Secession

[X5N]

Is it acceptable for a radical leftist to support a secession movement (like, Californian or Cascadian secession) that isn't exclusively a radical secession movement (i.e., it just advocates Cascadia or California becoming independent states, not necessarily worker's states or anything like that)?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

One might be able to participate in it under the basis that the new country be socialist but generally... no, most Leftist here wouldn't advocate such a thing.

[Blanquist]

One might be able to participate in it under the basis that the new country be socialist but generally... no, most Leftist here wouldn't advocate such a thing.

I do. I support the right of self-determination, meaning the right to existence as a separate state.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I do. I support the right of self-determination, meaning the right to existence as a separate state.

And why am I not surprised you do.

No meaningful "self-determination" worth the name springs from the bourgeois nation state.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It would depend on the situation - if it was really a question of national independence from imperialism or something sure. Otherwise I don't see the benefit from a class position.

[Per Levy]

Is it acceptable for a radical leftist to support a secession movement

i doubt you can call yourself "radical leftist" while supporting nationalist seperetaism.

[Blake's Baby]

And yet many do.

No, many of us don't support separation from the state and the setting up of a new state, we support destruction of the state and the creation of a new, post-state society (called 'socialism' or 'communism').

Now watch the flocks of nat-libbers descend to shout about how it's the national-democratic right of every everything to seceed from any anything...

[Blanquist]

Yeah, I guess Lenin was just a nationalist liberal, and Trotsky was just a bourgeois agent :rolleyes:

[Blake's Baby]

Meaning? That I said either of those things?

If the early 20th century proved anything, it proved that 'national liberation' was dead. Trotsky indeed wrote the theses of the CI which declared that 'the epoch of wars and revolutions' was upon us. Don't remember him writitng that 'the epoch of the re-organisation of the bourgeois furniture' is upon us, perhaps you can enlighten us as to where he did?

Luxemburg was right, Lenin and Trotsky were wrong. Simple as.

[Blanquist]

Meaning? That I said either of those things?

If the early 20th century proved anything, it proved that 'national liberation' was dead. Trotsky indeed wrote the theses of the CI which declared that 'the epoch of wars and revolutions' was upon us. Don't remember him writitng that 'the epoch of the re-organisation of the bourgeois furniture' is upon us, perhaps you can enlighten us as to where he did?

Luxemburg was right, Lenin and Trotsky were wrong. Simple as.

Trotsky supported the independence of Ukraine from the Soviet Union, and so do I.

Nothing to argue really, I support Lenin's position, you don't. Simple as, as you said.

[Bostana]

Good question. Wouldn't this be a form of sectionalism that would move up to Nationalism?

[X5N]

Well...

Is there any way that, say, advocating Cascadian independence could be compatible with socialism?

And, what were Trotsky's arguments for advocating Ukrainian independence from the USSR?

[Blake's Baby]

What is Cascadian independence, for those of us who don't really follow these micro-national things?

[X5N]

What is Cascadian independence, for those of us who don't really follow these micro-national things?

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29)

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

What is Cascadian independence, for those of us who don't really follow these micro-national things?

It's when a group of one British Colombian and....... one person from California get together and start screaming for the "independence of a certain part of the West Coast of North America" and no one listens.

[Blanquist]

Well...

Is there any way that, say, advocating Cascadian independence could be compatible with socialism?

And, what were Trotsky's arguments for advocating Ukrainian independence from the USSR?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/04/ukraine.html

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/ukraine.htm

[Magón]

These movements are as numerous in supporters, as Anarcho-Capitalists. Their whole plan is dumb, it wouldn't get them anywhere in the first place. Even if they did break away for some Socialist ideas, just breaking away doesn't do anything to help on a more international level.

[GPDP]

Maybe if such secession is on the grounds of establish a new socialist republic or something of the sort, then perhaps it may be worth supporting.

However, at least where I live (Texas), when secession is brought up, it typically conveys the idea of getting the goddamn federal gubment off our guns and bibles so we finally have the freedom to oppress illegal aliens, uppity blacks, gays, and radical feminists as we see fit. So on that note... not so much.

[Fawkes]

I support working class self-determination and free association

Advocating for the formation or perpetuation of any state is counterrevolutionary to the core

self-determination is the antithesis of a state

[ComradeOm]

Luxemburg was right, Lenin and Trotsky were wrong. Simple as.I suppose that we should tell the Poles that they should submit to the Germans and Russians again :(

Luxemburg's position was always an implicit apology for the continued domination of European powers over small nations. If that means nothing to you then I'm guessing that you're not from one of the latter. To continue with the above example, the idea that the Poles, in response to German/Russian discrimination and racist state policies, should have addressed their specific grievances through German/Russian political parties/structures is perverse. Not least because the latter were often dominated by social-imperialists

[Jimmie Higgins]

And yet many do.

No, many of us don't support separation from the state and the setting up of a new state, we support destruction of the state and the creation of a new, post-state society (called 'socialism' or 'communism'). Well-no-fucking-duh!:lol:



Now watch the flocks of nat-libbers descend to shout about how it's the national-democratic right of every everything to seceed from any anything...

So you don't support the struggle of the Zapitistas? Imperialism and national oppression have no connection or impact on class struggle? A Palestinian workers revolution is possible under present conditions? So you don't think that imperial victories and increased power for a ruling class doesn't impact the balance of class forces domestically inside that imperialist power?

Of course it would be idiotic to support "the national-democratic right of every everything to secede from any anything" as a principle irregardless of the possible effects or situation in the class struggle... but this is a straw-man. It's equally wrongheaded to make a dogma out of liberation struggles have no impact or an inherently negative impact on the class struggle. The USSR and their apologists have used national liberation cynically or as justification for things that were negative for the class struggle (again proof that no one supports national liberation in the abstract on principle!) but then does that mean that we shouldn't support Women's Rights under any circumstances since Bush used that as one of his justifications for actions that did not benift the class struggle? National liberation struggles need to be evaluated based on our best understanding of the balance of class forces involved and potential effects.

[Blake's Baby]

Name anything you like, I don't support the 'right' of it to secceed from anything else. The right of seccession is a bourgeois right. National liberation is supporting a nascent bourgeoisie against an existing bourgeoisie. What possible benefit is there for the working class? (I'll give you a hint, none whatsoever.)

I like a lot of your posts Jimmie but really, I'd warn you your Trotskyism is showing. Sadly, Trotsky was never able to see the implications of his own best work - Permanent Revolution and the foundation of the Communist International (for which Trotsky wrote the historic declaration that the epoch of 'wars and revolutions' had begun) imply that there is no national road to socialism or indeed any progressive faction of the bourgeoisie to follow. The task of the working class is to overthrow capitalism, not to support fractions of it against other fractions.

To paraphrase a recent poster I saw "so how's that supporting the lesser evil going for you then?"

[Sten]

I do. I support the right of self-determination, meaning the right to existence as a separate state.

We are talking about California. Not a state under colonial domination or anything.

[Grenzer]

I suppose that we should tell the Poles that they should submit to the Germans and Russians again :(

Luxemburg's position was always an implicit apology for the continued domination of European powers over small nations. If that means nothing to you then I'm guessing that you're not from one of the latter. To continue with the above example, the idea that the Poles, in response to German/Russian discrimination and racist state policies, should have addressed their specific grievances through German/Russian political parties/structures is perverse. Not least because the latter were often dominated by social-imperialists

I agree.

For as much all those who are directly opposed to all secessionist movements go on about "supporting the lesser evil", is supporting the "greater evil", which is in effect what they are doing(even if it's not the intent), supposed to be better somehow?

