Greek racism and Golden Dawn

[Rodrigo]

Anyone could explain us why there's racism against Macedonians in Greece?

What's the relevance of Golden Dawn?

[Yugo45]

It's the typical nationalist bullshit. Some Greeks think that Macedonia belongs to Greece, because once upon a time, many, many, many years ago, the whole region of Macedonia was a part of Greece.

Most inhabitants of north Macedonia, today, are South Slavs who call themselves, naturally, Macedonians. Basically, north Macedonia was a state/republic in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while the south stayed in Greece. North Macedonia was called "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" when it was a part of Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia went to shit, and Macedonia declared indenpendence they called their new country Macedonia (for obvious reasons). But Greeks got pissed and forced them to change the country name to "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" You know, because Macedonia used to be part of Greece thousands of years ago.

Well, all of that sticked till this day.

[unfriendly]

"Macedonia" also refers to a region in northern Greece, which is where Thessaloniki is. National borders are kind of flimsy and ill-defined after the Balkan Wars and the Greek state wants to stir shit up as much as possible to make sure it keeps Thessaloniki (which it won through illegal occupation in the Balkan Wars).

IIRC. I could be wrong.

EDIT: Golden Dawn is a sizable fascist group that cooperates with the police.

[Rocky Rococo]

I find it intriguing that the Greek fascists chose the name Golden Dawn. That was the name that Alistair Crowley bestowed on his movement/organization.

[Tommy4ever]

"Macedonia" also refers to a region in northern Greece, which is where Thessaloniki is. National borders are kind of flimsy and ill-defined after the Balkan Wars and the Greek state wants to stir shit up as much as possible to make sure it keeps Thessaloniki (which it won through illegal occupation in the Balkan Wars).

IIRC. I could be wrong.

EDIT: Golden Dawn is a sizable fascist group that cooperates with the police.

Say whaaat?

Not heard that one before.

[Delenda Carthago]

Macedonia is a whole area. The south side of it is in Greece territory. The north is the state by that name. The ancient Macedonians, Alexander the "Great", were greek. They do however have the right to have "Macedonia" on their name. I just think that there needs to be a geografical determination of that, like Northern Macedonia, cause Macedonia is the name of the greek territory too. The thing unfriendly says about Thesaloniki is bs.

[Rodrigo]

I saw some prop videos from the Golden Dawn, but they are vague as hell (racism is vague). They use lots of imagery of Ancient Greece's soldiers, just like other Nazis tend to be interested in Nordic warriors, Vikings, and Norse mythology -- the NSDAP founded the "Norse mystical" Thule Society, right? The Integralists, with their greeting "Anauê!", which means "you are my brother" in Tupi (one of the dozens of Brasilian indigenous languages, but the only survivor up today).


I suppose Fascists and Nazis like the history of great Empires and Ancient history, tending to defend structures similar to what they had in the past ("going back to the origins"). III Reich, for example, stands for III Empire (and has every color of II Reich's flag). A guy from Golden Dawn, at my YouTube channel, said "Fascism was a government protocol used since the times of ancient Rome, it was simply not called Fascism".

[Thirsty Crow]

I find it intriguing that the Greek fascists chose the name Golden Dawn. That was the name that Alistair Crowley bestowed on his movement/organization.
That's not true, in fact. Aleister only joined the Hermetic Order which was founded at the turn of the century, to have his ass kicked out.


They do however have the right to have "Macedonia" on their name. I just think that there needs to be a geografical determination of that, like Northern Macedonia, cause Macedonia is the name of the greek territory tooI hope this won't come off as accusing or anything, but I think there's a hint of nationalism in this statement.

Why should FYROM be forced to adopt a geographical determination and the regional government in Greece not (for example, the name of the region could be altered to "South Macedonia")?
But that doesn't mean that I do not think that the whole affair is just nationalist bullshit. Because it is.

[Who?]

The Golden Dawn?
Are they like tryng to open up gates to Oblivion or something?

[Delenda Carthago]

I hope this won't come off as accusing or anything, but I think there's a hint of nationalism in this statement.

Why should FYROM be forced to adopt a geographical determination and the regional government in Greece not (for example, the name of the region could be altered to "South Macedonia")?
But that doesn't mean that I do not think that the whole affair is just nationalist bullshit. Because it is.
Τhe nationalist stance in Greece on the subject is complete denial of any including of the name "Macedonia" on FYROM's name. Matter of fact, in Greece the name of that State is Skopja. I try to look at both sides and be objective.

I dont understand why only Greece should be called for nationalism on that matter. FYROM's goverment is all about nationalism. I dont see why my stance on geografical determination is nationalism and not the propaganda that Thesaloniki is being forced to stay in Greece and its natural place is at the FYROM state like FYROM propaganda claims(and this is a very good reason why they should have geografical determination too!).

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eHV47jg5A6Y/StnFrEMkwsI/AAAAAAAAHIc/MvRKaC-olhc/s320/215.jpg

I ve never seen greek media portray Gruevski as a nazi, but they did it to Karamanlis.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DEHGONdgRh4/R_FOLnznhYI/AAAAAAAABgg/umMq9lColPw/s320/999999999999999999999999999999999999999.png



Even the nationalist stance in Greece, stays as the names should be Skopja not Macedonia. Nobody ever said that Greece should conquere FYROM.

So I disagree that a geografical determination for both the country and the region is nationalist. On the contrary, it is the most neutral stance between two nationalisms.

[Rocky Rococo]

@Menocchio

thanks for the correction on the Golden Dawn Crowley connection.

On the other hand, you have attributed to me the second quote which I did not make, and precisely for the reasons you criticize it I would like you to edit it to remove my name from it. Thanks in advance in that regard.

[Thirsty Crow]

Τhe nationalist stance in Greece on the subject is complete denial of any including of the name "Macedonia" on FYROM's name. Matter of fact, in Greece the name of that State is Skopja. I try to look at both sides and be objective.
That's not the impression I got. I thought that the official position of the Greek state was to call for a name which would either remain FYROM or which would include a kind of a geographical determination you speak of, and I must say that Northern Macedonia is the name I remember.
So, here we really don't deal with ultra-nationalism of groups such as Golden Dawn, but rather "mainstream" nationalsim represented as rational and acceptable in the public.
But hell, I could be wrong. Can you point out some articles which detail the official position of Athens on this matter?


