty site Phailanx. THey can wallow in their barely concealed neo-fascist rhetoric and stay away from genuine leftists. At least they can pretend over there... I swear, I've been following this forum for years, and it's as though a slew of reactionary views has suddenly emerged as "acceptable."
One can support communism and not support the wholesale destruction of thousands of years of human culture. It's not that hard actually.

Red Planet

19th November 2011, 00:31

One can support communism and not support the wholesale destruction of thousands of years of human culture. It's not that hard actually.

You clearly dont understand the argument, then. As Engels pointed out a long fuckng time ago, the various peoples will dissolve into ONE once communism is achieved because the material conditions separating them will disappear (via like...the elimination of class and mutual work...Marxism 101). It's really not that hard to understand: communism implies the tearing down of barriers between people so we can all live through voluntary association and mutual exchange based on NEED, not class, race, language, sex, etc, et fucking cetera.

I don't understand why you support oppression, unless...

Tim Finnegan

19th November 2011, 00:51

where did he say anything about establishing a global culture under *capitalism*, dipshit? Engels said "the nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property" if you were a communst you'd know that all of these petty cultural differences are going to fade away once capitalism is abolished anyway. if you or any of the reactionary culture preservationist on this thread got a problem with that join scumfront or something.
I really do not know why you are incapable of conceiving of the dissolution of nationhood without expecting everyone to blend into a culturally homogenous monolith. I find myself frankly sceptical as to your comprehension of the subject matter beyond a superficial level.

barely concealed neo-fascist rhetoric
You're funny. Do you do children's parties?

hatzel

19th November 2011, 01:19

Whatever, pal, that is your take on the matter. LumpenPROLE implies an economic relationship. As far as impeding class consciousness and the revolution as a result because of bourgeois prejudices, the characters i described are definitely lumpen.

How many times do I have to tell you the exact same thing? If you accept the existence of a lumpenproletariat (which I'm not doing), then its made up of, say, beggars. Doesn't matter whether or not this beggar is racist. They're still lumpen. Doesn't matter if they support socialist groups or fascists. Still lumpen. Always lumpen. As a factory worker will always be a prole. They can take up arms in a revolution and fight against the reds and they're still a prole. Always. They can be the most reactionary bourgeois-loving so-and-so going, but it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference. As you yourself said: economic relationship. Still a prole.

As far as I can tell you're confusing the words 'proletarian' and 'communist,' seemingly under the illusion that one has to earn one's prolehood by being progressive-minded, and thinking that 'lumpenproletarian' just means 'non-communist proletarian' or 'proletarian with reactionary "outlooks"' or something along these lines. This is a ludicrous definition of an already ridiculous term. Their supposedly counter-revolutionary nature is a byproduct of their being lumpen, of their class interests, not the reason for their being assigned this name, put into this class.

But I won't keep replying, because I don't really care if you're talking/thinking crap. It makes no difference to me if 'Marxists' say laughable stuff - in fact I revel in it - but as this is the learning forum and you clearly need to learn, I thought I should try to do my public service. But if you don't want to pay attention, so what? No skin off my nose. There's no reason for me to keep wasting my time here.

Jose Gracchus

19th November 2011, 01:40

No, nationalism can be progessive. Are you one of those people who think that black nationalism is just as reactionary as white nationalism?

I do not see what black nationalism is or was other than a movement for the raising up of the black petty-bourgeois to co-equality with the white bourgeoisie. To this day the NOI still support a "support 'our' shopkeepers" etc. politics. What kind of condescension is it that the black workers and poor are not 'advanced' enough to told to unite as a class.

Also, isn't Quebec a white settler state? I do not think it is 'progressive' nationalism to line up behind a historical Herrenvolk project. Certainly Quebecois take a major back seat to concerns of the First Nations who they and the Anglo Canadians displaced. Personally, I don't really think the local bourgeois project of Quebec sovereigntism has anything to do with advancing the project of the working-class forming into a class-for-itself, organizing itself as the ruling class and assuming political power, and dismantling the complex of social relations based on alienated labor, that is to say, value-production, with the state at its head. I suspect left sectarian obsessions with it, like the U.S. hand-wringing by the professional chatterers over 'identity', 'difference', and the like, has more to do with an attempt to intellectualize, demobilize, and sectionalize mass movements, making it less likely they take up the communist project. At best, I think it has to do that age-old left sectarian attempt to spice up their 'image' by accreting whatever piece of petty-bourgeois demagoguery happens to be in vogue, and might yield +5% recruits that year.

NewSocialist

19th November 2011, 02:01

I really do not know why you are incapable of conceiving of the dissolution of nationhood without expecting everyone to blend into a culturally homogenous monolith. I find myself frankly sceptical as to your comprehension of the subject matter beyond a superficial level.

:rolleyes: Engels was perfectly clear: nations (the entities which currently bind cultures to specific geographic locations) will *dissolve* after bourgeois society is overthrown. humanity will inevitably intermingle to the point where ethinicity, language, and all cultural relics fuse into a new working class culture based on solidairty and freedom. very simple. I honestly can't understand the lefts continuing obsession with nationalism --I thought we were *internationalists*

Red Planet

19th November 2011, 02:06

Tim Finnegan

19th November 2011, 02:10

:rolleyes: Engels was perfectly clear: nations (the entities which currently bind cultures to specific geographic locations) will *dissolve* after bourgeois society is overthrown. humanity will inevitably intermingle to the point where ethinicity, language, and all cultural relics fuse into a new working class culture based on solidairty and freedom. very simple. I honestly can't understand the lefts continuing obsession with nationalism --I thought we were *internationalists*
I don't recall suggesting that nationhood would be retained. In fact, if you'll look back at my comment to Nox, I explicitly shared the assumption that nationhood will disappear. They're only a few hundred years old as it is, after all. What I question is why this means that global cultural diversity would have to give way to some universal and monolithic ARBEITERKULTUR. If anything, it should mean entirely the opposite, because there are no longer the material or ideological means for particular cultural groups to construct their own culture as the standard form for the entire "nation"; culture would become freer and more decentralised than it ever has been before in human history. Kinda like everything else in communism?

Red Planet

19th November 2011, 02:25

I don't recall suggesting that nationhood would be retained. In fact, if you'll look back at my comment to Nox, I explicitly shared the assumption that nationhood will disappear. They're only a few hundred years old as it is, after all. What I question is why this means that global cultural diversity would have to give way to some universal and monolithic ARBEITERKULTUR. If anything, it should mean entirely the opposite, because there are no longer the material or ideological means for particular cultural groups to construct their own culture as the standard form for the entire "nation"; culture would become freer and more decentralised than it ever has been before in human history. Kinda like everything else in communism?

Who said anything about an "Arbeiterkultur"? He clearly said that the working class would meld into one culture of freedom and solidarity, NOT a "working class culture," whatever that even means, especially, as you point out, exogenous of class contradiction.

Rocky Rococo

19th November 2011, 02:33

The Newfie nationalists are always half an hour late anyways.

Tim Finnegan

19th November 2011, 02:35

Who said anything about an "Arbeiterkultur"? He clearly said that the working class would meld into one culture of freedom and solidarity, NOT a "working class culture," whatever that even means, especially, as you point out, exogenous of class contradiction.
Well, if by "one culture of freedom and solidarity" he simply means that those would be adopted as universally shared values, then fine, that's what I'd hope for me, but that's not what he said. His claim was that "ethinicity, language, and all cultural relics fuse into a new working class culture", which appears to be in line with what I've described: the "centralisation", if you will, of all human culture into a single global monolith, which quite frankly strikes me as anathema to all that is characteristic of communism.

Red Planet

19th November 2011, 02:45

NewSocialist

19th November 2011, 02:45

Well, if by "one culture of freedom and solidarity" he simply means that those would be adopted as universally shared values, then fine, that's what I'd hope for me, but that's not what he said. His claim was that "ethinicity, language, and all cultural relics fuse into a new working class culture", which appears to be in line with what I've described: the "centralisation", if you will, of all human culture into a single global monolith, which quite frankly strikes me as anathema to all that is characteristic of communism.

a fusion will be reached, that is the end result of the mingling process Engels spoke of. it wont be forced, thats simply what the new communist social relations of production will give rise to. i can only hope to live to see the day humanity reaches that point. if you read the communist manifesto, you'll see that Marx wrote approvingly of the homogenzation process capitalism was producing across the world (thats one of the reasons he felt capitalism was revolutionary compared to preceeding systems), he just underminded the longevity of nations unfortunately. just as capitalism is a global system so too will be communism only in a much freer sense. sure a few subcultures may continue to exist, little music scenes or whatever, but the core culture shall be basically the same, again according to Engels --a renowned authority on the subject.

Ocean Seal

19th November 2011, 02:52

Your views about the French people of Quebec along with their language & culture are the exact same as a White Nationalist's views about the white race.

Nationalism is nationalism, all forms are just as bad.

I really think you should step back and think for a second about what you've written.
No, this doesn't hold at all. Are you seriously trying to say that adventurist or fascist nationalism is the equivalent of national liberation movement style nationalism? You can say that we shouldn't support bourgeois nationalists in the third world, but standing against them on the sole basis that they are nationalists is not only unproductive, it is an endorsement for imperialism plain and simple. I agree that Quebecois nationalism isn't really high on anyone's agenda right now, but why should we support those who are in favor of staying with Canada? In that case we are still supporting a bourgeois faction. And moreover, nationalism in the third world isn't about some national identity Hitler-esque shit, its about bettering material conditions for millions and throwing off imperial rule.

Tim Finnegan

19th November 2011, 02:54

a fusion will be reached, that is the end result of the mingling process Engels spoke of. it wont be forced, thats simply what the new communist social relations of production will give rise to. i can only hope to live to see the day humanity reaches that point. if you read the communist manifesto, you'll see that Marx wrote approvingly of the homogenzation process capitalism was produces, he just underminded the longevity of nations unfortunately. just as capitalism is a global system so too will be communism only in a much freer sense. sure a few subcultures may continue to exist, little music scenes or whatever, but the core culture shall be basically the same, again according to Engels --a renowned authority on the subject.
Marx's approving comments on the emergence of centralising nationalities- not comments that I'm sure you can hold him to throughout his life, given the tangible disgust with which he would later write about the destruction of indigenous cultures as part of the process of capitalist expropriation- were not intended as absolute declarations in favour of cultural homogeneity, but specific to his era; they represented part of the process by which the bourgeoisie constructed the centralised nation-sates necessary to advance the accumulation of capital to the point where it would make proletarian revolution viable, and here Marx's interest in Jacobin projects of this variety ends. From this point on Marx says little to nothing about culture under communism, so we can only infer the cultural conditions of communism from the material conditions of communism, and I for one see no reason to believe that "the free development of all", would lead to the sort of homogenising process you imagine. Rather, as I have said, it strikes me that the very opposite would be the case, that individuals would be able to develop culturally as in all other fields, according to their own will, and that we would see a harmonious breadth of culture unprecedented in human history; that if unity is to be achieved, it is not through this drab sameness of yours, but through a flourishing of diversity far greater than any existing today. And we'll all speak six entirely useless languages, just for the flavour of them.

You can say that we shouldn't support bourgeois nationalists in the third world, but standing against them on the sole basis that they are nationalists is not only unproductive, it is an endorsement for imperialism plain and simple.
Only if the sole argument against imperialism that you are capable of constructing is a nationalistic one, in which case we wouldn't actually have a problem with imperialism to start with, would we?

Red Planet

19th November 2011, 02:58

No, this doesn't hold at all. Are you seriously trying to say that adventurist or fascist nationalism is the equivalent of national liberation movement style nationalism? You can say that we shouldn't support bourgeois nationalists in the third world, but standing against them on the sole basis that they are nationalists is not only unproductive, it is an endorsement for imperialism plain and simple. I agree that Quebecois nationalism isn't really high on anyone's agenda right now, but why should we support those who are in favor of staying with Canada? In that case we are still supporting a bourgeois faction. And moreover, nationalism in the third world isn't about some national identity Hitler-esque shit, its about bettering material conditions for millions and throwing off imperial rule.

I agree with this, actually. I've always been favorable to Third World nationalism, almost to the point of Maoist Third Worldism, and also to non-white racial nationalism as a whole. Colonialists seek nationalism out of supremacy, but black nationalists, for example, seek it out of struggle against domination sprouting from white supremacy.