Indeed, I am aware that their solution is to call for proletarian revolution, but the simple fact is that in many scenarios it's simply a cop-out when they know that's not going to happen anytime soon. In practice, this puts them in a so-called "third camp" that is not directly opposed to imperialism and domination by capital.

I am not proposing all national liberation movements should be embraced; in fact, I would say most are not worth it. However, dogmatic rejection of all secessionist movements is just as bad as the dogmatic embrace of such movements. In some cases, support for a national liberation movement can cause a dramatic increase in support for the radical left; and far from increasing nationalism, fosters internationalism and support for other oppressed workers.

[Q]

Nothing to argue really, I support Lenin's position, you don't. Simple as, as you said.

Not only is this a fallacy (appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)), but it is also not getting the point.

It is obvious why communists prefer the biggest possible unity of the working class: Our class is an global class due to the inherent working of capitalism and the more united we are, the better are our chances of overcoming this system. For example, in my view we should propagandize in this day and age for positively overcoming the EU by a European Democratic Republic.

However, if we are to unite our class, there can be no other way than to do this democratically and voluntarily. So, where nationalist movements have a traction among the masses, such as for example in Scotland, in Kurdistan or in Basque country, we support the right to self-determination, as this is a democratic principle, up to and including independence.

But, as communists we again favor unity and everywhere there exists a nationalists mass movement, we propagandize for unity on a voluntary basis. That is, we try to convince the working masses of the need for such unity.

There was, in the past, another reason to support nationalist movements, but in my opinion it was flawed. The reason was to weaken imperialist powers. While this reasoning was flawed when colonial powers still existed, in our age of neo-colonialism - where countries are not occupied, but financially hamstrung to the international state system - it no longer makes any sense either.

As for the Cascadian and Californian movements: Do they actually exist as a mass idea or force? As far as I'm aware they don't and as such I think we should just ignore it.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, to be fair to those that supported (some) seccessionist movements in the 19th century - such as Marx and Engels of course - it was generally against feudalist empires (like the Russian Empire).

However, as far as I can tell, there have been no 'feudal empires' since the early 20th century. Thus the tactic of supporting national liberation is more than a century past its sell-by date.

All of the revolutionary socialists of the early 20th century - Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Bordiga etc - agreed that WWI was the definitive sign that capitalism had entered a phase which marked the end of of any progressive character it once had; parties like the SPGB had already decided thst capitalism had fulfilled its historic mission; feudalism had been replaced by capitalism even in such 'backward' places as Russia.

Thus from the early 20th what confronted the working class was not the bourgeois-democratic task of national unity and sovereignty and capitalist development - in other words, the bourgeois revolution for capitalism and the state, but the socialist revolution against capitalism and the state.

Sadly, there are far too many people who claim to be Marxists who are still living in the 19th century.

And as for the claim the Luxemburgists are implicitly ignoring e.g. the 'right' of Polish independance...
1 - Rosa was Polish, I rather think that she was speaking from both an in-depth analysis of the actual situation, and a personal experience that you don't have, so forgive me if I treat your ill-informed opinion as totally worthless;
2 - are you seriously claiming Pilsudski's party was a better guarantor of the interests of the working class in Poland than the Bolsheviks and the SPD? Do you know anything about what hapened in Poland between 1917 and 1941? I suspect not or you wouldn't have such a ludicrous view on the matter.

Lenin's policy, which was based on Stalin's pamphlet 'On the National Question', was a failure, because it didn't take into account the new situation that the world was in. Neither Lenin nor Trotsky fully grasped what the new epoch was, even though they proclaimed it and Permanent Revolution was part of the theoretical elaboration of it.

That's the thing about Marxism - if you forget it's a method and start treating it as a doctrine - 'Marx supported national liberation movements, Lenin supported national liberation movements' - without ever asking 1 - why?, 2 - in what circumstances?, and 3 - were they right? then I'm afraid all you do is end up parroting the mistakes of the past for all time to come.

Good luck with that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, dogmatic rejection of all secessionist movements is just as bad as the dogmatic embrace of such movements. In some cases, support for a national liberation movement can cause a dramatic increase in support for the radical left; and far from increasing nationalism, fosters internationalism and support for other oppressed workers.


As for the Cascadian and Californian movements: Do they actually exist as a mass idea or force? As far as I'm aware they don't and as such I think we should just ignore it.

Notwithstanding comrades Ghost Bebel and Q's insightful remarks, the particular example given in the OP is, alas, not the typical secession argument where I don't have personal sentiments involved.

[ComradeOm]

1 - Rosa was Polish, I rather think that she was speaking from both an in-depth analysis of the actual situation, and a personal experience that you don't have, so forgive me if I treat your ill-informed opinion as totally worthlessAnd...? Does her nationality excuse her rejection of Polish independence and and subsequent career in the German SPD. Lenin was a Russian yet his analysis of Poland reached entirely different conclusions. What of those Poles who reached also disagreed with Luxemburg?

Or do we take her word for it because of the prominence that she subsequently secured while working in Germany?

End of the day, Luxemburg's position implicitly endorsed continued German and Russian domination of Poland and, by extension, their other colonial holdings. Any Pole who wished to redress the specific concern should... well, join a Russian or German political party and place their case before, um, Russians and Germans. Does that make sense to anyone? Do we really need to be reminded of the attitude of the SPD and CPSU towards Poland?


2 - are you seriously claiming Pilsudski's party was a better guarantor of the interests of the working class in Poland than the Bolsheviks and the SPD? Do you know anything about what hapened in Poland between 1917 and 1941? I suspect not or you wouldn't have such a ludicrous view on the matterWho claimed this? And why should it excuse the mistakes of others?

Who knows what sort of socialist party may have emerged in Poland if Luxemburg et al hadn't vacated the national stage for Germany or Russia. Quote arguably had they stayed then a void would not have emerged for Pilsudski to exploit in outpacing both the SPD (where relevant) and the SDKPiL in emerging as the most popular (nominally) socialist Polish party. This was only possible because the PPS accepted that the Polish proletariat's struggles against imperialism were objectively different to those of Russian or German workers


Lenin's policy, which was based on Stalin's pamphlet 'On the National Question', was a failure, because it didn't take into account the new situation that the world was inActually, it's quite the opposite. It was Luxemburg and the SPD who were still operating in the (German dominated) old world of transnational empires. Lenin's self-determination was entirely correct in supposing that the prevalent form of government in the 20th C would be the nationstate. The following century has entirely vindicated this approach...

... or would you argue that the dismantlement of the colonial empires was a terrible mistake or of no progressive value? Try telling the previously-enslaved peoples of Africa or Asia that they would have been better off under empire or that their independence means nothing. Luxemburg's position here is an implicit apology for continued imperialism

[Die Neue Zeit]

Any Pole who wished to redress the specific concern should... well, join a Russian or German political party and place their case before, um, Russians and Germans. Does that make sense to anyone? Do we really need to be reminded of the attitude of the SPD and CPSU towards Poland?

Luxemburg was inconsistent. Despite the state question, the existence of the sectarian SDKPiL was not really justified. The Polish Socialists, despite their petit-bourgeois character, were at least consistent (nationalist on both the state and party fronts).

[Rafiq]

In the interests of what class? I do not, by any means support National self determiniation. They are Bourgeois in nature, and we've all seen what they have lead to. However, there could exist one of proletarian nature, perhaps.

[Omsk]

In the interests of what class? I do not, by any means support National self determiniation. They are Bourgeois in nature, and we've all seen what they have lead to. However, there could exist one of proletarian nature, perhaps.