I dont understand why only Greece should be called for nationalism on that matter. FYROM's goverment is all about nationalism. I dont see why my stance on geografical determination is nationalism and not the propaganda that Thesaloniki is being forced to stay in Greece and its natural place is at the FYROM state like FYROM propaganda claims(and this is a very good reason why they should have geografical determination too!).Oh, absolutely, I agree. Nationalism is also rampant in FYROM, that's for sure, and I didn't intend to deny that even for a second.
Though, I haven't heard a single rational reason why would it be unacceptable for FYROM to simply adopt the name "Macedonia" (except for the reference to the nationalist propaganda regarding Thesaloniki; but it remains unclear, at least to me, just what effect would that position have on latent expansionist nationalism in FYROM - which would harldy surface and morph into a hegemonic political position, IMO).

But hey, I'd propose that capitalist states name themselves as they please. Names such as Turdlandia come to mind. What I'm getting at is that this whole affair of national tradition, history, reflected in the name or whatnot, really makes no sense for me since I can't adopt that framework for analysis.


On the other hand, you have attributed to me the second quote which I did not make, and precisely for the reasons you criticize it I would like you to edit it to remove my name from it. Thanks in advance in that regard Sorry, I tend to get confused with quotes. Fixed it.

[Veovis]

I figure countries should be able to call themselves what they want, as long as it's not something like Buttsexistan. :lol:

Maybe Macedonia should force Greece to call itself "The Former Ottoman Republic of Greece."

[EvilRedGuy]

Why not call everything for Buttsexistan? (btw Buttsexistan is progressive considering its anti-homophobic) Its the working class that decides and have the final word, unless you're not a communist. Names are irelevant its instead of bothering with what the fuck you're shitty bourgeois-corrupt-drug-dealer-fascist country that you're so proud of is called go liberate the working class of Greece, Macedonia, FYROM, all those crap places you self-invented, Mr. Nationalists.


Btw. A bit angry, just spoke with some Balkan idiots.

PS- Nationalism breeds Racism.

[Luc]

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;2235116]I saw some prop videos from the Golden Dawn, but they are vague as hell (racism is vague). They use lots of imagery of Ancient Greece's soldiers, just like other Nazis tend to be interested in Nordic warriors, Vikings, and Norse mythology -- the NSDAP founded the "Norse mystical" Thule Society, right? QUOTE]

It was sorta of the other way around. Hitler was a member of the Thule Society and then the NSDAP formed as sort of the political wing of it. The NSDAP got it's swastika from the Thule society and it's ideas of aryanism.

I jsut wanted to particpate lol I don't know anything about the greek stuff. This is all I got

[Triple A]

Macedonia is a whole area. The south side of it is in Greece territory. The north is the state by that name. The ancient Macedonians, Alexander the "Great", were greek. They do however have the right to have "Macedonia" on their name. I just think that there needs to be a geografical determination of that, like Northern Macedonia, cause Macedonia is the name of the greek territory too. The thing unfriendly says about Thesaloniki is bs.

I learnt in school and watched several documentaries and Alexander the great was always macedonian.
The son of the king of macedonia i guess he was macedonian too.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

My understanding that national identity as a Greek has to be a cultural identification.The ancient Greeks were a combination of several groups.Greek culture has had influence far beyond its original "ethnicity". During the late Byzantine period there was very heavy Slavic migration to the region we know as Greece. A form of Greek identity and nationalism emerged in this period resulting from what were seen as the betrayals of the western Crusaders, who sought to carve out their own empires on Greek speaking territory and impose their own religion.

Later during the Ottoman period to be "Greek" almost mean being from a "successful" family of the Ottoman Empire who remained Christian.These people came to identify as Greek even if they had no other connection to the region we know as Greece.When Greece became independent in the early 19th century this concept changed somewhat.There were and still are Greek speaking populations dating from the original Hellenistic dispersal around the Black Sea and elsewhere.Also the large Greek speaking population of what's now western Turkey were expelled, partly due to the aggressive policies of the British Empire at the time.

The Greeks during the time of Alexander did not regard the Macedonians as Greek, although the Macedonians were being integrated into Hellenic culture.

Anyway its more useful to view national identities as cultural.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Well actually Golden Dawn(Chresee Avgee) thinks that even Cyprus and Istanbul are Greek.They say that they were speaking Greek there but in fact they are lying because in Macedonia they spoke Slavic.It is really pointless to argue with Golden Dawn members.All they say is "FUCK YOU ANARCHIST PIECE OF SHIT.LONG LIVE GREECE.MACEDONIA IS GREEK YOU BLOODY BASTARD".They suck.

[Rodrigo]

The Golden Dawn?
Are they like tryng to open up gates to Oblivion or something?

LMAO!!!!!

However, that evil satanic bloody cult in Oblivion is called Mythic Dawn.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Ha we like to call them Golden Pussy(Golden Dawn-->Chrisi Avgi--->Chriso Mouni)

[Delenda Carthago]

I learnt in school and watched several documentaries and Alexander the great was always macedonian.
The son of the king of macedonia i guess he was macedonian too.


See. this is why a geografical determination is needed. You are saying that since the FYROM people are called Macedonians and the ancient tribe was called too, they have a connection between them. But: Alexander and his nation were Macedonians. Macedonians were GREEKS. Their language was greek, their ties was greek, their cultur was greek. Alexander's teacher was Aristotle. He also showed great love for Diogenes, the cynic philosofer. He participated in the Olympics, as any other Macedonian king, when only greeks could have that privledge to do so. Matter of fact, his mother name became Olympiada after Philip won in the Olympics.

Nowdays Slavs that live in that area dont have any race or national connection with the ancient greeks.They do have the right to call themselves Macedonians cause they live in the area, but they have no blood or cultural connections with the ancient Macedonians.
Quote of Alexander when he had conquered the rest of Greece and started the campaign against the Persians. Every greek nation accepted to participate besides Spartans:

"Αλέξανδρος Φιλίππου και οι Έλληνες πλην Λακεδαιμονίων από των βαρβάρων των την Ασίαν κατοικούντων"

"Alexander, son of Fillip and the Greeks besides Spartans from the barbarians of the Asia residents"


15 March 1992, the president of FYROM Kiro Gligorov:


We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century (AD)... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians.

Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe (February 26, 1992)





We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia. The ancient Macedonians no longer exist, they had disappeared from history long time ago. Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century (AD).

Toronto Star (March 15, 1992)




STATEMENTS MADE BY THE LEADERSHIP OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF FYROM AND OTHER INDIDVIDUALS
REGARDING FYROM’S ETHNICITY AND LANGUAGE
1991 NATASHA STOYNOFF in an article which appeared in the TORONTO
STAR during the first day of the Caravan 1991, Skopje pavilion stated
“ kick our Slavic Boot heels” . Where Vesna Kondovski was elected by the
FYROM’S Slavs “the Princess of Skopje”.
1992 Former President of FYROM, KIRO GLIGOROV, on February 26, 1992
told the Foreign Information Service daily Report, Eastern Europe: ” We
are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century A.D.. Definitely, we
are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians and our language is a
Slavic dialect closely related to Bulgarian.
1992 Former President of FYROM, KIRO GLIGOROV, on March 15, 1992, the
Toronto Star, quotes him saying that “ We are Slav Macedonians. That’s
who we are! We absolutely have no connection to Alexander the Great and
his Macedonia. He was Greek. Our ancestors came here in FYROM in the
5th and 6th century.
1999 FYROM’S Ambassador to U.S.A., LJUBICA ACEVSHKA, on January, 22,
1999, stated, “ We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great.”
She also stated that “ We are Slavs and we speak a Slavic language similar
to and closely related to Bulgarian”. The Ambassador also said: “GREECE
is FYROM’S largest trading partner and its number one investor. Instead
of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with
talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nimetz”.
1999 FYROM’S Ambassador to Canada, GYORDAN VASELINOV, on
February 22, 1999, told the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, “ We are not related
to the Northern Greeks ( Macedonians ) who produced leaders like
Amyntas, Philip, Ptolemy and Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and our
language is a Slavic Bulgarian dialect.http://ahepa.org/uploads/pdf/CHAC_fyrom_2010.pdf

It was not up until the nationalist goverment of Gruevski that took over that they started to claim they are descendants of Alexander.

I really really dont want to get involved in all that stupid stuff. I dont see why people should fight over stupid stuff like that. I dont even see how this thing hepls us improve our life anyhow. But I will not stand by when posts like "I ve seen a documentary. They said he was not a Greek" are taking place. Cause I dont see how one eyed antinationalism can help us either. If someone can bring evidence on the contrary that Alexander was not a Greek, bring it. I wouldnt give a damn changing my mind. But I dont like see Greece be portrayed as the big bad wolf while some other States are organising the affiliation of a part of my country.

[EvilRedGuy]

Whats wrong Nationalist boy, are you angry?

[Triple A]

I'd like to see explained why greek city states(athens,sparta,...) considered philip a non greek and therefore a savage.

Phillip was the king of macedon Alexander his heir also the king of Macedon.

[Delenda Carthago]

I'd like to see explained why greek city states(athens,sparta,...) considered philip a non greek and therefore a savage.

Phillip was the king of macedon Alexander his heir also the king of Macedon.
Ι just proved that they didnt.So either post some facts, together with facts that ancient Macedonians were Slavic race, or I wont waste my time.

[Delenda Carthago]

Whats wrong Nationalist boy, are you angry?
Lol
If I m a nationalist for not wanting other States to claim territories of my country, what can we say about your idol, Kropotkin, that supported Russia in WWI?:D

You are stupid.

[Triple A]

Ι just proved that they didnt.So either post some facts, together with facts that ancient Macedonians were Slavic race, or I wont waste my time.

Im supposed to have an argument in revleft on wheter someone has the right to a territory based on race :confused:

I hope you dont start trashing turkey next.

[Delenda Carthago]

Im supposed to have an argument in revleft on wheter someone has the right to a territory based on race :confused:

I hope you dont start trashing turkey next.
No, you said that ancient greeks did not think macedonians as greeks and you asked for explenations. I told you that they did and if you want to prove the contrary, bring some evidence as I did.

You are trying to portray that today macedonians are the progeny of the ancient ones, I am proving that they are not.

I am repeatedly saying that they have all the right in the world to be called macedonians cause they do live in the area, you are closing your eyes on the try of annexation the state of fyrom is trying.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Il3C_PAhgz0/SaBD0t5WDCI/AAAAAAAAAuQ/qlt6PcxlBWQ/s400/Agencies+++++++++++++++++++1ftheUSA%5B1%5D_Page_-393491992.jpg


You are occuping your thought with the nationalism of the greek state that doesnt allow fyrom to have the name macedonia while you remain silent on fyrom's nationalist imperialist propaganda. I on the contrary try to find the best solution for both peoples.

Now you are accusing me all of the sudden of being an anti-Turk. Is this your political morals? And what would be for me the political correct stance? To say "Name them Macedonians, let them think they are sons of ancient Macedonians, let them have the whole Macedonia"? Is this "anti-nationalism"?

[EvilRedGuy]

Yes? If the Macedonia workers want to call them self that then let them do it, instead of attacking them with racist and xenophobic attitude like there is in Greece now. You are too obvious in protecting your BELOVED GREECE.

[Ravachol]

Lol
If I m a nationalist for not wanting other States to claim territories of my country, what can we say about your idol, Kropotkin, that supported Russia in WWI?:D

You are stupid.

Any state is an occupier state, all territory under control of state and capital is occupied territory, regardless of the history fetish of nationalists. I hardly see how one should defend the plight of one state apparatus against another.

[Triple A]

"not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave" (Third Philippic, 31)

These words echo the fact that the ancient Greeks regarded the ancient Macedonians as dangerous neighbors, never as kinsmen. They viewed them and their kings as barbarians (non-Greeks), a manner in which they treated all non-Greeks. Long before Philip II, the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, related how the Macedonian king Alexander I (498-454 BC), the Philhellene, that is "a friend of the Greeks" and naturally a non-Greek, wanted to take a part in the Olympic games. The Greek athletes protested, saying they would not run with a barbarian. Historian Thucydides also considered the Macedonians as barbarians and Thracymachus explicitly referred to the Macedonian king Archelaus (413-399 BC) as barbarian.