Ocean Seal

19th November 2011, 03:08

Only if the sole argument against imperialism that you are capable of constructing is a nationalistic one, in which case we wouldn't actually have a problem with imperialism to start with, would we?
My argument against imperialism isn't a nationalistic one, I don't care for nations, my argument against imperialism is one strictly based in the economic relationship that imperialism is. However, if someone else argues against imperialism from a nationalistic perspective, why should I care? The end result is the same, its just the rhetoric which varies.

NewSocialist

19th November 2011, 03:23

Marx's approving comments on the emergence of centralising nationalities- not comments that I'm sure you can hold him to throughout his life, given the tangible disgust with which he would later write about the destruction of indigenous cultures as part of the process of capitalist expropriation- were not intended as absolute declarations in favour of cultural homogeneity, but specific to his era; they represented part of the process by which the bourgeoisie constructed the centralised nation-sates necessary to advance the accumulation of capital to the point where it would make proletarian revolution viable, and here Marx's interest in Jacobin projects of this variety ends. From this point on Marx says little to nothing about culture under communism, so we can only infer the cultural conditions of communism from the material conditions of communism, and I for one see no reason to believe that "the free development of all", would lead to the sort of homogenising process you imagine. Rather, as I have said, it strikes me that the very opposite would be the case, that individuals would be able to develop culturally as in all other fields, according to their own will, and that we would see a harmonious breadth of culture unprecedented in human history; that if unity is to be achieved, it is not through this drab sameness of yours, but through a flourishing of diversity far greater than any existing today. And we'll all speak six entirely useless languages, just for the flavour of them.

do you not understand how alienating the perpetuation of distinct nations will be even under communism? lets take an example of a young Latino man from mexico who wants to move to finland. fortunately there will no longer be borders dividing us all after the fall of capitalism, but he gets there and cant comprehend a word around him! he sees a local girl he'd like to start a relationship with but cant even ask her out on a date. what should he do? be forced to assimilate? thats the standard bourgeois answer. should he just not move unless hes willing to go through years of being viewed as a immigrant, which will inevitably serve to alienate him from those around him. I would *hope* after a few decades, communism would produce a universal language then, over time, fuse the entire cultures and ethnicities into one finally worthy of the name “human“ (to paraphrase Trotsky)

rundontwalk

19th November 2011, 03:33

I would *hope* after a few decades, communism would produce a universal language then, over time, fuse the entire cultureS and ethnicities into one finally worthy of the name “human“ (to paraphrase Trotsky)
Not going to happen.

Even if it were possible (it isn't) cultures would still vary widely from place to place, thanks to things like geography and climate. People living in the inner most part of Amazonia are going to develop different cultures from those living in Sibera. Just the way it is.

Point being let's please not destroy cultures now (encouraging language death & etc.) in pursuit of a futile goal.

Red Planet

19th November 2011, 03:40

Not going to happen.

Even if it were possible (it isn't) cultures would still vary widely from place to place, thanks to things like geography and climate. People living in the inner most part of Amazonia are going to develop different cultures from those living in Sibera. Just the way it is.

Point being let's please not destroy cultures now (encouraging language death & etc.) in pursuit of a futile goal.

First of all, you don't know that. Increased economic dependence along with technologicaL advancements in transportation will inevtably lead to a merging culture. What is your proposal, then? WOuld you simply allow the continued alienation of the downtrodden?

Enlgithen us, please. Should the Latino in the hypothetical example simply learn Finnish, or should the Finns learn Spanish, or should one learn both languages? Language barriers are serious obstacles, and if you do want them to speak multiple languages, it seems kinda redundant and needlessly alienating. Maybe they should play Mexican music in Finnish supermarkets, eh? Great solidarity there. :rolleyes:

For the record, cultures change ALL the time. It's not as though they are static or anything. They are mere social constructs with no real value in and of themselves.

NewSocialist

19th November 2011, 03:43

rundontwalk

19th November 2011, 03:51

First of all, you don't know that. Increased economic dependence along with technologicaL advancements in transportation will inevtably lead to a merging culture. What is your proposal, then? WOuld you simply allow the continued alienation of the downtrodden?

Enlgithen us, please. Should the Latino in the hypothetical example simply learn Finnish, or should the Finns learn Spanish, or should one learn both languages? Language barriers are serious obstacles, and if you do want them to speak multiple languages, it seems kinda redundant and needlessly alienating. Maybe they should play Spanish music in Finnish supermarkets, eh? Great solidarity there. :rolleyes:

For the record, cultures change ALL the time. It's not as though they are static or anything. They are mere social constructs with no real value in and of themselves.
I agree with you that we will see more cultural diffusion. I simply disagree that this will lead to some sort of monolithic culture. I'm not sure how I can prove that, it's more of a gut instinct really. 7 billion people just aren't all going to have similar outlooks on life. I encourage cultural diversity and disagree that it has anything to do with alienating the downtrodden.

The Latino should probably learn Finnish seeing as how he wants to live in Finland. If I wanted to move to Mexico I would learn Spanish, you know. I certainly wouldn't expect everyone else to learn English just because of me. But if Finnish speakers wanted to learn Spanish that should of course be encouraged.

And I agree that cultures are really fluid.

rundontwalk

19th November 2011, 03:53

you underestimate the transformative nature of changing from capitalism to a communist mode of production. it wont just be a change in how we produce widgets, but in how we think and act. internationalism *will* be produced. sexism, racism and the family unit *will fall* regardless of what your bourgeois inclinations right now suggest to you --false consciousness, youre suffering from a *bad* case of it.

“the proletariat *has no country*“
This is, at best, utopian.

NewSocialist

19th November 2011, 04:07

This is, at best, utopian.

how is that utopian? do you understand how the economic base of society influences the superstructure? my claim that communism will profoundly change humanity is *materialist* in the purest Marxist form. the fact that you didnt understand that speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge of marxism, which would also explain your futile (nazbol/socialist phailanx like) desire to preserve distinctions of culture and ethnicity under *communism* I hate to be the one to break it to you but nationalism and communism are irreconcilable. bottom line.

rundontwalk

19th November 2011, 04:13

how is that utopian? do you understand how the economic base of society influences the superstructure? my claim that communism will profoundly change humanity is *materialist* in the purest Marxist form. the fact that you didnt understand that speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge of marxism, which would also explain your futile (nazbol/socialist phailanx like) desire to preserve distinctions of culture and ethnicity under *communism* I hate to be the one to break it to you but nationalism and communism are irreconcilable. bottom line.
I'm not a nationalist, if anything I want to break everything up as far as it will possibly go, and then have voluntary federations set up between places for defense and environmental purposes (and the divvying up of resources). Just to clear that up.

I say it's utopian because while I do believe racism and such will be greatly reduced under communism, there will still be people who are racist either because they actually are, or because they want to try to amass power for themselves by setting people against one another, in a kind of Machiavellian way.

NewSocialist

19th November 2011, 04:30

The Latino should probably learn Finnish seeing as how he wants to live in Finland.

I see youre from Texas , is that what you tell "them illegals": "stop speaking that garbage and learn english!" seriously dude, do you not see how ignorant that is? dont you think we as a species can do better than that, espcially once we reach communism?

I'm not a nationalist, if anything I want to break everything up as far as it will possibly go, and then have voluntary federations set up between places for defense and environmental purposes (and the divvying up of resources). Just to clear that up.

sounds more like mutualism than communism....

I say it's utopian because while I do believe racism and such will be greatly reduced under communism, there will still be people who are racist either because they actually are, or because they want to try to amass power for themselves by setting people against one another, in a kind of Machiavellian way.

then I can say is you dont really understand communism.

Charlie Watt

19th November 2011, 04:35

Nationalism of any kind is, at its core, racist. It implies that one racial/ethnic/language group should be afforded more rights based on arbitrary factors such as lineage or where, geographically, you happen to have fallen out of your auld dear, or in its most wishy-washy form, which flag you happen to pledge your allegiance to. It's utter bollocks.

The example I use to draw attention to this, was one I used on my friend (card carrying member of the civic nationalist bourgeois fuckpigs, the SNP,) at a party last month. There was a story in the paper about a Jamaican asylum seeker, who'd been jailed for rape, released early, only to rape again, multiple times. The tabloids wet dream basically. I brought this up, and he starts hittin me with this shite patter about how he should have been immediately deported, that a nation has a right to ensure the safty of its citizens. To which I replied

"What about Jamaican women?"

"Eh?"

"He'd have been deported to Jamaica, where he'd have went on to rape Jamaican women. Do they have less of a right not to be raped because of the passport they hold?"

"That's a problem for their authorities," said he

"Ya racist ****." said I

We've since went back to our usual arangment of not discussing politics.

rundontwalk

19th November 2011, 04:35

I see youre from Texas , is that what you tell "them illegals": "stop speaking that garbage and learn english!" seriously dude, do you not see how ignorant that is? dont you think we as a species can do better than that, espcially once we reach communism?
Latino immigrants to Texas can get by just fine with Spanish alone. I don't believe that the situation is the same in Finland. I still encourage everyone to learn the dominant language of the place they live in tho.

And Spanish is a beautiful language. :*

And under communism I understand that people will be able to move freely, and if they move in high enough concentrations to certain areas there will be a really cool/fascinating impact on the languages we speak, and I welcome that.

sounds more like mutualism than communism....

then I can say is you dont really understand communism.
I believe I'm a communist. I support the abolishment of the state, money, the class system, and the replacing of it with worker's democracy (in every possible sense of the term). Not that familiar with mutualism however I'll look into it.

NewSocialist

19th November 2011, 04:47

Latino immigrants to Texas can get by just fine with Spanish alone. I don't believe that the situation is the same in Finland. I still encourage everyone to learn the dominant language of the place they live in tho.

so Latinos in Ohio *should* feel alienated until they learn english, since english is the dominat language? and things should stay like this even after the fall of capitalism? I know you cant mean something that reactionary.

And Spanish is a beautiful language. :*

it is, but the language which emerges after the unity of peoples under communism will surely be even more beautiful than anything we've yet heard.

And under communism I understand that people will be able to move freely, and if they move in high enough concentrations to certain areas there will be a really cool/fascinating impact on the languages we speak, and I welcome that.

I'm glad to know you wouldnt oppose it.

I believe I'm a communist. I support the abolishment of the state, money, the class system, and the replacing of it with worker's democracy (in every possible sense of the term). Not that familiar with mutualism however I'll look into it.

the whole decentralized world of freely cooperating communes stinks of Proudhon. your economic views sound more communist though.

Red Planet

19th November 2011, 04:52

I agree with you that we will see more cultural diffusion. I simply disagree that this will lead to some sort of monolithic culture. I'm not sure how I can prove that, it's more of a gut instinct really. 7 billion people just aren't all going to have similar outlooks on life. I encourage cultural diversity and disagree that it has anything to do with alienating the downtrodden.

Alienation is not simply a "gut feeling." :rolleyes:

When you alter the base, then the superstructure will change along with it. This is a basic idea.

The Latino should probably learn Finnish seeing as how he wants to live in Finland. If I wanted to move to Mexico I would learn Spanish, you know. I certainly wouldn't expect everyone else to learn English just because of me. But if Finnish speakers wanted to learn Spanish that should of course be encouraged.

So, you're saying that the Latino should simply assimilate into Finnish culture? Why can't both of them simply come to common terms. In this case, I would actually support the Latino being subsumed into the Finnish culture, but the Finnish culture itself must become part of something greater.

On the other hand... Are you trying to say that it is possible for autonomous nation states to flourish alongside each other without imperialism and strife, and through mutual exchange within a post-capitalist society? Where each culture is supposedly "respected" by virtue of its significance to a given group of people? What kind of disgusting, fascistic concept is that!? Do you realize how ignorant you sound by attempting ot justify these artificial barriers to unity?

As the material basis of society changes, and as labor becomes increasingly voluntary, and as the division of labor becomes international, all social constructs in the way of internationalism—race, nation, gender, family, etc.—will simply evaporate.

The cry is "workers of the world, unite!," not "workers of the world, divide!" :rolleyes:

Permanent revolution until communism!

And I agree that cultures are really fluid.