Well of course,the point of national self-determination is that the oppressed proletariat rises up against the oppressing bourgeois state which imposes both society oriented and economic pressure on the 'enslaved' proletariat. If a struggle for self-determination is led by progressive revolutionary figures,and a progressive revolutionary organization which seeks to free the people from the foreign exploiter and than proceed toward the revolutionary process after which it can move to new grounds,and socialist construction, than i do not see why we should oppose it. Of course,if the struggle is led by the national-bourgeois who only seek to end the dominance of the foreign exploiter and to become the new exploiters,than we should naturally oppose it. The same goes if the struggle is nationalist in nature.

[Blake's Baby]

And...? Does her nationality excuse her rejection of Polish independence and and subsequent career in the German SPD. Lenin was a Russian yet his analysis of Poland reached entirely different conclusions. What of those Poles who reached also disagreed with Luxemburg?...

Lenin's view as a Russian supporting Polish independence makes less sense than Rosa's as a Pole opposing it.

As to the Poles who supported Polish nationalism... well there are lot of English nationalists, and yet I'm an internationalist in England... am I wrong too?


...End of the day, Luxemburg's position implicitly endorsed continued German and Russian domination of Poland and, by extension, their other colonial holdings...

Rubbish, Rosa's position was that both Germany and Russia should be destroyed and the only way to do this was Russian, Polish and German workers to do it - not divide themselves into ethnic fractions. You know... workers of the world unite!. Remember that?



...the PPS accepted that the Polish proletariat's struggles against imperialism were objectively different to those of Russian or German workers...

Only, they're not. The task of the proletariat everywhere is to work for the eoverthrow of capitalism, not for strengthening this bit against that bit.



...
Actually, it's quite the opposite. It was Luxemburg and the SPD who were still operating in the (German dominated) old world of transnational empires. Lenin's self-determination was entirely correct in supposing that the prevalent form of government in the 20th C would be the nationstate. The following century has entirely vindicated this approach...

And that's why we're living in communism now is it? Yeah, you're right, a ringing endorsement of Comrade Lenin (I mean Comrade Stalin's) approach.

I will be fair to Stalin, however, when he wrote 'The National Question' (I believe it was 1911) it was not completely evident that capitalism had reached the impasse that was brought about by the establishment of colonial and commercial empires over the whole planet and which culmnated in WWI.

Rosa of course had already pointed to the problems, but even so. Not everyone was as clever as Rosa. Maybe not even Trotsky, who was quite clever.

As to 'transnational empires (like Russia)', good job we're not living in a world of global capital and the international proletariat eh, comrade? Otherwise your assertion would look ... foolish.



...... or would you argue that the dismantlement of the colonial empires was a terrible mistake or of no progressive value? Try telling the previously-enslaved peoples of Africa or Asia that they would have been better off under empire or that their independence means nothing. Luxemburg's position here is an implicit apology for continued imperialism

Hmmm, has the dismantling of the empires led to communism? Or has it led to endless wars and failed states? Let me consider that question for a moment.

It's a bit like offering someone a nice cake, then kicking them in the nuts, and when they complain shouting 'you stupid bastard, i could have poked your eye out, so be grateful!'

The end of the colonial empires (not that they have really ended as such, but they are much diminished - the price the USA exacted for World War 2) has been at best a mixed bag. British and French hegemony in particular has been severely curtailed (Spain was finished long before); but the USA has stepped into the breach. In your opinion, this this a good thing, yes?

[ComradeOm]

As to the Poles who supported Polish nationalism... well there are lot of English nationalists, and yet I'm an internationalist in England... am I wrong too?Pretty much the point that I was making: a person's nationality is a pretty meaningless thing to hold up as proof of their expertise in an area. Luxemburg was a Pole, did this grant her some special insight into the topic that was unavailable to her peers? No. Not unless you're willing to extend the same benefit to those Poles who did not share her position


Rubbish, Rosa's position was that both Germany and Russia should be destroyed and the only way to do this was Russian, Polish and German workers to do it - not divide themselves into ethnic fractionsSo did Luxemburg propose a single European-wide communist party in order to achieve this? Or did she expect Polish workers to join German or Russian parties?

And of course Polish concerns could never be as vocal in those organisations. You may be content to trot out slogans but there were specific grievances that were not shared with German or Russian workers. None of the latter had to deal with, for example, a Tsarist campaign of Russification or systematic racial discrimination. Yet you would have us believe that these are unimportant because "the task of the proletariat everywhere is to work for the overthrow of capitalism"?


And that's why we're living in communism now is it?No but that's the reality of capitalism today. Pretending that the past century has not in fact happened and that nationstates are irrelevancies is pretty delusional. Oh wait, what do we have here...


As to 'transnational empires (like Russia)', good job we're not living in a world of global capital and the international proletariat eh, comrade? Otherwise your assertion would look ... foolish.Delusional is in fact the word. The basic building block of the political order in today's world is in fact the nationstate. That these are bound up in a global system in no way invalidates the importance of this structure; that they are manifestly different to the empires of the pre-WWI age should be obvious


Hmmm, has the dismantling of the empires led to communism? Or has it led to endless wars and failed states? Let me consider that question for a momentAre you seriously suggesting that the dismantling of the European empires is somehow a bad thing? That it would be more progressive if African and Asian peoples had remained enslaved?


The end of the colonial empires (not that they have really ended as such, but they are much diminished - the price the USA exacted for World War 2) has been at best a mixed bag. British and French hegemony in particular has been severely curtailed (Spain was finished long before); but the USA has stepped into the breach. In your opinion, this this a good thing, yes?Yes. Of course. How could anyone argue otherwise?

[u.s.red]

National liberation is supporting a nascent bourgeoisie against an existing bourgeoisie.

The Vietnamese fought a war of national liberation from 1945 to 1975. Ho Chi Minh was a nascent bourgeoisie?

[Blake's Baby]

Stop press - ComradeOm supports US imperialism, shock.




The Vietnamese fought a war of national liberation from 1945 to 1975. Ho Chi Minh was a nascent bourgeoisie?

Of course. Vietnam is a capitalist country you know.

[ComradeOm]

Stop press - ComradeOm supports US imperialism, shockI'm not sure how you got that from a post in which you hinted that the breakup of the European colonial empires was not "a good thing" :confused:

But, while I don't really care about your slavish defence of Luxemburg, I'm not going to let you off the hook on this one. Do you believe that Africa or Asia were better off under the rule of European nations?

[Luís Henrique]

We are talking about California. Not a state under colonial domination or anything.

And not a state where the population actually wishes for independence (logically, if we support self-determination, we should support California non-secession, because that is what its people self determinate for itself. But evidently it is chic to propose absurds and then create a mock movement around such absurds. At the very least it is always useful to mock people who are actually oppressed).

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

... British and French hegemony in particular has been severely curtailed (Spain was finished long before); but the USA has stepped into the breach. In your opinion, this this a good thing, yes?


...Yes. Of course. How could anyone argue otherwise?

So you support US imperialism.

You think it is 'a good thing' - 'of course' you do - that US imperialism has become the dominant power.

And, you're a coward for taking rep points off me instead of arguing on the board when I called you out.


I'm not sure how you got that from a post in which you hinted that the breakup of the European colonial empires was not "a good thing" :confused:...

Because you fucking said you cowardly moron.Is US hegemony a good thing?


...Yes. Of course. How could anyone argue otherwise?

Well, indeed. Seems pretty clear to me. You think US imperialism is a good thing.


...Yes. Of course. How could anyone argue otherwise?

What I said was that Lenin's policy had failed; you claimed it had worked and I asked if the break-up of the Empires had led to communism.