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/PhilipofMacedon.html

[Delenda Carthago]

Any state is an occupier state, all territory under control of state and capital is occupied territory, regardless of the history fetish of nationalists. I hardly see how one should defend the plight of one state apparatus against another.
Really? You dont see nothing wrong in a nation occupation from an other? You dont see nothing wrong to imperalism?

I dont know.Maybe its easy for an american to think like that. But here in the Balkans, or in Palestine, or in Africa, or in South East Asia, people tend to think different. Maybe cause they do live it. Ask our Serbians or Croatian comrades that write on this forum what does it mean for the people of a territory to change the State control. Like Kosovo for instance. I really dont think they would agree with you.

[Delenda Carthago]

Yes? If the Macedonia workers want to call them self that then let them do it, instead of attacking them with racist and xenophobic attitude like there is in Greece now. You are too obvious in protecting your BELOVED GREECE.
"The Macedonia workers". :laugh: Right... The fyrom Capital has obviously nothing to do with it. There is not a single drop of imperialism in the propaganda that Macedonia should unite. Its just for the fair cause. Right...

You are stupid.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The modern day Macedonians may have little or no connection with the ancient Greeks but how much connection do the people of Greece today have with ancient Greeks? So many people have invaded and settled in that region. Many Slavic peoples settled what is today central Greece. On the other hand many people in western Turkey were originally "Greek".

Isn't being Greek today a cultural construct? (it isn't bad, Greek cultural heritage is something which should be cherished, but its not based on race)

All nation-states reflect the interests of the bourgeois. Who cares what they decide to call themselves? Yes there have been historic injustices. Greek speaking people were oppressed by the Ottomans and this historical memory still persists.Shouldn't there be more solidarity today based on working class internationalism?

[Sasha]

Really? You dont see nothing wrong in a nation occupation from an other? You dont see nothing wrong to imperalism?

I dont know.Maybe its easy for an american to think like that. But here in the Balkans, or in Palestine, or in Africa, or in South East Asia, people tend to think different. Maybe cause they do live it. Ask our Serbians or Croatian comrades that write on this forum what does it mean for the people of a territory to change the State control. Like Kosovo for instance. I really dont think they would agree with you.
Eh, ravachol is dutch, not American...

[Delenda Carthago]

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/PhilipofMacedon.html
Seriously? You gon use a nationalist website as your source? Thats how anti-nationalist you are? Its OK to support nationalism as long as its not the greek one?

Whatever...

The first quote is from Demosthenis. Α rhetorician that stood against the attempt of Phillip to conquer by force the rest of the Greece. The funny thing is, that he was part barbarian(not savage, it has different meaning in ancient greek) too, his mother being a Skythian, something that his opponent Eshinis mentioned a couple of times:


«… και ταΰτα. ώ Δημόσθένης, έκ νομάδων Σκυθών το προς μητρός το γένος»

(Never the less, Demosthenis, being from the nomad Skythians from his mothers side)

Demosthenis was a fanatic supporter of the democratic city-states.He had the dream of a network of democratic city-states in the whole greek territory. Phillip was bringing the new type of goverment, the empire, and he was forcing it to the rest of the greek nations.

It should also be mentioned that out of the nine Phillipics, Demosthenis calls Phillip a Barbarian only 3 times:
1. The first time that it mentions the word, is on the Third Olynthiac Γ.16
Ουκ εχθρός, ουκ έχω τά ημέτερα, ου βάρβαρος, ουχ ο,τι αν ειποι τις

(whatever you want to say about him,he is not an enemy, not a Barbarian either)

2. Demosthenis gave the speech "About Peace" in 346 BC, after Phillip conquered Olynthos and had already slaughtered the nation of Fokeis. Demosthenis still didnt call him a Barbarian


3. Even after Demosthenis went as an embassador for 3 months in Macedonia in 341 BC, where he learned first hand their language and ethics, he still dont call Phillip a Barbarian on a speech of that year "Περι τω εν Χερσονήσω"(my own translation: About these around Peninsula)

4. A year later, on his speech "Περι της παραπρεσβειας" (About the embassy?) where he attacks Phillip pretty harsh, he still dont call him a Barbarian. Matter of fact, on another section of that speech, he attacks his rival Eshinis telling about him
Βάρβαρον τε γάρ πολλάκις και αλάστορα τον Φίλιππον αποκαλών εδημηγόρει


(He still spoche in front of the people calling Phillip a barbarian and a menace)
With this speech Demosthenis, tryed to create controversy between Phillip and his allie Eshinis.

5. Finally, the first time that Demosthenis calls out loud Phillip of being a Barbarian, is at his Third Phillipic, when Demosthenis was in a position that Phillip had conquered the whole Greece. It is this the first time that Demosthenis calls Phillip a Barbarian. Why now? If you ask me, I think he was trying to unite the rest of the greek nations to resist against his occupation. So his differance was not a cultural one, or a racist one, but a political one.

Never the less, the ancient commentor of the speech wrote about it



“Υβρίσαι τούτον (Φίλιππον) βουλόμενος (Δημοσθένης) καλείν βάρβαρον, επεί , εί το αληθές σκοπήσει, ευρήσει αυτόν Ελληνα Αργείον και από Ηρακλέους το γένος καταγόμενον, ως πάντες οι ιστορικοί μαρτυρούσι”


(He insulted him(Phillip) aiming(Demosthenis) to call him a Barbarian, but if he wanted really to do a research about it, he would know that he is a Greek from Argos, a descentand of Hercules, as all the Historians confirm).

Not only this, but at the same year Demosthenis calls Athenians to ally with the Persian against Phillip. His actual words were:

“Οίμαι δειν υμάς πρεσβείαν εκπέμπειν, ήτις τω βασιλεί διαλέγεται και την αβελτερίαν αποθέσθαι, δι ην πολλάκις ηλαττώθητε, “ο δε βάρβαρος και ο κοινός άπασιν εχθρός” και πάτα τα τοιαύτα” (Φίλιπ. Δ’33-34)

(I think you should send an embassy on the Persians which will negotiate with the Persian King and leave behind the silly phrase "The Barbarian is the common enemy" and all the rest)

So he actually absolves the charge of Barbarian about Phillip and he gives it to the Persians.