Then you should have no problem with their dissolution.

rundontwalk

19th November 2011, 04:53

so Latinos in Ohio *should* feel alienated until they learn english, since english is the dominat language? and things should stay like this even after the fall of capitalism? I know you cant mean something that reactionary.
No, the state (or whoever) should provide Spanish speakers will the resources necessary to function (translation services, teachers, lawyers, what have you).

it is, but the language which emerges after the unity of peoples under communism will surely be even more beautiful than anything we've yet heard.
This is where I simply disagree that a global language is possible. But I suppose I'll stop repeating myself on that. I think you are at least partly right in that there will be more creole languages.

the whole decentralized world of freely cooperating communes stinks of Proudhon. your economic views sound more communist though.
I rather like what I've read of Bakunin.

So, you're saying that the Latino should simply assimilate into Finnish culture? Why can't both of them simply come to common terms. In this case, I would actually support the Latino being subsumed into the Finnish culture, but the Finnish culture itself must become part of something greater.
I think in order for Latinos to have a great impact on Finnish culture as a whole there would have to be a somewhat substantial mass migration. The individual Latino could have an impact on a more local level, of course.

On the other hand... Are you trying to say that it is possible for autonomous nation states to flourish alongside each other without imperialism and strife, and through mutual exchange within a post-capitalist society? Where each culture is supposedly "respected" by virtue of its significance to a given group of people? What kind of disgusting, fascistic concept is that!? Do you realize how ignorant you sound by attempting ot justify these artificial barriers to unity?
I support the breaking down and ultimate destruction of all nation states.

As the material basis of society changes, and as labor becomes increasingly voluntary, and as the division of labor becomes international, all social constructs in the way of internationalism—race, nation, gender, family, etc.—will simply evaporate.
See, this is where I have to disagree. Even the remotest tribes in the remotest reaches of the world (that exist outside of capitalism) have unique familial and gender constructs. It's unreasonable to think that simply because capitalism vanishes this would change.

hen you should have no problem with their dissolution.
That's not quite what I was saying. By ''fluid'' I meant that cultures have a way of adapting and changing to the circumstances. I was in agreement with your previous point that cultures aren't static.

NewSocialist

19th November 2011, 05:07

No, the state (or whoever) should provide Spanish speakers will the resources necessary to function (translation services, teachers, lawyers, what have you).

there wouldn't be the resources or incentive in most cases. let's say a German woman wanted to move to the Congo because she always wanted to live there and start a biracial family, there most likely wouldnt be resources available to teach her the native language since she's German. Or what about a Vietnamese man who wanted to move to Portugal for the same reason? see what I mean about cultural distinctions being alienating and unnecessarily burdensome?

I rather like what I've read of Bakunin.

Bakunin wrote some OK stuff but he was a nationalist and a racist antisemite extraodinaire. he was also wrong about how communism would arise but that subject is for another thread.

Red Planet

19th November 2011, 05:10

I think in order for Latinos to have a great impact on Finnish culture as a whole there would have to be a somewhat substantial mass migration. The individual Latino could have an impact on a more local level, of course.

Yes, we might have to move people about in order to get full assimilation.

I support the breaking down and ultimate destruction of all nation states.Good,then I don't see what the problem is.

See, this is where I have to disagree. Even the remotest tribes in the remotest reaches of the world (that exist outside of capitalism) have unique familial and gender constructs. It's unreasonable to think that simply because capitalism vanishes this would change. Stop relying on a straw man. The real question isn't about wether or not internationalism will happen immediately after communism, but whether or not we want it to happen. You seem to support reactionary views.

That's not quite what I was saying. By ''fluid'' I meant that cultures have a way of adapting and changing to the circumstances. I was in agreement with your previous point that cultures aren't static.

Yes, they adapt, they change, and there is therefore no need to preserve them. I say we follow Marxism to its logical conclusion: the eradication of personal and social barriers to voluntary free society. Outdated concepts like cultural ties contain the germs of domination, exploitation, and oppression.

Stop trying to prevent a German woman from starting a biracial family, damn it!

rundontwalk

19th November 2011, 05:11

there wouldn't be the resources or incentive in most cases. let's say a German woman wanted to move to the Congo because she always wanted to live there and start a biracial family, there most likely wouldnt be resources available to teach her the native language since she's German. Or what about a Vietnamese man who wanted to move to Portugal for the same reason? see what I mean about cultural distinctions being alienated and unnecessarily burdensome?
The German woman could study the basics of the language prior to leaving for the Congo, or else fully immerse herself in the language when she gets there. I understand that it would be difficult, and language barriers are often a real problem, but again, I don't see this changing.

I think a better solution would be for there to be a hypothetical global common language that didn't necessitate the destruction of all other languages in order for it exist. E.g., the German lady and the Congolese man both speak ''global language'' but they both also speak their respective native languages (German and whatever the other language may be).

So in principle I support a global lingua franca.

Red Planet

19th November 2011, 05:13

The German woman could study the basics of the language prior to leaving for the Congo, or else fully immerse herself in the language when she gets there. I understand that it would be difficult, and language barriers are often a real problem, but again, I don't see this changing.

I think a better solution would be for there to be a hypothetical global common language that didn't necessitate the destruction of all other languages in order for it exist. E.g., the German lady and the Congolese man both speak ''global language'' but they both also speak their respective native languages (German and whatever the other language may be).

That sounds great in theory, but what do they teach there kids? answer me that. The kids would be alienated from BOTH languages.

rundontwalk

19th November 2011, 05:18

That sounds great in theory, but what do they teach there kids? answer me that. The kids would be alienated from BOTH languages.
I do know that children's brains are exceptional at learning languages, so I don't think them learning all 3 languages would be a real issue

If they grow up in the Congo, we can assume that their first language (1L) would be the native Congolese language, their mother could speak German to them (2L), and they could practice the global language (3L) both at home and at school.

Or, I mean, the parents could just make the decision to not teach their child German if they feel it's not as important.

Red Planet

19th November 2011, 05:22

I do know that children's brains are exceptional at learning languages, so I don't think them learning all 3 languages would be a real issue

If they grow up in the Congo, we can assume that their first language (1L) would be the native Congolese language, their mother could speak German to them (2L), and they could practice the global language (3L) both at home and at school.

Or, I mean, the parents could just make the decision to not teach their child German if they feel it's not as important.

that is merely skirting the issue. The fact of the matter is that kids would have to choose between three languages, which would decrease affinity with all. A global lingua franca is enough.

rundontwalk

19th November 2011, 05:25

that is merely skirting the issue. The fact of the matter is that kids would have to choose between three languages, which would decrease affinity with all. A global lingua franca is enough.
Well, in this hypothetical scenario there would still be a large German speaking ''core'' in Germany/Austria/Switzerland, so German would continue to exist independent of whether their child learns German or not.

In most cases the lingua franca + local language would suffice and there wouldn't be the need to worry about the third.

NewSocialist

19th November 2011, 05:31

that is merely skirting the issue. The fact of the matter is that kids would have to choose between three languages, which would decrease affinity with all. A global lingua franca is enough.

exactly. the multiethnic children would be bright enough to understand theres no need to learn the archaic languages of there parents. they would embrace the global language (and entire culture for that matter) in all liklihood. nationalism will fade along with the bourgeois.

honestly, I think a lot of resistance to the idea of a global culture --which inevitably will follow the rise of communism- seen on this board and many parts of the left stems from a lot of activists "fear of a brown planet" (to quote Death By Stereo) there's a subconscious fear of third world empowerment that is clouding the judgement of many white communists, in my view. I suppose after centeries of white supremacy oppressing the world its inevitable that white communists would be unable to shed with reactionary views in there entirety.

hatzel

19th November 2011, 10:00

honestly, I think a lot of resistance to the idea of a global culture --which inevitably will follow the rise of communism- seen on this board and many parts of the left stems from a lot of activists "fear of a brown planet" (to quote Death By Stereo) there's a subconscious fear of third world empowerment that is clouding the judgement of many white communists, in my view. I suppose after centeries of white supremacy oppressing the world its inevitable that white communists would be unable to shed with reactionary views in there entirety.

Quite interesting how those who laugh at the thought of the integrity of peripheral cultural groups, and want only to absorb them into a single unified culture (which would almost definitely be disproportionately influenced by those cultures which are dominant beforehand, those of the core, ie white western culture) are accusing others of latent white supremacy. Truly remarkable. Luckily I'm not one of those immature little shits who tries to shut down debate by saying "well I disagree, therefore you must be a fascist liberal petit-bourgeois waste of space, and because you're a fascist liberal petit-bourgeois waste of space that means you're wrong." I do disagree, though.

Oh and by the way even if you succeeded in uniting the whole world in a single culturo-linguistic group, it wouldn't last long. The nature of language and culture is to grow and develop, with differences emerging. Of course regional dialects and slang would emerge (which would be the sign of foreign-ness currently played by foreign languages) and local cultures would flourish. Even today, in one developed country, where everybody is listening to the same radio, bands go on tour, the music scene in different cities are distinct, for example. Division according to cultural differences will continue, the only change being that the degree of difference needed to mark a person as "foreign" would be less.

Oh and by the way whoever it was up there who said we might have to move people around to achieve cultural unity hahahahahahaha good natural and inevitable result of communism (after a bit of conscious population transfer) hahahahaha we definitely don't have better things to do with our time...

black magick hustla

19th November 2011, 12:01

Quite interesting how those who laugh at the thought of the integrity of peripheral cultural groups, and want only to absorb them into a single unified culture

:shrugs: i dont think this is what is being argued. nobody is arguing for assimilation. however, if capitalism can tell us anything is that borders, not only in the territorial sense but the cultural sense, are becoming increasingly fuzzy. it would be natural that under one global community there will be also a sort of global culture.

(which would almost definitely be disproportionately influenced by those cultures which are dominant beforehand, those of the core, ie white western culture) are accusing others of latent white supremacy.

this is a standard leftist argument and i never got it really. i mean some cultures dissappear, others emerge. a lot of it has to do with imperialism and violence, and others for less pernicious reasons. regardless as history advances, no matter what is the reason, some cultures and languages dissappear and replace others. i don't see why some "communists" are invested in defending cultures.

Oh and by the way even if you succeeded in uniting the whole world in a single culturo-linguistic group, it wouldn't last long. The nature of language and culture is to grow and develop, with differences emerging. Of course regional dialects and slang would emerge (which would be the sign of foreign-ness currently played by foreign languages) and local cultures would flourish. Even today, in one developed country, where everybody is listening to the same radio, bands go on tour, the music scene in different cities are distinct, for example. Division according to cultural differences will continue, the only change being that the degree of difference needed to mark a person as "foreign" would be less.

of course there will always be some degree of localism, but i dont get what is so crazy about "global languages". english, french and spanish are spoken by a large chunk of the globe. i can't see how this tendency for certain languages to become global until it reaches a critical point can be avoided.

hatzel

19th November 2011, 13:25

:shrugs: i dont think this is what is being argued. nobody is arguing for assimilation.

I may have misunderstood what's going on because this is a thread about Québec nationalism and talk is currently of Germans in the Congo. It's easy to get lost :confused:

however, if capitalism can tell us anything is that borders, not only in the territorial sense but the cultural sense, are becoming increasingly fuzzy. it would be natural that under one global community there will be also a sort of global culture.Also I'll put the end bit in here, because I think I'll reply to both at the same time:

of course there will always be some degree of localism, but i dont get what is so crazy about "global languages". english, french and spanish are spoken by a large chunk of the globe. i can't see how this tendency for certain languages to become global until it reaches a critical point can be avoided.Perhaps. I wouldn't deny such natural processes. But I don't see why making it an explicit goal is worth anybody's time, because I don't think it would go any way towards making everybody run up to everybody else and give them a great big hug and say 'hey, brother, down with the hate!' or anything like that. If it happens, it happens, but I refuse to believe that its happening will do anything to forward our cause, and as such I don't think that we should get our expectations up and start proclaiming that, if only all the world could understand each other there would be no conflict between groups and no discrimination and everything would be awesome. Which is why I don't think that any effort whatsoever should be expended in trying to establish a global language or culture or anything like that, instead leaving it to nature.