No, it's lead to the hegemony of american imperialism. Is that a good thing?


...Yes. Of course. How could anyone argue otherwise?

Anywhooooo....


...But, while I don't really care about your slavish defence of Luxemburg, I'm not going to let you off the hook on this one. Do you believe that Africa or Asia were better off under the rule of European nations?

Are they better off now that the ruling powers only control them economically, rather than militarily? Well, given the death tolls in the local wars fought since decolonisation, and the famines that have raveged Africa especially, I'd say it's a mixed bag at best.

You however are a cheerleader for American imperialism - a good thing?


...Yes. Of course. How could anyone argue otherwise?

So - go and fuck yourself and your cowardly rep-bombing. You're a fraud, a craven and an apologist for murders; your 'philospohy' has nothing to do with socialism, the workers' movement or the emancipation of humanity.

[Positivist]

Its not going to happen so who cares. In order to happen militant revolution would need to occur, and any revolution that doesn't aim to reorganize society into socialism is a waste of time and human life so I can't really see why any socialist would support this succession.

[ComradeOm]

Well, well, well haven't we gone on the attack here. I half-expected a robust defence/exploration of Luxemburg's theories but it really didn't take much probing to send you off the deep end. Let's see what's worth picking out of the wreckage...


So you support US imperialismAgain, I'm not sure where you got this from. I support the demise the the French and British colonial empires; a world without them is better than one with. Even if the latter includes the US. Yet you've somehow spun this into 'supporting US imperialism'? As if hating the European enslavement of millions is somehow mutually exclusive with hating US imperialist adventures. How bizarre

Do I really need to spell that out more?

Funnily enough, using your own logic, the converse scenario is that by 'opposing' US imperialism you in fact support the more traditional empires and their myriad crimes. Now I expect, from your posts, that you actually do but that doesn't excuse your construction of a dichotomy so messed up that there's no way but to emerge as an idiot. That's a logic that I refuse to accept

Really, is this how you see the world?


And, you're a coward for taking rep points off me instead of arguing on the board when I called you outSince we're being blunt/rude, I think that your above post is the height of stupidity. It's a one line response that ignores pretty much every topic under discussion in order to "call me out" on a charge that you invented. It is a terrible post, a stupid post and one that makes me feel stupid for even responding to it...

... and respond I did. Rather than "cowering" I made the (probable) mistake of further engaging with you. This is despite the dire quality of your posts and the fact that you've entirely abandoned the topic at hand, and any pretence of being capable of holding a discussion on theory, in favour of a slew of unfounded attacks on me

So yeah, I (rarely) neg-rep terrible posts. Yours was just exceptionally poor


What I said was that Lenin's policy had failed; you claimed it had worked and I asked if the break-up of the Empires had led to communism.Actually, no I didn't. I said that Lenin's position better accounted for "the new situation that the world was in" (your words) than Luxemburg's. I then explained that this was because the latter's theories supposed a world still dominated by dynastic multi-national empires while Lenin understood the importance of the emerging nationstate. The past century has proven that Lenin was right: nationstates are today the pre-eminent political unit

At what point are you going to start reading my posts?

Oh, and the "leading to communism" thing I ignored because it's embarrassingly stupid. As if theories are judged on the basis of immediate results. If so, we should probably jettison everything Marx wrote about classes or capitalism; they've not yet "led to communism". The self-determination of peoples is a mere prerequisite for socialist revolution, not an end or a version of communism in itself. Obviously


Are they better off now that the ruling powers only control them economically, rather than militarily? Well, given the death tolls in the local wars fought since decolonisation, and the famines that have raveged Africa especially, I'd say it's a mixed bag at best.Now this is a serious issue. I don't particularly care about your pubescent raging but here you are parroting the right-wing line - increasingly heard in the British conservative media - that Africa would have been better off under European tutelage and that independence has been a disaster, or at best "a mixed bag", for Africans. This is a deeply reactionary position which shows just how Luxemburgism can lapse into social-imperialism. Actually scratch that, I'm not going to give you that credit; this is just right-wing bigotry and ignorance

To spell it out to you: yes. Yes Africa and Asia are better off after shaking off a racist, and occasional genocidal, caste of European colonialists. Yes, they are better off without prison networks and civilian internment, without (largely) settler populations who stole their land, without policies that shut off access to education or local administration on the basis of skin-colour, without programmes to destroy local cultures due to the supposed superiority of the European-Christian tradition. And so on. Anyone who questions this, or who suggests that those mass movements who fought for an end to this discrimination and foreign rule were in error, is either a racist reactionary or an idiot. Often both at the same time

That is not to condone either the problems of post-African independence (which largely stem from the colonial experience) or the subsequent US hegemony. As I said, placing these into a binary matrix is stupid. But opposing African or Asian independence is unacceptable from a supposed socialist. You accuse me of opposing the "emancipation of humanity" while at best being ambivalent about the European empires? That's gross hypocrisy

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm surprised the case of Yugoslavia hasn't come up yet. Secession of "cascadia" or flanders or whereever in developed countries seem like non-starters, yet regional nationalism in Yugoslavia was to some degree marginalised. perhaps not as pathetic as the free and sovereign kingdom of nevada, but still.

However, if there is radical social change, as when after the fall of the berlin wall in eastern europe, then a huge upsurge in secessionism is one possible outcome that I would consider plausible for many societies. Certainly for places with very distinct regions like the US, Indonesia, UK Spain and Canada I can see this as a realistic outcome of any serious challenge to the capitalist order, especially as local elites scramble to secure their power basis.

But I do wonder if perhaps secessionist sympathies should be struggled against more actively in the current left. If the left emerges as a viable alternative to a badly shaken capitalism, it would be good to at least anticipate a sudden upserge in secessionism which will almost certainly be reactionary in aims and orientation.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Again, I'm not sure where you got this from. I support the demise the the French and British colonial empires; a world without them is better than one with. Even if the latter includes the US. Yet you've somehow spun this into 'supporting US imperialism'? As if hating the European enslavement of millions is somehow mutually exclusive with hating US imperialist adventures. How bizarre..

Go back and read the exchanges. I said that the demise of the British and French empires lead to the rise of American hegemony (actually, the end of the British and French empires was the price paid for American help in WWII) and asked if you thought this was a good thing. You said it was. Go back and read your own posts, as anyone else here can. You said that the rise of American hegemony is a good thing.




...

The end of the colonial empires (not that they have really ended as such, but they are much diminished - the price the USA exacted for World War 2) has been at best a mixed bag. British and French hegemony in particular has been severely curtailed (Spain was finished long before); but the USA has stepped into the breach. In your opinion, this this a good thing, yes?


...

Yes. Of course. How could anyone argue otherwise?

"Do I really need to spell that out more?"



...Funnily enough, using your own logic, the converse scenario is that by 'opposing' US imperialism you in fact support the more traditional empires and their myriad crimes. Now I expect, from your posts, that you actually do but that doesn't excuse your construction of a dichotomy so messed up that there's no way but to emerge as an idiot. That's a logic that I refuse to accept...

You refuse to accept that you're an idiot?

Doesn't stop you being an idiot.

I don't think that opposing US hegemony means supporting the old empires. I asked if you supported the rise of US hegemony - I've said it before, go back and read the posts - and you said 'yes of course, how could anyone argue with that'.

I support neither the old empires, nor US hegemony, nor the warring genocidal failed states of the post-colonialist era. I support the world revolution of the working class. Unlike you, who supports national revolutions.