This is the real story that the nationalist FYROM website doesnt give you. Its quite easy to take something from History and present it as you like. Everybody knows that Marx had once said "I m not a marxist". But History is a puzzle, and all the pieces get together in order to give you a clear image. So the same way Marx only said that in comparasing to some duchebags that were defamating his theory and the actual phrase is "if THEY are marxists, I am not a marxist", its the same deal here. Demosthenis said that in a specific occation in a specific time for a specific reason.

[Delenda Carthago]

The modern day Macedonians may have little or no connection with the ancient Greeks but how much connection do the people of Greece today have with ancient Greeks? So many people have invaded and settled in that region. Many Slavic peoples settled what is today central Greece. On the other hand many people in western Turkey were originally "Greek".

Isn't being Greek today a cultural construct? (it isn't bad, Greek cultural heritage is something which should be cherished, but its not based on race)

All nation-states reflect the interests of the bourgeois. Who cares what they decide to call themselves? Yes there have been historic injustices. Greek speaking people were oppressed by the Ottomans and this historical memory still persists.Shouldn't there be more solidarity today based on working class internationalism?
I agree. But the thing is that nowdays, the construct of the greek nation doesnt threat anyone. When the military Junta tryed to throw out the turks from Cyprus because "Cyprus was greek since ancient history", if I were alive I would be against it(and I have been in many fights with people diffenting that stance when the talk comes to Cyprus). Today its the story of "Great 2500 year Macedonian nation" that is a threat to another nation.
I dont see why the naration of the "United Macedonia" is not to be opposed and Greece's veto is.

[Triple A]

I see nothing on the site that shows nationalism, its a history website that as a section on Philip II.

Your all point that ancient greek liked macedonians is that one philosopher didnt really called Phillip a barbarian.
You still have:

Historian Thucydides also considered the Macedonians as barbarians and Thracymachus explicitly referred to the Macedonian king Archelaus (413-399 BC) as barbarian.

And:

Philhellene, that is "a friend of the Greeks" and naturally a non-Greek, wanted to take a part in the Olympic games. The Greek athletes protested, saying they would not run with a barbarian.





You start reminiding me of those people that say bad things about their country but god forgive us if any foreigner agrees.

[Delenda Carthago]

Eh, ravachol is dutch, not American...
Even worse, he should learn from his own country's colonies history why the occupation of a nation from another is something bad.

[Delenda Carthago]

I see nothing on the site that shows nationalism, its a history website that as a section on Philip II

Οf course you dont. Its just a website that agrees with the nationalist narration of Gruevski goverment that says that Macedonians are not Greeks neither Slavs. After 2500 years and 400 years under Othomanian Empire, the only people that remained racialy clear were the Macedonians. Who, by accident they dont speak the language of their ancestors, but a slavic one.





Your all point that ancient greek liked macedonians is that one philosopher didnt really called Phillip a barbarian.

'That one philosopher" was your argument two posts ago!



You still have:
Historian Thucydides also considered the Macedonians as barbarians and Thracymachus explicitly referred to the Macedonian king Archelaus (413-399 BC) as barbarian.

First of all, you do understand that this is not a source right? Where and when did Thucydides said that the Macedonians are barbarians?Thucydides many times wrote about the collaboration of Macedonians and Spartans,being both from the same Dorian race, acording to him.


I quote anyways Thucydides from the translation of Eleftherios Venizelos:

«Ο στρατός του (Κνίδου) περιελάμβανεν Έλληνας μεν Αμπρακιώτας και Λευκαδίους, και Ανακτόρους και τους χιλίους Πελοποννησίους, επι κεφαλής των οποίων είχεν έλθει ο ίδιος, βαρβάρους δε χιλίους Χάονας, οι οποίοι, αβασίλευτοι όντες, είχαν αρχηγούς τον Φώτυον και τον Νικάνορα, οι οποίοι κατήγοντο από το αρχοντικόν γένος που ήσκει ενιαυσίως την αρχήν. Μαζί με τους Χάονας εξεστράτευσαν και οι Θεσπρωτοί, οι οποίοι ήσαν επίσης αβασίλευτοι…….. Και ο Περδίκκας είχε στείλει, εν αγνοία των Αθηναίων χιλίους Μακεδόνας, οι οποίοι όμως έφθασαν πολύ αργά. Με τον στρατόν αυτόν ήρχισεν ο Κνήμος την πορείαν του, χωρίς να περιμείνη τον στόλον που ανεμένετο από την Κόρινθον» (Θουκυδίδης 2, 80). «Και όταν ενύκτωσε, εις από τους ανεξήγητους εκείνους πανικούς, εις τους οποίους υπόκεινται μεγάλοι στρατοί, κατέλαβεν αμέσως τους Μακεδόνας και το πλήθος των βαρβάρων («οι μεν Μακεδόνες και το πλήθος των βαρβάρων ευθύς φοβηθέντες, όπερ φιλεί μεγάλα στρατόπεδα»), και επειδή ενόμισαν ότι οι επερχόμενοι εχθροί ήσαν πολλαπλάσιοι, από ό,τι πραγματικώς ήσαν και ότι φθάνουν από στιγμής εις στιγμήν, ετράπησαν αιφνιδίως εις φυγήν, κατευθυνόμενοι εις τα ίδια…..(Θουκυδίδης Δ 124 – 126)

Google translated cause it gets fuckin boring...

"The army (Knidos) perielamvanen Greek hand Amprakiotas and Lefkada, and the palace and the thousand Peloponnesians, on whose head he had come himself, and a thousand SEFES barbarians, who present for avasileftoi had their leaders and Fotyon Nikanoras, the who katigonto from Archontikon genus iskei eniafsios the principle. Along with SEFES campaigned and Thesprotia, who were also avasileftoi ... ... .. And Perdiccas sent without the knowledge of the Athenians thousand Macedonians, but they arrived too late. With this army irchisen the Tibial the journey, without perimeini the fleet was expected to Corinth "(Thucydides 2, 80).