I'm somewhat sceptical about this possibility anyway. Perhaps a global culture may come to flourish, and it may be one culture from our perspective. But this doesn't mean it will be seen as one culture afterwards. What do I mean by this? (I have a feeling I'm not going to clarify at all well, but whatever) Let's take 'French' culture as an example. We may look at 'French' culture as one culture, as opposed to, say, 'Japanese' culture. The differences between different 'French' cultures (for instance between north and south) are very small compared to the differences between 'French' and 'Japanese' cultures. So the 'French' culture is seen as one, and the 'Japanese' a different one.

But (and this is where the scepticism comes in) if France was all there was, and there was no culture but 'French' culture, with no other point of reference, then the difference between the culture of Normandy and the culture of Auvergne would be considered like the difference between 'French' and 'Japanese' cultures are today; that is to say, Auvergne would be as different from Normandy as could be imagined, and would therefore each would look upon the other as an 'outsider.' And mutually intelligible dialects would be considered as we consider separate languages today - as signs of belonging to an out-group. Not because they are, but because in-groups would form around much more specific cultural practices and linguistic details, because there would be no real point of reference, no radically different groups.

Today we can easily define 'the French' as a group in opposition to, for instance, 'the Germans' or 'the English,' based on a certain similarity between different mutually intelligible French dialects, whilst English and German dialects are, to the French-speaker, unintelligible, and linguistic in-groups can be formed around those one understands. The creation of a 'French' people is a result of the existence of 'non-French' peoples, people who are more radically different. In the event of everybody adopting a single language or culture, the in-groups would merely be redrawn, perhaps with those who write 'colour' belonging to one group, and those who write 'color' in another. Whilst we may, from our perspective, consider this monocultural world to be united in their 'French' culture (I don't know why I've picked French as the example, by the way, but whatever), those who are actually engaged in it would still be drawing lines between this group and that group, they could still create an 'outsider,' people they don't feel a cultural affinity towards. And they wouldn't see themselves as living in a monocultural world, all belonging to the same group.

this is a standard leftist argument and i never got it really. i mean some cultures dissappear, others emerge. a lot of it has to do with imperialism and violence, and others for less pernicious reasons. regardless as history advances, no matter what is the reason, some cultures and languages dissappear and replace others. i don't see why some "communists" are invested in defending cultures.I don't think it's a question of defending specific cultures. In fact, I wrote a few pages ago that one of the issues with the (nation) State is that it freezes cultures in an 'official' form and prevents them from developing naturally. Which includes its destroying this or that culture, or preventing this or that culture from being destroyed. (Incidentally, I'm inclined to believe that a stateless society would see an increased diversity of culture, rather than a move towards a single unified culture, with previously discouraged cultures given room in which to flourish)

Of course one should be terribly cautious in current conditions, when culture is very often used for questionable purposes (as well as, it must be said, revolutionary purposes). The restriction of this or that culture, the promotion of another, book-burnings and the outlaw of this or that style of music...all these things can't be ignored in contemporary capitalist society, of course, particularly in those more oppressive regimes (and of course these regimes don't enact such policies for no reason - they recognise the power of culture in promoting, one one hand, dissent, and on the other, obedience, depending on how it is used), though the pervasive effect of culture is felt even in less openly oppressive States; defending intentionally threatened cultures in contemporary society is often of great interest, as is the forwarding of other 'unofficial' cultures which may come to challenge the monopoly of the prevailing socio-politico-economic system.

One should, however, take seriously the question of culture in a post-capitalist society: would it still be used in the same way? Could culture still be used for questionable purposes? Would the shaping of culture be a tool used to ensure obedience? Would a totally new culture be intentionally created to replace 'the old ways'? What would be the implications of this? Would disparate cultures be united into a monolithic block? What effects would this have on social vitality? Would cultural and artistic movements which seek to go beyond even socialism (assuming socialism doesn't usher in the Messianic era, the end of days, the final form of social arrangement etc. etc.) be encouraged or discouraged? Could they even develop if culture is made cold and lifeless? Would the periphery and the subaltern be given cultural autonomy, or would they be persuaded/obliged to adopt the culture of their former overlords? Would this constitute the continuation of dominance through other means?

I don't buy into the suggestion that the end of capitalism will necessarily bring about the end of the misuse of culture, nor do I believe that minority groups in particular will not be actively encouraged to adopt the culture of the majority. It may not be 'official' as it is today, but there could still be groups who seek to subjugate the stranger, who challenge and threaten their integrity through the debasement of their cultural practices. The question remains whether one should honour the culture of the stranger, and whether or not attempts to replace this or that culture with another constitutes an attempt at subjugation, the reaffirmation of mastery.

I would argue, however, that given the potentially r/evolutionary and mind-changing nature of culture, it should never be looked upon lightly, nor should the disappearance of this or that culture be brushed under the carpet. It should always be questioned and analysed. There are always implications in culture, and the interrelationships of different cultures. It's not a question of reifying a specific culture, freezing it as it is and defending it (in the process destroying it by halting its natural development), but constantly considering how culture is used, by those of all political stripes. And this often requires the defense of a certain culture at a particular time against a particular threat, but it's not a question of defending the culture as a culture, but seeking to fundamentally shift the power dynamics of society, particularly (but not exclusively) between different cultural groups.

EDIT: I should point out that I'm using 'culture' in its broadest possible sense. I'm not just talking about traditional practices of a given nation or anything like that, but culture to include artistic movements, philosophical musings and all such ideas. Which may or may not correspond to a certain nation. Anybody who's getting confused as to the meaning of the word 'culture' here, and who may be thinking about something much more limited in scope...well...soz...

NewSocialist

19th November 2011, 17:58

Quite interesting how those who laugh at the thought of the integrity of peripheral cultural groups, and want only to absorb them into a single unified culture (which would almost definitely be disproportionately influenced by those cultures which are dominant beforehand, those of the core, ie white western culture) are accusing others of latent white supremacy. Truly remarkable.

you clearly don't understand the dialectical process Engels was referring to in the piece I quoted. was Engels a “white supremacist“ in your mind? dont be ridiculous! how could he or I, who are saying the mingling of peoples which will inevitably occur after the fall of capitalism and bring about the fusion of ethnicites and cultures, be considered “white supremacist“?? on the contrary, it is *you* white “communists“ for which this has an unpleasant sound that are the real racists here -though you dont realize it. youre scared of you losing your dominant position in the world, of seeing your little cultures disappear, of losing “your women“ to men you subconsciously consider inferior. all I can say to that is: tough shit whitey. you can close your little eyes and tell yourself reassuring things like “after capitalism even *more* cultures will emerge! that will keep people sufficiently alienated from one another so I dont have to worry about the third world invading my land“. the white communist is in a terrible position because while hes fighting to end capitalism, he cant fully accept what life without it will be like because he has been the beneficiary of centuries of white supremacism and cant conceive of life without those perks (and I purposely use the word “he“ because this is very much a white heterosexual male thing -white women have been treated like property and oppressed though not nearly as bad as non white peoples)

Luckily I'm not one of those immature little shits who tries to shut down debate by saying "well I disagree, therefore you must be a fascist liberal petit-bourgeois waste of space, and because you're a fascist liberal petit-bourgeois waste of space that means you're wrong." I do disagree, though.

no, you prove how much better and more mature you are to us with your giant posts rambling on, trying to reassure yourself alienation (by way of diverse cultures) is maintained after capitalism.

Oh and by the way whoever it was up there who said we might have to move people around to achieve cultural unity hahahahahahaha good natural and inevitable result of communism (after a bit of conscious population transfer) hahahahaha we definitely don't have better things to do with our time...

:rolleyes: god forbid people of African or Latino descent be allowed to migrate to your community right?

Tim Finnegan

20th November 2011, 00:35

do you not understand how alienating the perpetuation of distinct nations will be even under communism? lets take an example of a young Latino man from mexico who wants to move to finland. fortunately there will no longer be borders dividing us all after the fall of capitalism, but he gets there and cant comprehend a word around him! he sees a local girl he'd like to start a relationship with but cant even ask her out on a date. what should he do? be forced to assimilate? thats the standard bourgeois answer. should he just not move unless hes willing to go through years of being viewed as a immigrant, which will inevitably serve to alienate him from those around him. I would *hope* after a few decades, communism would produce a universal language then, over time, fuse the entire cultures and ethnicities into one finally worthy of the name “human“ (to paraphrase Trotsky)
I really don't know why you're convinced that we have a choice of either monolithic national cultures or monolithic global culture. I'm going to have to go back to my early guess that you don't have any comprehension of the subject matter beyond a superficial level.

My argument against imperialism isn't a nationalistic one, I don't care for nations, my argument against imperialism is one strictly based in the economic relationship that imperialism is. However, if someone else argues against imperialism from a nationalistic perspective, why should I care? The end result is the same, its just the rhetoric which varies.
Why are bourgeois politics interchangeable with proletarian politics abroad, if they are not so at home? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gif

NewSocialist

20th November 2011, 00:43

I really don't know why you're convinced that we have a choice of either monolithic national cultures or monolithic global culture. I'm going to have to go back to my early guess that you don't have any comprehension of the subject matter beyond a superficial level.

its not that I feel there's a "choice". a global culture is going to be the inevitable result of communist social relations, and yes I welcome that inevitability. anyone who doesnt hasn't broken free of false consciousness and is most likely a beneficiary in some way of the status quo of white supremacism and divided cultures.

I dont know about you but I dont exactly *like* living in a world where people are divided on the basis of language and custom barriers, where free love is prevented by ridiculous cultural diifferences. I want to live in a world where I can theorhetically move to Saigon and start a relationship without haveing to go thru years of alienating and cultural assimilation first -fortunately people will no longer have to suffer the way we have once communism is reached.

Tim Finnegan

20th November 2011, 00:54

its not that I feel there's a "choice". a global culture is going to the inevitable result of communist social relations, and yes I welcome that inevitability. anyone who doesnt hasn't broken free of false consciousness and is most likely a beneficiary in some way of the status quo of white supremacism and divided cultures.

I dont know about you but I dont exactly *like* living in a world where people are divided on the basis of language and custom barriers, where free love is prevented by ridiculous cultural diifferences. I want to live in a world where I can theorhetically move to Saigon and start a relationship without haveing to go thru years of alienating and cultural assimilation first -fortunately people will no longer have to suffer the way we have once communism is reached.
And again, I don't see why this demands global homogeneity. Why are you so you convinced that mutual tolerance and understanding can only occur in conditions of absolute sameness? This seems to betray a certain lack of understanding of Marx's conception of communism as the reconciliation of the individual and the community, which, while far from a crime in itself, seems a bit feeble given that you were previously invoking auld Cherlie to argue your position.

NewSocialist

20th November 2011, 00:59

And again, I don't see why this demands global homogeneity. Why are you so you convinced that mutual tolerance and understanding can only occur in conditions of absolute sameness? This seems to betray a certain lack of understanding of Marx's conception of communism as the reconciliation of the individual and the community, which, while far from a crime in itself, seems a bit feeble given that you were previously invoking auld Cherlie to argue your position.

I believe the culture and people which emerges after the fall of bourgeois society will be more beautiful than anything that came before -call it hybrid vigor. there wont be "demands for sameness" as you say, but this will naturally emerge as a result of the intermingling of nations which Engels spoke of. we wont all be the "same". people in america who currently practice the same culture aren't all the same. there will still be individualism but our cultural and ethnic groups will have merged as one. there may still be a few little subcultures here and there (music and art scenes and what not) but nothing that can significantly divide people like whole languages or customs.

Tim Finnegan

20th November 2011, 01:44

I believe the culture and people which emerges after the fall of bourgeois society will be more beautiful than anything that came before -call it hybrid vigor. there wont be "demands for sameness" as you say, but this will naturally emerge as a result of the intermingling of nations which Engels spoke of. we wont all be the "same". people in america who currently practice the same culture aren't all the same. there will still be individualism but our cultural and ethnic groups will have merged as one. there may still be a few little subcultures here and there (music and art scenes and what not) but nothing that can significantly divide people like whole languages or customs.
Why does diversity necessarily mean division? As you say, we're already diverse within our nations- culture is an ultimately individual thing after all, a unique accumulation- and we do not regard others within our nation as experiencing some cultural fundamental divide from us, so why between what are now understood as "nations"? Why not just dissolve the bourgeois fiction of nationhood, and retain the diversity that underlies it? It seems to me that, for all your earnest criticism of the damage that national divisions does to the relationships between peoples, you uncritically accept the false proposition of the bourgeoisie that bourgeois nationhood merely expresses existing divisions, rather than these divisions emerging from the political realities for which they are responsible.