...Since we're being blunt/rude, I think that your above post is the height of stupidity. It's a one line response that ignores pretty much every topic under discussion in order to "call me out" on a charge that you invented. It is a terrible post, a stupid post and one that makes me feel stupid for even responding to it...

Get used to it, you're going to spend a lot of your life with that feeling.


...... and respond I did. Rather than "cowering" I made the (probable) mistake of further engaging with you. This is despite the dire quality of your posts and the fact that you've entirely abandoned the topic at hand, and any pretence of being capable of holding a discussion on theory, in favour of a slew of unfounded attacks on me...

Go back and read the posts. I ask if you think the rise of American hegemony is a good thing and you answer 'of course - how could anyone argue with that?'. Go back and read the posts.


...

Actually, no I didn't. I said that Lenin's position better accounted for "the new situation that the world was in" (your words) than Luxemburg's. I then explained that this was because the latter's theories supposed a world still dominated by dynastic multi-national empires while Lenin understood the importance of the emerging nationstate. The past century has proven that Lenin was right: nationstates are today the pre-eminent political unit...

I asked whether Lenin's strategy had worked and you claimed it had. As we're not kliving in communism then this is obviously untrue.




...
Hmmm, has the dismantling of the empires led to communism? Or has it led to endless wars and failed states? Let me consider that question for a moment.

...


...

Are you seriously suggesting that the dismantling of the European empires is somehow a bad thing? That it would be more progressive if African and Asian peoples had remained enslaved?



Do you think that 'the dismantling of the European empires' is the same as 'communism'?

Do you deny that the ex-colonies are 'failed states' engaged in 'endless wars'? Because your question here is a bit of a non-sequiteur.

Has the Leninist policy of support for national liberation movements led to communism? No it hasn't.

Has the Leninist policy of support for national liberation movements led to failed states and endless wars? Yes it has.

So by what measure has it benefitted the proletariat either 1-specifically in the former colonies, or 2-more generally throughout the world?

In terms of your question, 'is the break-up of the former empires a good or bad thing', I think a quote from Bakunin is apposite here: "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not happier if it is called 'the people's stick'. Capitalism is capitalism and oppression is oppression; it doesn't matter what colour skin or what the cut of jacket of the oppressor.




...

Oh, and the "leading to communism" thing I ignored because it's embarrassingly stupid. As if theories are judged on the basis of immediate results. If so, we should probably jettison everything Marx wrote about classes or capitalism; they've not yet "led to communism". The self-determination of peoples is a mere prerequisite for socialist revolution, not an end or a version of communism in itself. Obviously...

Obviously not. The worldwide overthrow of capitalism is the prerequisite to communism; have Lenin's policies made that easier or harder? (I'll give you a clue, it's harder.)


...Now this is a serious issue. I don't particularly care about your pubescent raging but here you are parroting the right-wing line - increasingly heard in the British conservative media - that Africa would have been better off under European tutelage and that independence has been a disaster, or at best "a mixed bag", for Africans. This is a deeply reactionary position ...

As opposed to the nationalist poison of your position which is of course made of flowers and bunnyrabbits.

Many things are socially progressive while at the same time being pretty horrible for those caught up in them. Was colonialism a wonderful thing? No it wasn't. Did it have some socially and historically progressive aspects? Of course it did. To argue otherwise is to abandon Marxism for hippie moralism.

I no-where claimed that the inhabitants of Africa as a whole were 'better off' as part of European empires - go back and read the posts. I claimed that the results of decolonisation have been 'failed states and endless wars'. Do you want to actually dispute that claim instead of indulging in pathetic strawmen?


...which shows just how Luxemburgism can lapse into social-imperialism. Actually scratch that, I'm not going to give you that credit; this is just right-wing bigotry and ignorance...

Brilliant. I'll take my 'right-wing' Marxism over your third-worldist liberal bullshit any day.



...To spell it out to you: yes. Yes Africa and Asia are better off after shaking off a racist, and occasional genocidal, caste of European colonialists. Yes, they are better off without prison networks and civilian internment, without (largely) settler populations who stole their land, without policies that shut off access to education or local administration on the basis of skin-colour, without programmes to destroy local cultures due to the supposed superiority of the European-Christian tradition. And so on. Anyone who questions this, or who suggests that those mass movements who fought for an end to this discrimination and foreign rule were in error, is either a racist reactionary or an idiot. Often both at the same time...

You have a very strange notion of the process of decolonisation. Go and look up the wars and famines and genocides in Africa over the past 50 years and then tell me everything has been hunky-dory.

You have an almost childlike image of Africa as a continent without class-conflict, a kind of pre-Lapserian wonderland. Like Care Bear Country, or some such. And you anathematize those who do not share your fantasy. Yay! Unicorns and fairies and all the happy Africans, all safe and snuggly now the bad ol'Europeans have gone!

Interestingly I was reading an article recently about how the French state used nationalist groups in West Africa to break up the workers' organisations that had black and white workers; it began co-opting and using some of the emergent stratum of educated black workers to promote class-colaborationist, nationalist aims against working class unity:

http://en.internationalism.org/internationalreview/201111/4594/contribution-history-workers-movement-africa-part-3-1920s-30s

So the policy that you support was promoted by the French state (in this instance) to create a new bourgeoisie (a new oppressing class, be they ever so black) by using racially-divisive, nationalist tactics. And this is what you support; racism, nationalism, class-collaboration, and the destruction of non-racist, non-nationalist, workers' organisations.



...That is not to condone either the problems of post-African independence (which largely stem from the colonial experience) or the subsequent US hegemony...

Right; one half-sentence in your entire post that actually makes sense; yes, many (most) of the problems in Africa have been as a result of the situation that the new bourgeois elites have found themselves in trying to rule industrially-underdeveloped ex-colonies, in the context of continued interference by the former colonial powers and new players such as the USA, USSR and lately China. Yes, I agree.

Has the position of the working class improved substantially in Africa as a whole over that time? I'd argue not. So what possible motive do you have for decalring the policy a success?




... As I said, placing these into a binary matrix is stupid. But opposing African or Asian independence is unacceptable from a supposed socialist. You accuse me of opposing the "emancipation of humanity" while at best being ambivalent about the European empires? That's gross hypocrisy

I'm 'ambivalent' about the European empires in that I regard them as being both horrific institutions and at the same time playing a historically-progressive developmental role. You are not ambivalent about them at all, you condemn them utterly and assign them no progressive role. Do you think that capitalism is more progressive than feudalism or antique slavery? Do you have any idea of the notion of historical materialism? You do not believe that the emancipation of humanity comes about through the creation of a proletariat through capitalist development, you believe that the emancipation of humanity comes about through 'the people' being 'free'. This makes you a bourgeois democrat, not a communist.

[Brosip Tito]

Luxemburgism can lapse into social-imperialism HOLY HORSE HUMPING JESUS.

I used to think Comrade Om was reasonable, not anymore. My mind is blown, that I actually read those words...

It's like...concentrated idiocy...I can feel it's aura.

[Veovis]

Most of the secessionists I've talked to tend to be right-libertarians. I'll pass.

[ComradeOm]

I really shouldn't be enjoying this as much as I am. By the time I get to the bottom I'm fairly sure that I won't be. Serious stuff first:


HOLY HORSE HUMPING JESUS.

I used to think Comrade Om was reasonable, not anymore. My mind is blown, that I actually read those words...

It's like...concentrated idiocy...I can feel it's auraI'm going to assume that this translates as "Actually, old bean, I take issue with your assertion that Luxemburgism can 'lapse into social-imperialism'"?