"And when enyktose, One of those unexplained panic, in which armies are large, katelaven immediately Macedonians and the crowd of barbarians (" While the Macedonians and the crowd of barbarians soon fovithentes, opera buddy large camps "), and because </span>enomisan that the upcoming enemies were multiple, than it actually was and that arriving from far at the moment, to unexpectedly etrapisan fygin, heading in the same ... .. (Thucydides D 124 to 126)</span></span>



And:
Philhellene, that is "a friend of the Greeks" and naturally a non-Greek, wanted to take a part in the Olympic games. The Greek athletes protested, saying they would not run with a barbarian.
I dont know this. Bring me the source.







You start reminiding me of those people that say bad things about their country but god forgive us if any foreigner agrees
I dont know these people. But god forbid if I lie in order to be liked by those who have no problem with nationalism as long as its not greek.

[Sasha]

Even worse, he should learn from his own country's colonies history why the occupation of a nation from another is something bad.

I think he knows, he is an anarchist, the anti-nationalist anarchist position has nothing to do with support occupations and everything with opposing them, every occupation by the bourgeoisy that is, also supposedly leftist ones.

[FSL]

I see nothing on the site that shows nationalism
Jesus.



The modern day Macedonians may have little or no connection with the ancient Greeks but how much connection do the people of Greece today have with ancient Greeks? So many people have invaded and settled in that region. Many Slavic peoples settled what is today central Greece. On the other hand many people in western Turkey were originally "Greek".

Isn't being Greek today a cultural construct? (it isn't bad, Greek cultural heritage is something which should be cherished, but its not based on race)

All nation-states reflect the interests of the bourgeois. Who cares what they decide to call themselves? Yes there have been historic injustices. Greek speaking people were oppressed by the Ottomans and this historical memory still persists.Shouldn't there be more solidarity today based on working class internationalism?
The idea that Macedonians or the people of FYROM or however you want to call them are "stealing our history, hijacking our heritage, our identity" is obviously a rightwing one in its essence. It is quite popular among the general crowd, it's not the line of thought behind leftist critique however.


Some things about the history of the area. This post goes on for a while but I think most of these are important and as condensed as they could be. Not to sound nasty, but many of you seem to have no real clue about this region's area.
First of all, not everyone in Greece is a nationalist. And also nationalism isn't the ideology of the 80%, that is the people who'd normally object to FYROM's current name.
It should be said that among this very broad 80% there are many people who only think about this when they're asked in polls. More people, especially from northern Greece give a bit more importance to it and there are those who are indeed nationalists that have a very "firm" approach to the whole thing: our way or the highway.

What people outside Greece often can't understand is that this isn't a matter of nationalism, as in say Lepen's or BNP's. It's a matter of national identity. It's the nationalism that reigned supreme in Greece in the 19th century and that now just seems so true to most people, not evil, racist pigs, simple people. As true as sky being blue and the sun rising from the east.


Greece had its rebellion against the Ottoman empire way before everyone else in the Balkans, helped by the greek "diaspora", greek merchants who were quite rich at their time. These people needed a state to use as a national base, from which they could expand.
After the greek revolution only modern southern Greece was part of the state.
The "Great Idea" was then put forward. This was the union of all greeks in one state that could and would compete next to the then major powers. It wasn't a dumb idea at the time. Greece, the state, was small, but people who self-identified as greeks, as a nation, were rich compared to say most other people in the feudalist Ottoman Empire. Most upper class muslims were land-owners by default, leaving commerce to christians in the same way banking was left to jewish people in christian feudal states.


In the enforcement of this Great Idea wars were given, sometimes won, sometimes lost.
Of course we're talking about a period not like today. Nation was a concept in the making back then, especially in an area like the Balkans where multinational empires had been the norm exactly since when Alexander conquered Persia. The area of macedonia in particular was inhabited by people who spoke either greek or slavic, were either christians or muslism. There was no one nation leaving there, waiting to be freed.


In the Balkan wars Macedonia ended up in Greece. It could have ended up in Bulgaria if they were more lucky. After it was made a part of Greece, many people had to stop speaking their slavic language, change their surnames, even their villages' names. Had Bulgaria been the winner of the war, it would have done exactly the same of course to everyone else.
These things however are obviously left out of books. We learn that the balkan war was a liberating war, a continuation of the greek revolution. We learn of bulgarian atrocities in the region but not of our own etc. But people who have been taught these things (the things that are simply the "truth" here) may end up looking like extreme nationalists, especially when you compare them to their version from beyond the borders who have learnt a very different "truth".

You can't obviously expect everyone to become history researchers. Much like how people in the US often look past the native american genocide, people here or in our neighbouring countries often just accept what they're given.



In FYROM now. Nationalism, bourgeois nationalism, arrived much later. The area was a part of the kingdom of Yogoslavia before WW2, part of socialist Yogoslavia later on. It never had a bourgeoisie, one that would like to create its own "Great Idea", to strive for expanding its own markets in order to compete with the rest capitalist states.
This is what has been happening these past two decades.
It's not simply a matter of "They want to be called Macedonians so why not let them".

The Great Idea of being a Macedonian isn't just a quirk. It's the national policy of the local bourgeoisie in order to strengten its position and even lay claims on territory of others. It's to this policy of attempting to redifine borders and redistribute markets that communists are opposed, in the same way they were opposed to the "hellenization" of Macedonia when it came to greek hands or to the invasion of Turkey after the first World War.

Our great idea ended with that invasion, after we lost. The communities of wealthy greeks located mostly in Russian ports and Asia Minor were ran over in the first case by the Bolshevick Revolution, in the second case by the turkish bourgeoisie's army. From that point on our capitalists were happy to be thrown some bone a la Marshall plan by our benefactors.
Right now there is no one saying we should invade others, apart from people who are far-right nationalists and they're not that many. But the state of Macedonia, having been founded as a bourgeois republic only two decades ago is at that point.


It is obscene to have right wing people here calling leftists traitors because they didn't suppot Greece's war against Turkey or because they wanted everyone in Macedonia to be allowed to speak their maternal language and have leftists elsewhere call us nationalists because the antinationalist thing to do is apparently to accept everyone else's nationalism.