After all, as long as we can actually communicate to each other as free, mutually accepting and respectful individuals, what does it matter if we do it in English or Spanish or Urdu or Tagalog? The content is what matters, not the form.

NewSocialist

20th November 2011, 01:53

Why does diversity necessarily mean division?

it means alienation in many cases, like the examples I cited.

culture is an ultimately individual thing after all, a unique accumulation

no, culture is a superstructure expression of the economic base of society (Marxism 101)

Why not just dissolve the bourgeois fiction of nationhood, and retain the diversity that underlies it?

for one thing because communist social relations are going to produce a fusion due to intermingling. for another, because it would really suck if after capitalism falls we are still alienated from each other due to archaic and petty cultural differences.

It seems to me that, for all your earnest criticism of the damage that national divisions does to the relationships between peoples, you uncritically accept the false proposition of the bourgeoisie that bourgeois nationhood merely expresses existing divisions, rather than these divisions emerging from the political realities for which they are responsible.

I *never* said that capitalist nation states reflect cultural differences. I actually said the opposite: they *produce* the differences. once borders are abolished and we freely interact as a result of communist production we will witness the gradual withering away of cultural distinctions.

Tim Finnegan

20th November 2011, 02:02

it means alienation in many cases, like the examples I cited.
That's a product of circumstances, not an absolute condition of diversity. Yet again, you lend the bourgeoisie altogether too much crediting in conceding the universal laws to which they attribute the peculiarities of their society.

no, culture is a superstructure expression of the economic base of society (Marxism 101)Kautskyism 101, maybe. Any Marxism worthy of our attention would not be so tediously deterministic.

for one thing because communist social relations are going to produce a fusion due to intermingling. for another, because it would really suck if after capitalism falls we are still alienated from each other due to archaic and petty cultural differences.What is "fusion due to intermingling", exactly? I'm quite willing to accept that communist society would involve a far more active and far-reaching cultural exchange than contemporary society, but I don't follow the logic that this exchange must necessarily converge towards a single monoculture. That's an assumption that you really need to substantiate.

I *never* said that capitalist nation states reflect cultural differences. I actually said the opposite: they *produce* the differences. once borders are abolished and we freely interact as a result of communist production we will witness the gradual withering away of cultural distinctions.But even here, you accept cultural difference to be itself a source of antagonisms, so your recognition that the bourgeois state precedes the bourgeois nation becomes nothing more than an historical observation- and, aside from anything else, is a false generalisation when so applied.

NewSocialist

20th November 2011, 02:08

That's a product of circumstances, not an absolute condition of diversity.

what you call a mere circumstance is actually a very real and important concern to me and any one else interested in free love.

Kautskyism 101, maybe. Any Marxism worthy of our attention would not be so tediously deterministic.

whatever. you explain to me how else culture is produced and maintained.

What is "fusion due to intermingling", exactly?

various cultures and ethnicities merging together due to constant and free interaction with one each other.

But even here, you accept cultural difference to be itself a source of antagonisms

its a source of alienation yes. it divides us, anyone who has been to another country and attempted to fit in with the local people knows exactly what Im talking about.

Tim Finnegan

20th November 2011, 02:17

what you call a mere circumstance is actually a very real and important concern to me and any one else interested in free love.
Yes, but presumably that's why you're a communist.

whatever. you explain to me how else culture is produced and maintained.Through the inextricably complex interaction of base and superstructure in the production and reproduction of daily life. Something far too complex to be boiled down to "commodity production therefore holding your fork in your left hand".

various cultures and ethnicities merging together due to constant and free interaction with one each other.I understood that much, yes, I'm just not sure how it's supposed to work. Simply proposing a conclusion is not the same thing as describing a feasible mechanism. (Although, yes, I do imagine that ethnicity will dissolve over time- that's something that already happens within capitalism, after all, albeit sometimes unsteadily- but ethnicity is not the same thing as culture.)

its a source of alienation yes. it divides us, anyone who has been to another country and attempted to fit in with the local people knows exactly what Im talking about.Again, what makes you think that this is an absolute product of interpersonal diversity, and not of the particular historical circumstances in which individuals experiencing these feelings are located?

Lacrimi de Chiciură

20th November 2011, 04:38

the working class has no culture, to hell with those who protect culture.

The working class is unique to no one particular culture, but all workers exist in some particular cultural context. By participating in living cultural phenomena such as language, socializing, working, athletics, expressing values, etc. you protect/preserve it. For example, by using the Latin alphabet now you are protecting an important artifact of Western culture. (culture meaning shared beliefs and behaviors; belief=writing in latin script will make me understood; behavior=writing messages using this script)

Alarming segments of the proletariat are also turning to Nazism and other filth. That is what nationalism is. Québecians have no right to ask for any "self-determination" (stupid concept). What you should be doing is teaching them why it is wrong to want to separate yourself from your fellow proletarians. Also, perhaps they should question their own legitimacy as the descendants of colonialists. :rolleyes:

Comrade, you are separating yourself from the global proletariat by speaking English. Attachment to a group (anglophone), necessarily means both solidarity (with other English-speakers) and exclusion (non-English-speakers cannot understand what you are saying).

How does Québec separating from Canada imply separating from fellow proletarians? Last I checked, the Canadian government was not "proletarian." Separating from it on the basis of anti-imperialist(anti-capitalist) national liberation could be a first step towards abolishing the entire capitalist state. Like others in this thread showed, there is a phenomenon of higher class consciousness and higher levels of labor organization in French-speaking Canada than in English-speaking Canada and there are real historical reasons for that.

There are no nations! Nations are relics just like race and gender. To pretend that there are is chauvinist, and this usually takes the form of racism. The left must spit on nationalism.

This is the same liberal trip as "race doesn't exist." Nations and races are social constructs but that doesn't make them less real. Being able to pretend that "there are no nations" just shows your own privileged situation. Try telling someone who had to risk their life walking days through the desert to cross a supposedly "non-existent, imaginary" border that nations don't exist, that they won't be deported for being in the wrong one without the right papers. Nations are real and we have to deal with it, not deny it.

All you have to do is tell them that nationalism is a tool used by the bourgeoisie to oppress minorities. If they deny this, then they are clearly racists, as that is such an easy cop out that nationalists use. If they assert any identity apart from the proletarian identity, then they are rejecting unity with the rest, and they are therefore reactionaries.

A person can have different identities in different contexts. Identifying as a proletarian does not mean giving up one's other identities. The proletariat is not some homogeneous entity. "Proletarian" identifies based solely on a socio-economic class relationship. You can't just deny or ignore the importance of other contexts of identity and the ways they overlap; nation, race, religion, sexuality, gender, ideology, etc. How do you deal with someone who asserts an atheist, lesbian, or African identity, i.e. that is not a proletarian identity? They are a reactionary? REALLY?

One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for "unity."Those who have this word most often on their lips are those who sow the most dissension, just as at present the Jura Bakuninists in Switzerland, who have provoked all the splits, scream for nothing so much as for unity. Those unity fanatics are either the people of limited intelligence who want to stir everything up together into one nondescript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle, throws up the differences again in much more acute opposition because they are now all together in one pot (you have a fine example of this in Germany with the people who preach the reconciliation of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie)--or else they are people who consciously or unconsciously (like Mühlberger*, for instance) want to adulterate the movement. For this reason the greatest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues are at certain moments the loudest shouters for unity. Nobody in our lifetime has given us more trouble and been more treacherous than the unity shouters.

People should be aware that there are two types of nationalism: a) cultural pride/attachment, which is not necessarily chauvinistic and which everyone expresses to a certain degree, and b) state-imposed/civic nationalism which is used for imperialism. The two are often conflated but we should at least be able to distinguish between them. It seems to me the "fuck nations" types here who want to impose their "global proletarian universal culture" or whatever forget this, and because of that, forget that when they belittle the national aspirations of oppressed peoples, they are displaying their own chauvinism. When Britain was colonizing Egypt, the colonial administrator Earl of Cromer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Baring,_1st_Earl_of_Cromer) said "the real future of Egypt lies not in the direction of a narrow nationalism, which will only embrace native Egyptians but rather in that of an enlarged cosmopolitanism." It seems fairly obvious that British imperialists were themselves less enthusiastic about assimilating themselves into a cosmopolitan world, but we see the same thing with 1st world "Leftists" now who want to tell comrades from places like El Salvador (who have actually had to deal with things like death squads trained in the USA) that they are basically fascist-nazis because they organized around national liberation, that they should only identify as "proletarians" when really this means conforming/assimilating to your own ethnocentric view of what a "proletarian" is, and embracing a "cosmopolitanism" which basically limits itself to your own backyard.

Red Planet

20th November 2011, 06:28

The working class is unique to no one particular culture, but all workers exist in some particular cultural context. By participating in living cultural phenomena such as language, socializing, working, athletics, expressing values, etc. you protect/preserve it. For example, by using the Latin alphabet now you are protecting an important artifact of Western culture. (culture meaning shared beliefs and behaviors; belief=writing in latin script will make me understood; behavior=writing messages using this script)

irelevant.

Comrade, you are separating yourself from the global proletariat by speaking English. Attachment to a group (anglophone), necessarily means both solidarity (with other English-speakers) and exclusion (non-English-speakers cannot understand what you are saying).
no shit. of course i spek english. this doesnt somehow make me sperate myself from the global proletariat. on the contrary, I am trying to break down the walls that keep us apart from each ohter as human beings...liberation is the key concept here. racial, INTERnational, gender, sexual (specially sexual ;) )

How does Québec separating from Canada imply separating from fellow proletarians? Last I checked, the Canadian government was not "proletarian." Separating from it on the basis of anti-imperialist(anti-capitalist) national liberation could be a first step towards abolishing the entire capitalist state. Like others in this thread showed, there is a phenomenon of higher class consciousness and higher levels of labor organization in French-speaking Canada than in English-speaking Canada and there are real historical reasons for that.you dont know anything about the situation, it seems. As was already explained like a million times already on this thread, Quebec nationalism is fucking reactionary to the core. fucking bourgeois fucking colonialists and there descendents wanting to "separate" all of a sudden. for what reason? perhaps it's the growing non-white population in Canada. The fascist groups in Qwebec certainly think so and that is why they support the movement.

This is the same liberal trip as "race doesn't exist." Nations and races are social constructs but that doesn't make them less real. Being able to pretend that "there are no nations" just shows your own privileged situation. Try telling someone who had to risk their life walking days through the desert to cross a supposedly "non-existent, imaginary" border that nations don't exist, that they won't be deported for being in the wrong one without the right papers. Nations are real and we have to deal with it, not deny it.wow. just wow. i dont' really know what to say. Do you REALIZE that you sound EXACTLY like those fascist shits on Socialist PHalanx? Do you? Have you looked at that filthy forum? they say the same fucking shit. What is wrong with RevLeft?

Nations are real? Really? so fucking what? so is capitalism. so is racism. Hey, I know, let's all join the next big fascist movement that rises as a result of the economic crisis in Europe and America. Ill see you when we're all saluting der fuhrer. :rolleyes:

A person can have different identities in different contexts. Identifying as a proletarian does not mean giving up one's other identities. The proletariat is not some homogeneous entity. "Proletarian" identifies based solely on a socio-economic class relationship. You can't just deny or ignore the importance of other contexts of identity and the ways they overlap; nation, race, religion, sexuality, gender, ideology, etc. How do you deal with someone who asserts an atheist, lesbian, or African identity, i.e. that is not a proletarian identity? They are a reactionary? REALLY?the point is not to erase all identities, but only exploitative and oppressive ones. Obviously, "white" colonial privilege has to go. minority affiliations, such as blacks, gays, etc., are of course welcome. Nobody said anything to the contrary. Don't twist what is being argued. This is a typical bourgeois liberal tactic.