Well obviously I slightly exaggerated for effect, being in full polemic mode, but not entirely. You can see this tendency in this thread alone. We've already had apologies and justifications offered for European colonialism and the wavering support for Franco-British atrocities (in the name of some perverse "historically-progressive developmental role" of course). Now this is largely because Blake's Baby is a moron but he is a useful one in showing how the downplaying of the national struggle (and the failure to recognise that there are differences in the material conditions in imperialist and colonial nations) can easily "lapse into social-imperialism". It becomes an apologia for imperialism, albeit one cloaked in socialist language

Now that term fairly accurately describes the idiot above but it would obviously be harsh to apply it to Luxemburg or real people. That said, I do have real issues with Luxemburg's historical stance on Poland. But I've been waiting for someone to take this up with me and have a proper discussion on the national question. I could construct a better Luxemburgist defence than the dross proferred so far

I hope that's made it clearer, I would be gutted if I lost your respect Brosip Tito


Go back and read the exchangesIs it that the problem here is that you're not reading your own posts? Or can you only read one line at a time? Or perhaps it's just the quality of your writing? I can't believe that I'm about to do this but let's (shudder) revisit your post:

"The end of the colonial empires (not that they have really ended as such, but they are much diminished - the price the USA exacted for World War 2) has been at best a mixed bag. British and French hegemony in particular has been severely curtailed (Spain was finished long before); but the USA has stepped into the breach. In your opinion, this this a good thing, yes?"

Now you chose to highlight the area in bold. The problem is that I read the area in italics; that is, the full sentence. Which led me to agree that overall the fall of the European empires has been, despite the subsequent rise of the US, a good thing. That's what that sentence says. If you intended it to say otherwise then you messed up. Honestly, at this stage I'm starting to question if you even know what you're writing, how you're writing it (semi-colons are not full stops) and what way others interpret it

What I am pretty certain of is that you have no idea what you're doing or the position that you're supposedly defending (remember Luxemburg?). Otherwise you'd not have spent so many posts dithering on about a supposed smoking gun, despite my repeated clarifications. Instead of you presenting some - any - sort of coherent argument we've reached the point where the topic of discussion is a textual analysis of your posts. Well done


I asked whether Lenin's strategy had worked and you claimed it had. As we're not kliving in communism then this is obviously untrueWhere?

Simple question that you should have no trouble answering. (We'll leave aside your struggles with understanding your own posts for the minute.) Where did I say that "Lenin's strategy had worked"? That doesn't sound like me. I pointed out that "Lenin's strategy" was better suited to the 20th C than Luxemburg's... but we've been over that too many times already. By which I mean that I repeat what I meant and you fail to read it

So tell me, where did I say wot you charge that I said?


Do you think that 'the dismantling of the European empires' is the same as 'communism'?

Do you deny that the ex-colonies are 'failed states' engaged in 'endless wars'? Because your question here is a bit of a non-sequiteur.

Has the Leninist policy of support for national liberation movements led to communism? No it hasn'tAgain, why are you saying this? Is it connected to the above point? (Hardly.) Does it take into account the below? (No)

As I said already, the idea that national liberation struggles should immediately lead to communism is a complete strawman. Nobody has suggested that these are inherently socialist struggles. They can be, in theory, but certainly it's not a uniform requirement. You might as well forget about Marx (I know you're ahead of the curve on this) because his analysis of capitalism has not yet 'produced communism'. What self-determination is is progressive. It is, in short, a step in the right direction. You might not think that but then you're clearly pretty keen on the whole colonialism thing

Although I'm suddenly struck by the idiocy of thinking that reactionary European colonial empires are progressive and the struggles against them are not...


Has the Leninist policy of support for national liberation movements led to failed states and endless wars? Yes it has.Really? You're going to blame Lenin for the state of Africa? Not, I don't know, the European empires (sorry, forgot you were a fan) or generations of imperialism, formal or otherwise? It's all Lenin? Because if it hadn't been for Lenin all those Africans and Asians would have, what, followed Luxemburg's example and joined the Labour Party or PS?

By the way, these are all a rhetorical questions. I don't expect a coherent response after such a bizarre accusation


Capitalism is capitalism and oppression is oppression; it doesn't matter what colour skin or what the cut of jacket of the oppressor.Yes, why would material conditions matter? How silly of me to think otherwise

Class struggle in partitioned Poland did not take the same form as that in imperial Germany or Russia. That much should be obvious. Mouthing platitudes and slogans ("worldwide overthrow of capitalism is the prerequisite to communism") doesn't hide this. Most clearly, programmes of racial discrimination present a new challenge while the imperialist state apparatus has freer reign to suppress political activism and the development of class conciousness. Most insidiously of all, the development of trade dependency loops cripples the growth of a local working class and keeps the population in thrall to the metropole

In short: the idea that class struggle in Manchester was the same as that in Abuja is deeply stupid. It reveals a deep ignorance about either the conditions themselves or Marxist theory


I no-where claimed that the inhabitants of Africa as a whole were 'better off' as part of European empiresNo, my mistake. I clearly didn't have you figured for a complete misanthrope

Would it be more accurate to say that you feel that the colonial subjects weren't "better off" but that their misery served some "historically-progressive developmental role"? Thus their enslavement was a good thing? You then blame Lenin for disrupting this smooth historical necessity?

I think I'm on to something here. And I think you're a pretty confused person


Brilliant. I'll take my 'right-wing' Marxism over your third-worldist liberal bullshit any dayI don't think you know what any of those words mean. Your position is clearly not recognisably Marxist (see above) while no where have I argued for either a "third-worldist" or "liberal" platform. Unless you're going to suggest that the very act of cheering for the demise of the European empires is in itself both Third-Worldist and liberal?

Or have you used up your stock of clichés and slogans and are thus resorting to random insults. You revisionist wrecker!


You have a very strange notion of the process of decolonisation. Go and look up the wars and famines and genocides in Africa over the past 50 years and then tell me everything has been hunky-doryAgain, who said it has? I'm fairly sure that I made an explicit reference to post-independence problems facing Africa. The difference is that I explain these in terms of imperialism, economics, class, state development, etc. This is, and I hesitate to come off as a teenage neophyte who's just read the Manifesto, a materialist analysis

So I'm not sure where you've gotten "a continent without class-conflict", a "pre-Lapserian wonderland", "Care Bear Country", "unicorns and fairies", etc, etc. You're obviously very keen on excruciatingly literal readings, where did I mention any of the above? Where did I suggest that Africa was "hunky-dory" when clearly it has massive issues. I've never pretended otherwise

With that out of the way, let's get back to knocking your nonsense. In the first place you seem to be staggeringly ignorant about colonialism. Is Africa "Care Bear Country" post-independence? Of course not. Is it better off than it was under European rule? Probably. Maybe you consider mass land seizures by a settler elite and the operation of a network of concentration camps and political prisons to be part of "historically-progressive developmental role"? I call it inexcusable exploitation and oppression

Secondly, why are we talking exclusively of Africa? Should China still be at the mercies of European armies? What was the historical necessity of the Japanese atrocities in Korea? Should the Irish and the Poles surrender themselves to London and Berlin/Moscow respectively? There are countless examples of independence struggles going on to form stable nationstates without collapse into "failed states" (your words) that can be seen in Africa. That's because the latter is the product of certain local conditions in the way that imperialism manifested itself


So the policy that you support was promoted by the French state (in this instance) to create a new bourgeoisie (a new oppressing class, be they ever so black) by using racially-divisive, nationalist tactics. And this is what you support; racism, nationalism, class-collaboration, and the destruction of non-racist, non-nationalist, workers' organisations.Really? Again, I'd like you to point out where I said I supported any of these. And don't come whining to me about strawmen before you do

Personally I think you're stupid. There's no other explanation for why you think that I, as someone who wholeheartedly supports the demise of the European empires, would have any sympathy or favour for tactics to maintain colonial structures by co-opting local notables. Or can you not tell one form of African political activity from another?