The right of "self-determination" isn't above everything else, yet this is what some people seem to be saying
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch04.htm

On the plea that its demands are “practical”, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations will call upon the proletariat to support its aspirations unconditionally. The most practical procedure is to say a plain “yes” in favour of the secession of a particular nation rather than in favour of all nations having the right to secede!

The proletariat is opposed to such practicality. While recognising equality and equal rights to a national state, it values above all and places foremost the alliance of the proletarians of all nations, and assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers’ class struggle. This call for practicality is in fact merely a call for uncritical acceptance of bourgeois aspirations.

By supporting the right to secession, we are told, you are supporting the bourgeois nationalism of the oppressed nations. This is what Rosa Luxemburg says, and she is echoed by Semkovsky, the opportunist, who incidentally is the only representative of liquidationist ideas on this question, in the liquidationist newspaper!

Our reply to this is: No, it is to the bourgeoisie that a “practical” solution of this question is important. To the workers the important thing is to distinguish the principles of the two trends. Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the oppressor, we are always, in every case, and more strongly than anyone else, in favour, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent enemies of oppression. But insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism, we stand against. We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and do not in any way condone strivings for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation.

This is from Lenin and he is arguing against Luxembourg who is infact saying we shouldn't support any nationalist movement as that's siding with that nation's bourgeoisie.
Even by that the "antinationalist" far left thesis is to oppose both greek and macedonian claims, say the two nations have in fact nothing to worry about other than their capitalists and ask them to fight those together.
Instead of that the people who "pose" as far leftists and hollier than thou in this whole nationalism saga, stand behind one nation's demands.


The real way to go here is for Fyrom to adopt an attitude far from one that could be mistaken as aggresive. One might say "you're crazy if you think Macedonia poses any danger to Greece, they're so small".
Well, in this case size doesn't matter. Kosovo is smaller than Serbia and the about 300 hundred states that came after dissolving Yugoslavia were also smaller than it.
The important thing here is the needs of stronger imperialist powers to get small states completely dependent on them and which they'll be able to use for military bases and "anti-missile shields" or whatever. If there is the will, a reason will easily be made up.

If that were to happen, the vast majority of the greek people who aren't nationalists but are now adopting a nationalist stance against Macedonia will calm down. The aggresive element that greek nationalism presented in its first century is now much lost, the country is happy being ranked in a medium-lower place in the imperialist chain. It understands that these times it should be happy with that. Macedonia though does want more. This is what the capitalists there want when they're building 50ft high Alexander statues.
It's not the proud small country against the big bad bully here.
It's two capitalist countries, but one of them being way more ambitious on where it wants to be in the next years.
And this "ambition" could even mean a war if things escalate.

[DarkPast]

@AttackGr and Triple A: Have a look at the wikipedia article on the Macedonians, seems well-researched: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians

Excerpts for those who can't be bothered reading it all:


Macedonia possessed a distinct material culture by the Early Iron Age.[/URL] Typically "Balkan" burial, ornamental, and ceramic forms were used for most of the Iron Age. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians#cite_note-46) These features suggest broad cultural affinities and organizational structures analogous with Thracian, Epirote, and Illyrian regions. This, however, did not necessarily symbolize a sharing of common identity or political allegiance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians#cite_note-48) Toward the latter 6th century BC, Macedonia became more open to Greek influences from the south, although a small but detectable amount of interaction with the south had been present since late Mycenaean times. By the 5th century BC, Macedonia was a part of the "Greek cultural milieu", possessing many cultural traits typical of the southern Greek city-states. Greek objects and customs were appropriated selectively and utilized in peculiarly "Macedonian" ways.

here was an "evolving view" of the Macedonians as seen by the Greek poleis. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians#cite_note-51) By and large, the Macedonians were not seen as "true Hellenes" until after the death of Alexander the Great, and throughout the Classical era, Greeks distinguished themselves from Macedonians. The gulf between Macedonians and Greeks was only bridged when both parties found themselves threatened by a new, western "barbarian" – Rome. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians#cite_note-118) As Danforth summarizes: "It is with the emergence of Rome as a common enemy in the west that the Macedonians came to be regarded as "northern Greeks. This is precisely the period during which ancient authors, such as Polybius and Strabo, did refer to the ancient Macedonians as Greeks." The reasons for such an evolution remain subject to debate: that is, whether the repeated denial of Macedonian Hellenicity during the Classical era represented a true ethnic distinction between Macedonians and southern Greeks, a cultural "otherness" between the archaic institutions of the Macedonians and those of the poleis, and/or political animosity between ideologically oppositional regimens. Indeed, much of the ambiguity about the Macedonians' ethnic identity, and sharp contrast between "Macedonians" and "Greeks" comes from a small group of patriotic Athenian orators and historians. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians#cite_note-120) As a point of comparison, Engels suggests the Greekness of the Epirotes, who led a similarly 'archaic' life as the Macedonians, never drew a sharp discussion as with the Macedonians, perhaps because the Epirotes, unlike the Macedonians, never attempted to achieve hegemony over all of Greece. Whatever the case, the degree of antipathy between Macedonians and Greeks exceeded that seen amongst other Greek states with a long-term history of mutual animosity (e.g. Sparta and Athens)

Thucydides and Herodotus regarded the Macedonians as northern Greeks, barbarians, or an intermediate group between "pure" Greeks and barbarians. For Herodotus, Hellenicity and ethnicity were firmly bounded and culturally determined categories. In his Histories, Herodotus recalls a reliable tradition whereby the Dorians were formed by a fusion of Macedonian and other Greek tribes, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians#cite_note-123) suggesting that Macedonians were Greeks. In other sections of his work, however, Herodotus implies that the Macedonians are not Greek: in 5.20.4, he calls King Amyntas an aner Hellen Makedon hyparchos, or "a Greek who ruled over Macedonians", and in 7.130.3 where Herodotus tells that the Thessalians were the "first of the Greeks" to submit to Xerxes.