People should be aware that there are two types of nationalism: a) cultural pride/attachment, which is not necessarily chauvinistic and which everyone expresses to a certain degree, and b) state-imposed/civic nationalism which is used for imperialism. The two are often conflated but we should at least be able to distinguish between them. It seems to me the "fuck nations" types here who want to impose their "global proletarian universal culture" or whatever forget this, and because of that, forget that when they belittle the national aspirations of oppressed peoples, they are displaying their own chauvinism. When Britain was colonizing Egypt, the colonial administrator Earl of Cromer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Baring,_1st_Earl_of_Cromer) said "the real future of Egypt lies not in the direction of a narrow nationalism, which will only embrace native Egyptians but rather in that of an enlarged cosmopolitanism." It seems fairly obvious that British imperialists were themselves less enthusiastic about assimilating themselves into a cosmopolitan world, but we see the same thing with 1st world "Leftists" now who want to tell comrades from places like El Salvador (who have actually had to deal with things like death squads trained in the USA) that they are basically fascist-nazis because they organized around national liberation, that they should only identify as "proletarians" when really this means conforming/assimilating to your own ethnocentric view of what a "proletarian" is, and embracing a "cosmopolitanism" which basically limits itself to your own backyard.

tell me, which one is your account on the Phailanx or scumfront?

The quote from engels that we (newsocialist and me) were using already speaks enough for itself. I don't want to play a game where we each cherry pick quotes from Marx and Engels to supprt our views. I, for one, don't consider Marxism to be a religion, unlike some.

NewSocialist

20th November 2011, 08:52

Yes, but presumably that's why you're a communist.

I'm a communist for a lot of reasons. I'm anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-nationalist, anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist. it doesnt exactly leave me with many other ideologies that Id find appealing ;) I also understand that capitalism isnt capable of lasting forever and the class struggle will eventually lead to communism.

Through the inextricably complex interaction of base and superstructure in the production and reproduction of daily life. Something far too complex to be boiled down to "commodity production therefore holding your fork in your left hand".

either culture is the product of material conditions or some phantom “human nature“ or a mixture of the two. I believe its a product of the material base, which is why I know nations can and will fall after the rise of communism, as will sexism, racism, the family, multiple cultures and every other reactionary remanant of bourgeois society. I mean do you just think these things are part of the human condition or do you agree communism will eradicate them as most marxists do? maybe youre a idealist and think even after communism we will still have to throw the right memes into society to get people to stop acting reactionary. which is it?

I understood that much, yes, I'm just not sure how it's supposed to work.

its a long process. the unrestrained movement of peope across the world will necessarily bring about a universal language for the sake of convinence. a universal culture will arise due to the mingling of the various ethnicites which will happen -why? because people of different ethnic groups will fall in love and have children (as many do now only it will florish after the system of white supremacy falls) I cant spell out in detail how this will work out, I'm not a utopian. as marx said about production under communism we cant accurately imagine the “recipes for the cookshops of the future“.

Again, what makes you think that this is an absolute product of interpersonal diversity

its very simple: if you want to move somewhere but are culturally different from the people in the location you wish to move to, you *will* be alienated if you move there until you culturally assimilate. this is a hindrance to self fulfilment and has no place in libertarian communism. fortunately we don't have to try to force unity into occuring, communist social relations will produce it on it's own, again as Engels said.

Kamos

20th November 2011, 08:59

People should be aware that there are two types of nationalism: a) cultural pride/attachment, which is not necessarily chauvinistic and which everyone expresses to a certain degree, and b) state-imposed/civic nationalism which is used for imperialism. The two are often conflated but we should at least be able to distinguish between them. It seems to me the "fuck nations" types here who want to impose their "global proletarian universal culture" or whatever forget this, and because of that, forget that when they belittle the national aspirations of oppressed peoples, they are displaying their own chauvinism. When Britain was colonizing Egypt, the colonial administrator Earl of Cromer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Baring,_1st_Earl_of_Cromer) said "the real future of Egypt lies not in the direction of a narrow nationalism, which will only embrace native Egyptians but rather in that of an enlarged cosmopolitanism." It seems fairly obvious that British imperialists were themselves less enthusiastic about assimilating themselves into a cosmopolitan world, but we see the same thing with 1st world "Leftists" now who want to tell comrades from places like El Salvador (who have actually had to deal with things like death squads trained in the USA) that they are basically fascist-nazis because they organized around national liberation, that they should only identify as "proletarians" when really this means conforming/assimilating to your own ethnocentric view of what a "proletarian" is, and embracing a "cosmopolitanism" which basically limits itself to your own backyard.

No.

Jose Gracchus

20th November 2011, 09:05

black magick hustla

20th November 2011, 09:45

Try telling someone who had to risk their life walking days through the desert to cross a supposedly "non-existent, imaginary" border that nations don't exist, that they won't be deported for being in the wrong one without the right papers. Nations are real and we have to deal with it, not deny it.

man you are quite the sanctimonious piece.

as someone who is not white, grew up for a good chunk of their life in the third world, has both catholic and muslim family, i can tell you that the people who go off about "identity" most strongly are not john does themselves but ideologues or academics - members of very specific demographics. a mexican wants to cross the border to make a better living, not because of some weird thing about nations. i think a lot of leftists have the wrong impression that people are in general very politicized. most people just punch in and out of their job, eat and talk with their children, and fuck their wives/husbands. to most people politics are white noise, and this includes all this sanctimonious slogannering about the "right of self-determination" etc. when normal john does end up in the cross fire of national liberation, it has to do with very concrete reasons, in the same way people in the ghetto joined a gang or the other. it has very little to do with some imagined yearning for "national liberation".

Lacrimi de Chiciură

20th November 2011, 19:43

no shit. of course i spek english. this doesnt somehow make me sperate myself from the global proletariat. on the contrary, I am trying to break down the walls that keep us apart from each ohter as human beings...liberation is the key concept here. racial, INTERnational, gender, sexual (specially sexual ;) )

So you are trying to tear down those divisions amongst us, but what does that mean concretely for things like linguistic difference? Language is a big thing which separates us. How do you deal with being separated from others in the here and now? You could at least start out by acknowledging that using English as the lengua franca privileges anglophones, we see this especially on places like this forum. Does it not seem somewhat odd that the "Home of the Revolutionary Left" is almost exclusively English-speaking? Acknowledging your own cultural biases doesn't make you a bad person... just an honest one, and in fact is the only way to unify the proletariat without alienating others by projecting your own values onto them.

you dont know anything about the situation, it seems. As was already explained like a million times already on this thread, Quebec nationalism is fucking reactionary to the core. fucking bourgeois fucking colonialists and there descendents wanting to "separate" all of a sudden. for what reason? perhaps it's the growing non-white population in Canada. The fascist groups in Qwebec certainly think so and that is why they support the movement.

Fascist groups try to co-opt leftist movements/causes by "supporting" them all the time. To be clear, I'm not talking about supporting "your own" bourgeoisie; human liberation can only be fully realized with the abolition of nation-states. But poo-pooing the cultural pride/attachments of people who imperialists have tried to strip of their identity is not the way to go.

There is racism in Quebec, but the French conception of nationhood, i.e. a group of people on a territory who come to an agreement to live together (and this could be done in the context of agreeing to live together in a stateless, classless society) is actually less prone to racism than the other conception of nationhood, which holds the "nation" to be those who share the same "blood." This pro-Quebec song by a black artist shows that it is more this first conception of a "nation" which is in question here (& also that you can't just pigeon hole Quebecois nationalism as a reaction to "the growing non-white population in Canada"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWvEeZ6nG8o

wow. just wow. i dont' really know what to say. Do you REALIZE that you sound EXACTLY like those fascist shits on Socialist PHalanx? Do you? Have you looked at that filthy forum? they say the same fucking shit. What is wrong with RevLeft?

Nations are real? Really? so fucking what? so is capitalism. so is racism. Hey, I know, let's all join the next big fascist movement that rises as a result of the economic crisis in Europe and America. Ill see you when we're all saluting der fuhrer. :rolleyes:

Don't be asinine.

the point is not to erase all identities, but only exploitative and oppressive ones. Obviously, "white" colonial privilege has to go. minority affiliations, such as blacks, gays, etc., are of course welcome. Nobody said anything to the contrary. Don't twist what is being argued. This is a typical bourgeois liberal tactic.

Sorry, I must have read too far into this:

If they assert any identity apart from the proletarian identity, then they are rejecting unity with the rest, and they are therefore reactionaries.

You do realize that in the context of Canada, Quebecois are a minority, right? The African-American liberation movement was in part what inspired French-Canadians activism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Niggers_of_America)

man you are quite the sanctimonious piece.

as someone who is not white, grew up for a good chunk of their life in the third world, has both catholic and muslim family, i can tell you that the people who go off about "identity" most strongly are not john does themselves but ideologues or academics - members of very specific demographics. a mexican wants to cross the border to make a better living, not because of some weird thing about nations. i think a lot of leftists have the wrong impression that people are in general very politicized. most people just punch in and out of their job, eat and talk with their children, and fuck their wives/husbands. to most people politics are white noise, and this includes all this sanctimonious slogannering about the "right of self-determination" etc. when normal john does end up in the cross fire of national liberation, it has to do with very concrete reasons, in the same way people in the ghetto joined a gang or the other. it has very little to do with some imagined yearning for "national liberation".

On the other hand, I think some people have this impression that "normal" people are apolitical and stupid. Having the wealth concentrated on one side of the border and having to be smuggled across a border are "weird things about nations." You want to set up this dichotomy between "very concrete reasons" and "imagined yearning" when they are one in the same thing. If people are just automatons eating, fucking, and working, and there is no type of imagined transcendence beyond that, we are all fucked. There are concrete reasons why certain nations have been oppressed (yes, even several of those that are sometimes perceived as "white": French-Canadians, Ashkenazi Jews, Catalans, etc.) and there is also a concrete need to imagine solutions that counter that oppression and prevent new forms of it from arising. Dissoluting the distinctness of oppressed nations with declarations like "there are no nations" or "the working class has no culture" simply assimilates these nations to dominate Western norms and fails to acknowledge the cultural bias/privilege inherent in such statements.

Tim Finnegan

20th November 2011, 22:15

either culture is the product of material conditions or some phantom “human nature“ or a mixture of the two.
That's an entirely false dichotomy. Marx never conceived of the base as determining the superstructure in a direct and rigid fashion, but rather that the two are engaging in a continuous reciprocal exchange as capitalist society is reproduced on a daily basis. Base determines superstructure insofar as material realities define the objective terms within which subjectivity develops, but subjectivity also acts back upon material reality through the process of production which constitutes the daily reproduction of capitalist society. This is not only something that Marx makes explicit as his own views, but something is wholly to the Marxist understanding of humanity and of human society.

I believe its a product of the material base, which is why I know nations can and will fall after the rise of communism, as will sexism, racism, the family, multiple cultures and every other reactionary remanant of bourgeois society. I mean do you just think these things are part of the human condition or do you agree communism will eradicate them as most marxists do? maybe youre a idealist and think even after communism we will still have to throw the right memes into society to get people to stop acting reactionary. which is it?I think it's possible to take a position where communism while be neither a slightly novel method of distributing goods on the one hand, or the ushering in of the Age of Aquarius on the other. Cultural development is simply a more complex process than that.

its a long process. the unrestrained movement of peope across the world will necessarily bring about a universal language for the sake of convinence. a universal culture will arise due to the mingling of the various ethnicites which will happen -why? because people of different ethnic groups will fall in love and have children (as many do now only it will florish after the system of white supremacy falls) I cant spell out in detail how this will work out, I'm not a utopian. as marx said about production under communism we cant accurately imagine the “recipes for the cookshops of the future“.That's a cop-out. If you're going to reprimand other posters for being insufficiently Marxist for failing to adhere to your own position, then you should be able to give a cohesive and satisfactory explanation for your position, not just declare the end result that you would like to see and insist that it will come about. That is truly utopian, however you attempt to qualify it.

its very simple: if you want to move somewhere but are culturally different from the people in the location you wish to move to, you *will* be alienated if you move there until you culturally assimilate. this is a hindrance to self fulfilment and has no place in libertarian communism. fortunately we don't have to try to force unity into occuring, communist social relations will produce it on it's own, again as Engels said.Repeating an unsubstantiated claim does not make it more true. You have no reason at all to believe that cultural diversity invariably and absolutely breeds alienation beyond those examples which you have witnessed in bourgeois society, a society which is virtually defined by it being alienating in every possible respect.

black magick hustla

20th November 2011, 23:05

On the other hand, I think some people have this impression that "normal" people are apolitical and stupid. Having the wealth concentrated on one side of the border and having to be smuggled across a border are "weird things about nations." You want to set up this dichotomy between "very concrete reasons" and "imagined yearning" when they are one in the same thing. If people are just automatons eating, fucking, and working, and there is no type of imagined transcendence beyond that, we are all fucked. There are concrete reasons why certain nations have been oppressed (yes, even several of those that are sometimes perceived as "white": French-Canadians, Ashkenazi Jews, Catalans, etc.) and there is also a concrete need to imagine solutions that counter that oppression and prevent new forms of it from arising. Dissoluting the distinctness of oppressed nations with declarations like "there are no nations" or "the working class has no culture" simply assimilates these nations to dominate Western norms and fails to acknowledge the cultural bias/privilege inherent in such statements.

i never said people were "stupid". i think being "apolitical" is a very healthy response to forces and institutions that have nothing to give you. i see communism as the final negation of all these forces and institutions, so i do not find "being cynical/apolitical" as objectionable as you. french=canadians and jews are not opressed nations what the fuck. you are spitting on the coprse of lenin lol.