I'm 'ambivalent' about the European empires in that I regard them as being both horrific institutions and at the same time playing a historically-progressive developmental role. You are not ambivalent about them at all, you condemn them utterly and assign them no progressive roleA simple rebuttal: why do you believe that these empires were still "playing a historically-progressive developmental role" in the 1950s or earlier? Frankly the fact that 'old' colonialism went into such decline from WWI suggests the opposite. But that's you jumping to conclusions again: where did I say that the empires at no point in time played "no progressive role"?

Whether or not they ever did is a discussion I'll be happy to have with someone capable of having it. After wading through this post I'm not interested in discussing it with you. You're not one for nuance or reasoned debate, are you?

[Brosip Tito]

I really shouldn't be enjoying this as much as I am. By the time I get to the bottom I'm fairly sure that I won't be. Serious stuff first:

I'm going to assume that this translates as "Actually, old bean, I take issue with your assertion that Luxemburgism can 'lapse into social-imperialism'"?

Well obviously I slightly exaggerated for effect, being in full polemic mode, but not entirely. You can see this tendency in this thread alone. We've already had apologies and justifications offered for European colonialism and the wavering support for Franco-British atrocities (in the name of some perverse "historically-progressive developmental role" of course). Now this is largely because Blake's Baby is a moron but he is a useful one in showing how the downplaying of the national struggle (and the failure to recognise that there are differences in the material conditions in imperialist and colonial nations) can easily "lapse into social-imperialism". It becomes an apologia for imperialism, albeit one cloaked in socialist language

Now that term fairly accurately describes the idiot above but it would obviously be harsh to apply it to Luxemburg or real people. That said, I do have real issues with Luxemburg's historical stance on Poland. But I've been waiting for someone to take this up with me and have a proper discussion on the national question. I could construct a better Luxemburgist defence than the dross proferred so far

I hope that's made it clearer, I would be gutted if I lost your respect Brosip Tito

Is it that the problem here is that you're not reading your own posts? Or can you only read one line at a time? Or perhaps it's just the quality of your writing? I can't believe that I'm about to do this but let's (shudder) revisit your post:

"The end of the colonial empires (not that they have really ended as such, but they are much diminished - the price the USA exacted for World War 2) has been at best a mixed bag. British and French hegemony in particular has been severely curtailed (Spain was finished long before); but the USA has stepped into the breach. In your opinion, this this a good thing, yes?"

Now you chose to highlight the area in bold. The problem is that I read the area in italics; that is, the full sentence. Which led me to agree that overall the fall of the European empires has been, despite the subsequent rise of the US, a good thing. That's what that sentence says. If you intended it to say otherwise then you messed up. Honestly, at this stage I'm starting to question if you even know what you're writing, how you're writing it (semi-colons are not full stops) and what way others interpret it

What I am pretty certain of is that you have no idea what you're doing or the position that you're supposedly defending (remember Luxemburg?). Otherwise you'd not have spent so many posts dithering on about a supposed smoking gun, despite my repeated clarifications. Instead of you presenting some - any - sort of coherent argument we've reached the point where the topic of discussion is a textual analysis of your posts. Well done

Where?

Simple question that you should have no trouble answering. (We'll leave aside your struggles with understanding your own posts for the minute.) Where did I say that "Lenin's strategy had worked"? That doesn't sound like me. I pointed out that "Lenin's strategy" was better suited to the 20th C than Luxemburg's... but we've been over that too many times already. By which I mean that I repeat what I meant and you fail to read it

So tell me, where did I say wot you charge that I said?

Again, why are you saying this? Is it connected to the above point? (Hardly.) Does it take into account the below? (No)

As I said already, the idea that national liberation struggles should immediately lead to communism is a complete strawman. Nobody has suggested that these are inherently socialist struggles. They can be, in theory, but certainly it's not a uniform requirement. You might as well forget about Marx (I know you're ahead of the curve on this) because his analysis of capitalism has not yet 'produced communism'. What self-determination is is progressive. It is, in short, a step in the right direction. You might not think that but then you're clearly pretty keen on the whole colonialism thing

Although I'm suddenly struck by the idiocy of thinking that reactionary European colonial empires are progressive and the struggles against them are not...

Really? You're going to blame Lenin for the state of Africa? Not, I don't know, the European empires (sorry, forgot you were a fan) or generations of imperialism, formal or otherwise? It's all Lenin? Because if it hadn't been for Lenin all those Africans and Asians would have, what, followed Luxemburg's example and joined the Labour Party or PS?

By the way, these are all a rhetorical questions. I don't expect a coherent response after such a bizarre accusation

Yes, why would material conditions matter? How silly of me to think otherwise

Class struggle in partitioned Poland did not take the same form as that in imperial Germany or Russia. That much should be obvious. Mouthing platitudes and slogans ("worldwide overthrow of capitalism is the prerequisite to communism") doesn't hide this. Most clearly, programmes of racial discrimination present a new challenge while the imperialist state apparatus has freer reign to suppress political activism and the development of class conciousness. Most insidiously of all, the development of trade dependency loops cripples the growth of a local working class and keeps the population in thrall to the metropole

In short: the idea that class struggle in Manchester was the same as that in Abuja is deeply stupid. It reveals a deep ignorance about either the conditions themselves or Marxist theory

No, my mistake. I clearly didn't have you figured for a complete misanthrope

Would it be more accurate to say that you feel that the colonial subjects weren't "better off" but that their misery served some "historically-progressive developmental role"? Thus their enslavement was a good thing? You then blame Lenin for disrupting this smooth historical necessity?

I think I'm on to something here. And I think you're a pretty confused person

I don't think you know what any of those words mean. Your position is clearly not recognisably Marxist (see above) while no where have I argued for either a "third-worldist" or "liberal" platform. Unless you're going to suggest that the very act of cheering for the demise of the European empires is in itself both Third-Worldist and liberal?

Or have you used up your stock of clichés and slogans and are thus resorting to random insults. You revisionist wrecker!

Again, who said it has? I'm fairly sure that I made an explicit reference to post-independence problems facing Africa. The difference is that I explain these in terms of imperialism, economics, class, state development, etc. This is, and I hesitate to come off as a teenage neophyte who's just read the Manifesto, a materialist analysis

So I'm not sure where you've gotten "a continent without class-conflict", a "pre-Lapserian wonderland", "Care Bear Country", "unicorns and fairies", etc, etc. You're obviously very keen on excruciatingly literal readings, where did I mention any of the above? Where did I suggest that Africa was "hunky-dory" when clearly it has massive issues. I've never pretended otherwise

With that out of the way, let's get back to knocking your nonsense. In the first place you seem to be staggeringly ignorant about colonialism. Is Africa "Care Bear Country" post-independence? Of course not. Is it better off than it was under European rule? Probably. Maybe you consider mass land seizures by a settler elite and the operation of a network of concentration camps and political prisons to be part of "historically-progressive developmental role"? I call it inexcusable exploitation and oppression

Secondly, why are we talking exclusively of Africa? Should China still be at the mercies of European armies? What was the historical necessity of the Japanese atrocities in Korea? Should the Irish and the Poles surrender themselves to London and Berlin/Moscow respectively? There are countless examples of independence struggles going on to form stable nationstates without collapse into "failed states" (your words) that can be seen in Africa. That's because the latter is the product of certain local conditions in the way that imperialism manifested itself

Really? Again, I'd like you to point out where I said I supported any of these. And don't come whining to me about strawmen before you do

Personally I think you're stupid. There's no other explanation for why you think that I, as someone who wholeheartedly supports the demise of the European empires, would have any sympathy or favour for tactics to maintain colonial structures by co-opting local notables. Or can you not tell one form of African political activity from another?