Thucydides's classification of "barbarian" versus "Greek" operated on an relative rather than absolute basis. That is, Thucydides did not perceive Greeks and barbarians as mutually exclusive categories, rather opposite poles on a linear spectrum. He placed the Macedonians on his cultural continuum closer to barbarians than Hellenes,[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians#cite_note-143"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians#cite_note-Roisman_2010_loc.3DChapter_5:_Johannes_Engels.2C_p ._84-122) or perhaps an intermediate category between Greeks and non–Greeks. For example, on describing the Acarnanian campaign of 429 BC, Thucydides draws a clear distinction between Greek forces (Ambracia, Leucas, Anactorium, etc.) and barbarian forces (Chaones, Thesproti, Atintanes, Orestae). The Macedonians follow immediately after the enumeration of barbarian forces.

[FSL]

@AttackGr and Triple A: Have a look at the wikipedia article on the Macedonians, seems well-researched: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians

Excerpts for those who can't be bothered reading it all:




Should be noted that attitudes toward Macedonia didn't just change with time, with them eventually accepted as Greeks, they were differemt even in the same era depending on who you asked.

For example, Demosthenes ,who was the most famous orator of Athens and a fierce democrat (supporting the slave democracy of Athens anyway), was very much against Athens joining Macedonia in a "front" with Macedonia leading everyone else. Others, like Isocrates, were very much in favour of a union like that.
Demosthenes ended up killing himself rather than accepting Macedonian rule (with a king at its helm and land as the main sourse of power) over Athens.


Aristotle was born in Chalcidice, the part of Macedonia that is to the south of Thessaloniki (the "three legs" part). He was the student of Plato and the tutor of Alexander and obviously no one questioned his "hellenicity".


It's rather futile to understand those times with the present fixed terms.

[Wanted Man]

I was just beginning to write a post when I noticed that FSL had already said most of what was worth saying. Anyway, perhaps a bit redundant, but the site that was posted earlier is pretty obviously nationalist. Look at this, for instance: http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AlexanderOliverStone.html

Including the absolutely amazing (and undoubtedly misrepresented or cherry-picked) "scientific" claim that the Macedonians today are descendants of the ancient Macedonians, of Philip and Alexander. Of course one can find interesting bits of "racial science" for all ethnicities. I'm sure one can rustle up "scientific evidence" on the internet that proves that the Dutch people are direct descendants of the Atlanteans (the ones that survived and learned how to deal with water, anyway). This is interesting only to nationalists. Next they'll probably claim that Philip and Alexander were Slavs.

(EDIT: it's the other way around - apparently, Macedonians today are not Slavs (http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/MacedoniansNotSlavs.html), and anyone who disagrees is a dirty communist! Take note!)

These claims are important to nationalists and irredentists, and if they convince a large enough amount of people, then it could lead to new forms of aggression, ethnic strife, etc., hence the importance of refuting them instead of relativating it as a matter of "self-determination".

[deLarge]

I find it intriguing that the Greek fascists chose the name Golden Dawn. That was the name that Alistair Crowley bestowed on his movement/organization.

Crowley joined the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, rose through the ranks, had conflicts, GD began imploding, and he left. He also basically morphed Ordo Templi Orientis after his philosophy of Thelema, so while it exited prior to Crowley, today it has been fully appropriated by him. So the organizations you can give him credit for are A∴A∴ and OTO, not Golden Dawn. Most of the modern-day self-titled heirs to HOGD are Thelemic in nature, however.

[Obs]

Hey

Hey guys

Guys

Guys, hey

Hey guys

How about we ask the people in different parts of the region what country they want to be a part of?

[Rafiq]

How about fuck macadonia and fuck Greece, along with every other socially constructed invisible blob of borders that the bourgeoisie uses for class collaborationism?

[Wanted Man]

How about fuck macadonia and fuck Greece, along with every other socially constructed invisible blob of borders that the bourgeoisie uses for class collaborationism?

Wow brilliant. Fuck this, fuck that, the answer to everything!

[Rafiq]

Wow brilliant. Fuck this, fuck that, the answer to everything!

Why are supposed Internationalists squabbling over Bourgeois disputes regarding National boundaries?

[Ravachol]

Really? You dont see nothing wrong in a nation occupation from an other? You dont see nothing wrong to imperalism?


I see a lot of things wrong with imperialism but that's no excuse to jump to the defense of any other state. Proletarian Anti-imperialist struggle means struggle against both the 'national' state and the 'foreign' occupier state.



[Anarchists] refuse to participate in national liberation fronts; they participate in class fronts which may or may not be involved in national liberation struggles. The struggle must spread to establish economic, political and social structures in the liberated territories, based on federalist and libertarian organisations


I applaud it when the youth of Palestine turn against IDF occupiers but when they engage in the nation-state building process my support stops right there. I'm not a social-democrat.



I dont know.Maybe its easy for an american to think like that.


I'm not an american.



But here in the Balkans, or in Palestine, or in Africa, or in South East Asia, people tend to think different.


Most Balkan anarchists I know are (understandibly) pretty fiercly anti-nationalist. The 'croatian spring' and their 'war of national liberation' from Yugoslavia was the last blooddrenched refuge of a national bourgeoisie seeing another state-capitalist regime disintegrate and trying to turn the tide to their own advantage. We all know what genocidal wonders that 'struggle' brought us...

I'm sure you're familiar with the greek TPTG group, their analysis is spot on: http://libcom.org/library/if-you-want-peace-prepare-class-war-tptg


As I said, opposing imperialist forces doesn't excuse siding with the national bourgeoisie. Have we all forgotten the lessons of the social-democrat scum of the 2nd internationale sending the proletarians en-masse to their graves in the trenches of WWI in order to defend their respective 'nations' against imperialism? There's only one way the guns ought to turn and that's up!

Was Congo 'liberated' when it traded it's Belgian imperialists for domestic kleptocrats? Were Belgium and the Netherlands 'liberated' when they traded the Spanish king for the national bourgeoisie? Was the Irish 'free state' 'liberated' when it traded the crown for the Dáil? Hardly.

When opposing a foreign occupying force, the process of opposition may never involve the (re)construction of state and capital. This doesn't mean that the struggle against the misery of imperialism isn't real or understandable, it is merely realising that unless it does away what lies at the root of this misery it will merely be a reform in the form of opression, not it's content. One fought for with blood but a reform nonetheless.