NewSocialist

21st November 2011, 03:09

That's an entirely false dichotomy. Marx never conceived of the base as determining the superstructure in a direct and rigid fashion, but rather that the two are engaging in a continuous reciprocal exchange as capitalist society is reproduced on a daily basis. Base determines superstructure insofar as material realities define the objective terms within which subjectivity develops, but subjectivity also acts back upon material reality through the process of production which constitutes the daily reproduction of capitalist society. This is not only something that Marx makes explicit as his own views, but something is wholly to the Marxist understanding of humanity and of human society.

going on endlessly about how they “influence eachother“ is stupid. what is the *initial source*? is it the economic base or not? marxists have always held that it is, what say you?

I think it's possible to take a position where communism while be neither a slightly novel method of distributing goods on the one hand, or the ushering in of the Age of Aquarius on the other. Cultural development is simply a more complex process than that.

im not impressed by these kinda third way arguments. if communism is not capable of defeating sexism, racism, national peculiarities, homophobia, the family, then youre basciacally saying were going to have to keep fighting those things well after the revolution. can they even be defeated? if you think they can then how? if not by changing from bourgeoisie to communist social relations the only other hope is idealism.

That's a cop-out. If you're going to reprimand other posters for being insufficiently Marxist for failing to adhere to your own position, then you should be able to give a cohesive and satisfactory explanation for your position, not just declare the end result that you would like to see and insist that it will come about. That is truly utopian, however you attempt to qualify it.

its *not* a copout. Im a Marxist, I don't have a crystal balls and won't involve myself if utopian socialist speculation about how everything will work in the future. the best we can do is compare bouregois social relations with communist ones and use our logic to theorize how humans will change under communism. my position is the same as the quote from Engels I have posted all over this thread. humanity will merge as 1 -language wise, culturally and ethnically. it obviously stands to reason that *internationalism* (we are internationalists remember?) will give rise to a new international culture and people. I cant blueprint exactly how his will happen in detail just like you cant blueprint how it won't happen.

Repeating an unsubstantiated claim does not make it more true. You have no reason at all to believe that cultural diversity invariably and absolutely breeds alienation beyond those examples which you have witnessed in bourgeois society, a society which is virtually defined by it being alienating in every possible respect.

reason alone substantiates my claims and im totally happy with that.

Lacrimi de Chiciură

21st November 2011, 03:29

This is fucking bullshit.

Name a single instance where asking workers to tail 'their' national bourgeoisie in the project of building a fresh new national bourgeois state for the national bourgeoisie to run and help them accumulate, advanced the social abolitionist project of the proletariat. I'll wait.

No one says everyone in El Salvador doesn't have to worry about death squads, or that they are are 'fascist-nazis'. Only that the workers will not be better off should they yet-again put off their political independence in favor of yet-another tailing of a bourgeois nationalist.

And I'm not white. Are you?

This is a strawman argument. I'm not advocating creation of a bourgeois state as a legitimate means to national liberation.

Farabundo Marti was a communist, not a bourgeois nationalist.

And no, I am not. you can assume whatever else you want about me though, i'm not here to share my life's story with you.

i never said people were "stupid". i think being "apolitical" is a very healthy response to forces and institutions that have nothing to give you. i see communism as the final negation of all these forces and institutions, so i do not find "being cynical/apolitical" as objectionable as you. french=canadians and jews are not opressed nations what the fuck. you are spitting on the coprse of lenin lol.

um... the Holocaust? (note: I did say "have been oppressed" ...but, it's not like Jew-hatred doesn't still exist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

promethean

21st November 2011, 04:05

This is a strawman argument. I'm not advocating creation of a bourgeois state as a legitimate means to national liberation.

Farabundo Marti was a communist, not a bourgeois nationalist.

And no, I am not. you can assume whatever else you want about me though, i'm not here to share my life's story with you.

um... the Holocaust? (note: I did say "have been oppressed" ...but, it's not like Jew-hatred doesn't still exist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
I don't see your point. All national liberations to this day have just led to the creation of bourgeois states. If Qubecois workers start fighting for national liberation, what do you think they will end up with? Most likely, going by history, another bourgeois state. In the meanwhile, capital would continue to exploit workers on in those countries without being disturbed in the slightest.

Also, Jews faced horrific antisemitism in the past and on some levels face it today too. Does that make them a nationality? The state of Israel was founded on the basis that it is a Jewish state. I am not arguing that you support the actions of Israeli state, but this is what your arguments lead to.

Os Cangaceiros

21st November 2011, 04:19

Conversations about "progressive nationalism"/national liberation struggles remind me of that part of the movie "CB4", in which Stab Master Arson is asked how he's giving back to the black community, and he replies that he's opening up a beeper store which "will only exploit underprivileged black youth".

Chris Rock has a better idea of where national identity politics ultimately leads than some leftists do.

Lacrimi de Chiciură

21st November 2011, 05:17

I don't see your point. All national liberations to this day have just led to the creation of bourgeois states. If Qubecois workers start fighting for national liberation, what do you think they will end up with? Most likely, going by history, another bourgeois state. In the meanwhile, capital would continue to exploit workers on in those countries without being disturbed in the slightest.

Is this much different from someone who says, "If workers start fighting for socialism/communism/anarchism, won't they just end up with a totalitarian bureaucracy?" Haven't virtually all communist revolutions ended up with a bourgeois state? Does that mean we should stop struggling for these things (the ends of national & class oppression)? Only if we are incapable of learning from the failures of the past...

Also, Jews faced horrific antisemitism in the past and on some levels face it today too. Does that make them a nationality? The state of Israel was founded on the basis that it is a Jewish state. I am not arguing that you support the actions of Israeli state, but this is what your arguments lead to.

Does it really matter if people are hostile to Jews as a religion, a nationality, an ethnicity, or even a "race"? Oppression is oppression and doesn't have to be coherent or logical. The Israeli state is incapable of liberating Jewish people from racist oppression because it is itself a racist imperialist power, that practices discrimination even against non-white Jews, and benefits from antisemitism in other countries by encouraging those people to settle in Israel.

promethean

21st November 2011, 05:47

Is this much different from someone who says, "If workers start fighting for socialism/communism/anarchism, won't they just end up with a totalitarian bureaucracy?" It is a lot different. The context here is whether workers should support national liberation. One should not confuse the past attempts by the working class at achieving socialism/communism/anarchism with the attempts by a cross-class alliance in achieving national liberation. The biggest difference is the fact that workers did not succeed in achieving socialism, whereas national liberation was more easily achieved. If one knows the historical context in which these liberations were achieved, it would be clear that all such liberations were supported by one or the other capitalist state to further its own ends. People like Woodrow Wilson suddenly came forth promising self determination to nations when it became clear that it would benefit American imperialism. The end of nearly all colonial regimes was more due to the interventions by outside imperialist powers than by the conscious efforts of workers in those regimes.

Haven't virtually all communist revolutions ended up with a bourgeois state? Does that mean we should stop struggling for these things (the ends of national & class oppression)? My answer is above. I am curious as to what your own answer would be to this question.

Should we learn about the failures of the past and learn about the real nature of so-called national liberation or should we just blindly parrot whatever Lenin wrote?

Jose Gracchus

21st November 2011, 06:05

Where are "all these" "communist revolutions"? I do not see how an analogy can be made from the enormous data-set on national liberation backed by cross-class "national" fronts, with the handful of extremely limited attempted breakthroughs by the working-class to abolish classes, in each case snuffed out nearly as rapidly as it appeared.

Red Planet

21st November 2011, 06:33

So you are trying to tear down those divisions amongst us, but what does that mean concretely for things like linguistic difference? Language is a big thing which separates us.

I am a post- just about everything. i belive in postclassism, postracialism, postnationalism, postgenderism, posthumanism, etc. therefore i clearly wish to bridge the large gaps between us, which you seem to be eager to expand. The sooner we get it done, the better.

How do you deal with being separated from others in the here and now? You could at least start out by acknowledging that using English as the lengua franca privileges anglophones, we see this especially on places like this forum. Does it not seem somewhat odd that the "Home of the Revolutionary Left" is almost exclusively English-speaking? Acknowledging your own cultural biases doesn't make you a bad person... just an honest one, and in fact is the only way to unify the proletariat without alienating others by projecting your own values onto them.Don't be stupid. English is the de facto lingua franca for numerous reasons that I don't need to get into. they are quite obvious. we use english here because this forum was founded by English speakers and precisley because english is the linga franca. we'd probably still use english even if Japanese people made the site, so long as they wanted to be good communists (good leftists in general) and reach out to their brothers and sisters across the world. we NEED one common language, and unfortunately english happens to be that one. Like others have suggested i am fully in favor of creating a brand new language AFTER revolution and communism.

Fascist groups try to co-opt leftist movements/causes by "supporting" them all the time. To be clear, I'm not talking about supporting "your own" bourgeoisie; human liberation can only be fully realized with the abolition of nation-states. But poo-pooing the cultural pride/attachments of people who imperialists have tried to strip of their identity is not the way to go.I don't get it, on the one hand you claim nations are legitimate, on the other hand you think its necessary to abolish them due to their standing at odds with human liberation. Just for the record, are you referring to "nations" or states. the two aren't synonymous.

there is really no other way to go about it, I'm afraid. we can try to be polite and accommodate fascism, or we can fight it. Where do YOU as a moderator of probably the largest leftist forum on the web stand?

There is racism in Quebec, but the French conception of nationhood, i.e. a group of people on a territory who come to an agreement to live together (and this could be done in the context of agreeing to live together in a stateless, classless society) is actually less prone to racism than the other conception of nationhood, which holds the "nation" to be those who share the same "blood." This pro-Quebec song by a black artist shows that it is more this first conception of a "nation" which is in question here (& also that you can't just pigeon hole Quebecois nationalism as a reaction to "the growing non-white population in Canada"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWvEeZ6nG8ofirst of all, as my (presumably black) brother said above, most people really don't give a shit about there nation. it all boils down to being wage slaves in the end. therefore it stands to reason, and very good reason it is, that Quebec nationalism is a predominately bourgeois phenomenon. it is always possible to find poor minorities who have been duped into supporting reaction (look at the Republicans and Democrats), but it doesn't mean anything, and it is racist to think it does. second of all, I find it highly ironic and disgusting that these post-colonialists would attempt to draw inspiration from the slave uprising in their own historical empire.

Don't be asinine.Don't be a fascist.

Sorry, I must have read too far into this:Or not enough.

You do realize that in the context of Canada, Quebecois are a minority, right? The African-American liberation movement was in part what inspired French-Canadians activism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Niggers_of_America)You can link whatever you want, really. The fact of the matter is that fascists have just as much claim on Quebec nationalism as any bourgeois.

On the other hand, I think some people have this impression that "normal" people are apolitical and stupid. Having the wealth concentrated on one side of the border and having to be smuggled across a border are "weird things about nations." You want to set up this dichotomy between "very concrete reasons" and "imagined yearning" when they are one in the same thing. If people are just automatons eating, fucking, and working, and there is no type of imagined transcendence beyond that, we are all fucked. There are concrete reasons why certain nations have been oppressed (yes, even several of those that are sometimes perceived as "white": French-Canadians, Ashkenazi Jews, Catalans, etc.) and there is also a concrete need to imagine solutions that counter that oppression and prevent new forms of it from arising. Dissoluting the distinctness of oppressed nations with declarations like "there are no nations" or "the working class has no culture" simply assimilates these nations to dominate Western norms and fails to acknowledge the cultural bias/privilege inherent in such statements.

WHat part of reconfiguring the base so that it shapes a better superstructure don't you understand? All of my quite reasonable proposals have been made while assuming a progressive journey toward communism and posthumanism.

Die Neue Zeit

21st November 2011, 06:37

Kautskyism 101, maybe.

I don't take that jab very kindly. You should have said "vulgar Marxism" instead.

My take on the OP is that it's not politically feasible to have a left party in Quebec that's federalist or outside Quebec that sympathizes with separatism. Any Canadian left party to be formed should either be neutral at all levels on the question (like the provincial right-wingers who pay lip service to "sovereignty") or "opportunistically" leave it to provincial branches (i.e., let the Quebec provincial branch be staunchly separatist while letting the other provincial branches in the rest of Canada be staunchly federalist).

Either way, the federal-level organizations shouldn't determine the "party line."

RaÃºl Duke

21st November 2011, 14:52

Here's my opinion:

I really doubt Quebecois French is disappearing. Also, I doubt immigrants will affect this (in fact, they might be helping French maintain): The first "French-Canadian" I met was a Peruvian who became a naturalized Canadian citizen and lived primarily in Montreal. According to him, most young immigrants (that go to school, etc) learn French. The local Quebec government emphasizes teaching French, so I don't know how "French" will ever disappear/decline unless a large influx of anglo canadians who don't know French just decide to move into Quebec in a nearly immediate fashion/in enough numbers to upset the French speaking majority in Quebec.
I checked wiki and they say 80% of Quebecois speak French as their first language and 97% can speak French (whether as first, second, whatever language). Soooo, I really doubt that French in Quebec is disappearing.

Now, on the idea that Quebec is oppressed....well that's just ridiculous. While Quebec/French-Canadians might be a minority in the scope of federal politics they at least have representation in Canada more or less equal to every other province. Quebec isn't like Puerto Rico (PR has no representation in US federal politics), etc. Perhaps one could argue that back before the 60s Quebec was oppressed in some sense, but to argue that on modern Quebec is silly.

However, I agree that every nation (that conceives itself as such) has the right to self-determination. Yet whether or not this is a leftist concern depends. In this sense, we must take a nuance view similar to what Jake Williams mentioned earlier:

There's nothing wrong with liking Québec; there's nothing wrong with feeling that Québec and les Québecois are oppressed, because they are; there's nothing wrong with feeling that the people of Québec, and not foreign capitalists, should control Québec, because they should.

But, there's a whole lot wrong with thinking that there's something intrinsically good about the bourgeoisie in Québec, because there isn't; there's something wrong with being a racist or a chauvinist, which a lot of Québec nationalists are; there's something wrong, in general, about fighting for one particular nation rather than the working class as a whole.

The specifics of what this means, however, are not simple. Would state independence for be good for the working class? Should socialists fight for independence? There isn't a general answer. I can certainly imagine that there are circumstances where independence could in fact be important; if there were a revolutionary socialist movement specific to Québec, the federal state would be a major barrier and independence could be a solution.

Yet, generally, the question of national self-determination is not a leftist concern. It's not necessarily an anti-leftist one either per se, just that in the scope of left politics it's unimportant. The focus is on the liberation of the proletariat, not national liberation (unless you need to become independent to put socialism into effect in some area; I could imagine that for a socialist PR to exist it might need to split away from the US if they're not experiencing a socialist revolution; same could be said of Quebec, if the region of Quebec wants/fights for/etc socialism and the rest of Canada isn't than they would probably have to secceede to be able to succeed.).

Tim Finnegan

21st November 2011, 17:14

going on endlessly about how they “influence eachother“ is stupid. what is the *initial source*? is it the economic base or not? marxists have always held that it is, what say you?
There is no "initial source", in the sense that you appear to mean; rather, the relationship between the two is continuous, as they act upon each other through the process of production which constitutes the daily reproduction of bourgeois society. Objective material reality is the ultimately determining factor, yes, insofar as it exists in itself, while subjectivity exist only within the terms supplied to it by material reality, but that does not create a one-way street, it merely establishes the context in which the reciprocal relationship occurs. Subjectivity still can, does and must act upon material reality in the process of production, or the process of social development which is absolutely key to the communist political project would be fundamentally impossible.

im not impressed by these kinda third way arguments. if communism is not capable of defeating sexism, racism, national peculiarities, homophobia, the family, then youre basciacally saying were going to have to keep fighting those things well after the revolution. can they even be defeated? if you think they can then how? if not by changing from bourgeoisie to communist social relations the only other hope is idealism.There is no "third way" about it; what I am suggesting is that Marxism is precisely a rejection of both the subjectivist and economist positions are one-dimensional, and the recognition that the "base" and "superstructure" in fact possess a dialectical relationship, and so cannot be separated. It is not a compromise between the two position, but their supercession.

What all this means, in regard to the topic at hand, is that while a reconstitution of social reality along communist lines would offer us the material basis for true social equality, it would not produce that thing automatically, but instead it would permit its development through organic historical processes. Marx, it must be remembered, did not for a second envision communism as an "end of history", a utopian conclusion to all social development, but as an ongoing part of human social development, so to impose on him the declaration that everything would automatically perfect itself is to not only accept the two frequently combined yet entirely contradictory accusations that Marxism is a deterministic and utopian, but to embrace them as your own- a very bad idea for a "Marxist".

its *not* a copout. Im a Marxist, I don't have a crystal balls and won't involve myself if utopian socialist speculation about how everything will work in the future. the best we can do is compare bouregois social relations with communist ones and use our logic to theorize how humans will change under communism. my position is the same as the quote from Engels I have posted all over this thread. humanity will merge as 1 -language wise, culturally and ethnically. it obviously stands to reason that *internationalism* (we are internationalists remember?) will give rise to a new international culture and people. I cant blueprint exactly how his will happen in detail just like you cant blueprint how it won't happen.You offer nothing but a blueprint- that the blueprint is vaguely constructed doesn't change that. Marxism does not consist in saying that "X will happen but I have no idea how"- nothing more than a sloppy utopianism- but in recognising that social realities are produced by historical processes, and attempting to identify and understand them. If you cannot identify the processes by which your outcome will be reached except in the vaguest and most unsubstantiated terms- and I'm only asking you to demonstrate what should be an historically observed trend, here- then you are not making an argument that could be considered to be meaningfully "Marxist".

reason alone substantiates my claims and im totally happy with that.Then, by all means, share.

Lacrimi de Chiciură

22nd November 2011, 00:19

It is a lot different. The context here is whether workers should support national liberation. One should not confuse the past attempts by the working class at achieving socialism/communism/anarchism with the attempts by a cross-class alliance in achieving national liberation. The biggest difference is the fact that workers did not succeed in achieving socialism, whereas national liberation was more easily achieved. If one knows the historical context in which these liberations were achieved, it would be clear that all such liberations were supported by one or the other capitalist state to further its own ends. People like Woodrow Wilson suddenly came forth promising self determination to nations when it became clear that it would benefit American imperialism. The end of nearly all colonial regimes was more due to the interventions by outside imperialist powers than by the conscious efforts of workers in those regimes.

While it's BS that the end of 'nearly all' old school colonial regimes were granted by the benevolent imperialists and not by indigenous struggle, there is an unfinished aspect of these revolutions which is also why most countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia are now neocolonies and cannot be considered as nationally liberated. Woodrow Wilson supported a phony "self-determination" because it meant fully replacing traditional European colonialism with modern American neocolonialism. Workers did not succeed in achieving national liberation precisely because imperialism (capitalism) adapted to new forms and remains in those countries in the form of neocolonialism. Haiti became nominally independent in 1804--it did not cease to be an oppressed nation at the same time. The transition from colony controlled by foreign elites to neocolony controlled by a small number of local elites in the pockets of foreign elites is no more of a rebuttal of to the concept of national liberation than the transition from revolutionary workers' state to civil war to corrupt bureaucracy to right-wing capitalist state is a rebuttal of communist revolution.

The context here is whether workers should oppose national oppression (/support national liberation for oppressed nations/they are the same things). The answer is that the only way to abolish national oppression is to abolish capitalism at the same time, and vice versa. Addressing special forms of oppression (which are not the same as social class but are strongly correlated with it) in conjunction with class oppression strengthens class struggle. You cannot be a socialist if you do not oppose national oppression, all forms of social oppression.

Supporting the liberation of nations from the tentacles of neocolonial/neoliberal capitalism is called internationalism. Pretending national oppression can be sweeped under the rug is latent chauvinism. Pretending national liberation necessarily means class collaboration is ignorance, because so-called 'communists' have not immune to that form of opportunism either. Pretending communists shouldn't be front and center in the struggle to end national oppression ignores a real cause of suffering and leaves that cause open to co-option and domination by bourgeois and fascists.

promethean

22nd November 2011, 03:44

While it's BS that the end of 'nearly all' old school colonial regimes were granted by the benevolent imperialists and not by indigenous struggle, there is an unfinished aspect of these revolutions which is also why most countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia are now neocolonies and cannot be considered as nationally liberated. Woodrow Wilson supported a phony "self-determination" because it meant fully replacing traditional European colonialism with modern American neocolonialism. I was talking about more recent anti-colonial movements. Before World War 2, there were perhaps a few movements that involved the masses of these nations. Since World War 2, most such regimes ended through the intervention of foreign powers. Of course, neocolonialism ensured that the positive results from the so-called national liberation movements were nullified. One cannot seriously argue that workers should continue to fight for "national liberation" so that their new nations can be once again assimilated into capitalism and neocolonialism, as has happened throughout the history of such movements. In many cases, such movements have gone against workers in banning strikes and conducting violent repressions of workers. The Stalinist persecution of workers, trade unionists and Trotskyists in Vietnam is an example for this. There are similar cases where national liberation movements have formed cross class alliances with the only intention of destroying working class and communist movements in that country. An example for this is the crushing of the Turkish communists by Kemal Ataturk, who incidentally received full support from Lenin in the name of self-determination. In reality, much of the support given to national liberation movements by the Soviet Union was in pursuing its own national interests. The support given by Wilson was as 'fake' as the support given to those movements by the USSR.

Workers did not succeed in achieving national liberation precisely because imperialism (capitalism) adapted to new forms and remains in those countries in the form of neocolonialism. Haiti became nominally independent in 1804--it did not cease to be an oppressed nation at the same time. This has repeated in every other national liberation. From this and other similar experiences, it should be evident by now that workers fighting for national liberation just end up forming regimes that eventually get assimilated into new forms of capitalism.

The transition from colony controlled by foreign elites to neocolony controlled by a small number of local elites in the pockets of foreign elites is no more of a rebuttal of to the concept of national liberation than the transition from revolutionary workers' state to civil war to corrupt bureaucracy to right-wing capitalist state is a rebuttal of communist revolution.No one here is attempting to deny that national oppression exists and that liberation from such oppression is necessary.

The context here is whether workers should oppose national oppression (/support national liberation for oppressed nations/they are the same things). The answer is that the only way to abolish national oppression is to abolish capitalism at the same time, and vice versa. Abolishing capitalism can be done only by workers acting in their class interests, not in the interests of their nation. What makes Trotskyists think that African or Asian workers cannot fight for their class interests like their western counterparts? Arguing that workers in certain countries are not fit enough to struggle for their class interests is not very internationalist.

Supporting the liberation of nations from the tentacles of neocolonial/neoliberal capitalism is called internationalism. Pretending national oppression can be sweeped under the rug is latent chauvinism.Any discussion of national liberation should not be a thing to get excited about really.:rolleyes: Accusations of chauvinism are really uncalled for. This should be more of a strategic discussion than a theoretical one. No one denies that national oppression exists. The question here is what the strategy is to overcome it. A similar debate in fact occurred within German social democracy when Luxemburg, Gorter and others upheld the right of workers in colonial countries to fight in their self interests, while Kautsky argued for national liberation. Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks merely took up the Kautskyist position in arguing for self determination.