A simple rebuttal: why do you believe that these empires were still "playing a historically-progressive developmental role" in the 1950s or earlier? Frankly the fact that 'old' colonialism went into such decline from WWI suggests the opposite. But that's you jumping to conclusions again: where did I say that the empires at no point in time played "no progressive role"?

Whether or not they ever did is a discussion I'll be happy to have with someone capable of having it. After wading through this post I'm not interested in discussing it with you. You're not one for nuance or reasoned debate, are you?I'd be willing to discuss the national question, Luxemburg's stance on Poland, etc.

Ill make a thread about it later, and PM you when I do.

[Book O'Dead]

The working class is international and stateless. People who advocate for socialism are obligated to defend the principles of internationalism and fight for the abolition of the political and geographic state as well as for the abolition of private property and the establishment of world-wide economic democracy.

It is irrelevant whether or not Trotsky, Lenin or anyone else defended this that or any other nationalist or separatist struggle. That was then; this is now.

The existence of nation states and of geographic political boundaries is an obstacle to working class emancipation because it hinders proletarian solidarity.

[Blake's Baby]

...

"The end of the colonial empires (not that they have really ended as such, but they are much diminished - the price the USA exacted for World War 2) has been at best a mixed bag. British and French hegemony in particular has been severely curtailed (Spain was finished long before); but the USA has stepped into the breach. In your opinion, this this a good thing, yes?"

Now you chose to highlight the area in bold. The problem is that I read the area in italics; that is, the full sentence. Which led me to agree that overall the fall of the European empires has been, despite the subsequent rise of the US, a good thing. That's what that sentence says. If you intended it to say otherwise then you messed up. Honestly, at this stage I'm starting to question if you even know what you're writing, how you're writing it (semi-colons are not full stops) and what way others interpret it...

I emboldened it because when I excerpted it earlier, and put it up verbatim, you still feigned puzzlement about what it was you were saying.

Are you now saying that you don't think that the extension of American hegemony is a good thing?


...
overall the fall of the European empires has been, despite the subsequent rise of the US, a good thing...

Sadly for you, the extension of American hegemony is tied together with the decline of the British and French empires. Or were you actually ignoring the bit about America? I still can't work out if you think the replacement of European empire over Africa by American (and Russian; and Chinese; and the continual involvement of the old colonial powers) has been a good thing. Every time you suggest you might have qualms about it you say something else that suggests really you're in favour of it.

So another way of looking at it would be 'in the early 20th century Africa was dominated by colonial empires, particularly (but not exclusively) the British and French; in the later 20th century America came to domintae much of Africa, though not through direct colonisation. Do you regard either of these as being more progressive than the other, or are they both to be condemned?'


... despite my repeated clarifications. Instead of you presenting some - any - sort of coherent argument we've reached the point where the topic of discussion is a textual analysis of your posts. Well done...

Because you have difficulty understanding the written word, I'm trying to make it clear for you.


...
...Where did I say that "Lenin's strategy had worked"? That doesn't sound like me. I pointed out that "Lenin's strategy" was better suited to the 20th C than Luxemburg's... but we've been over that too many times already. By which I mean that I repeat what I meant and you fail to read it...




...
Lenin's policy, which was based on Stalin's pamphlet 'On the National Question', was a failure, because it didn't take into account the new situation that the world was in. Neither Lenin nor Trotsky fully grasped what the new epoch was, even though they proclaimed it and Permanent Revolution was part of the theoretical elaboration of it...

What do you think this means? I think it means that the policy of Lenin and Trotsky (the official position of the Bolsheviks which was based on Stalin's pamphlet 'On the National Question') failed to promote revolution. That's why I specifically linked the policy to the question of the new epoch - the epoch of 'wars and revolutions' when the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism was on the agenda for the working class...

You however are seemingly arguing something entirely different.


...

Actually, it's quite the opposite... Lenin's self-determination was entirely correct in supposing that the prevalent form of government in the 20th C would be the nationstate. The following century has entirely vindicated this approach...

... because this implies that Lenin's policy has been 'vindicated' by promoting revolution.

Unless of course you think that the paragraph I quoted before this one means something different. You think Lenin's policy 'worked'. Or do you? Now you're claiming that's not what you meant at all. So what do you think it means? What do you think you are you arguing, and more importantly what do you think you're arguing against? Because you really don't seem to have much of a clue what you're saying.




...

As I said already, the idea that national liberation struggles should immediately lead to communism is a complete strawman...

Really? I'm not aware that you said that, as it seems to me that that's exactly what you were arguing.


... Nobody has suggested that these are inherently socialist struggles...

Good, then we agree on something. But if these struggles are not 'inherently socialist' then there is no reason to support them.


... They can be, in theory, but certainly it's not a uniform requirement...

No they can't. Nationalist struggles cannot be socialist unless you believe in national socialism.


... You might as well forget about Marx (I know you're ahead of the curve on this) because his analysis of capitalism has not yet 'produced communism'...

Fail to see the relevence of this, but then again I find much of what you've posted irrelevent.

The point was a comparison of Lenin's policy (nationalism for the colonies, ie breaking up the empires into small national units) and Luxemburg's (unification of workers in the empires to overthrow those empires). Lenin's policy (which you think has been 'vindicated') has not resulted in socialism, it's resulted in nationalism. It has only been 'vindicated' if you believe that the nationalism we see now is an improvement on the world communism that would have been the result of the unification of the proletariat of the metropoles and colonies to overthrow capitalism.



... What self-determination is is progressive...

No it isn't. It's rank bourgeois liberalism.


... It is, in short, a step in the right direction. You might not think that but then you're clearly pretty keen on the whole colonialism thing...

Again, you can't read. I'm not 'keen' on colonial empires but I recognise (unlike your bourgeois liberal theory) that bad things can have some useful consequences. Capitalism as a whole is not a pleasant thing but it is socially progressive compared to feudalism. Likewise, the particulars of the colonial empires - racism, oppression, slavery, war - are horrific; but they (the empires that is, not the racism and slavery per se) played a beneficial role in beginning the process of creating a proletariat in Africa, developing infrastructure, bringing Africa into the world economy etc. Capitalism was, seen in its totality, progressive over what went before even when many of its aspects were horrible.




...
Really? You're going to blame Lenin for the state of Africa? Not, I don't know, the European empires (sorry, forgot you were a fan) or generations of imperialism, formal or otherwise? It's all Lenin? Because if it hadn't been for Lenin all those Africans and Asians would have, what, followed Luxemburg's example and joined the Labour Party or PS?

Now you're moving from the irrelevent to the psychedelic.

1-I don't hold with the 'great men of history' approach; Lenin was wrong, he wasn't Satan. His policy was a failure. Promoting the break-up of the empires was perfectly compatible with capitalism (indeed, perfectly compatible with, and indeed necessary for, the rise of the US as a superpower), and there's nothing you can do to alter that, no matter how much you froth;
2 - Lenin is not the same as Lenin's policies. You are not Lenin, I don't blame him for your insistence that he's right in the face of 100 years of evidence, I blame you for that;
3 - 'all those Asians and Africans' would I hope have joined or formed socialist or communist parties - rather than nationalist ones, as you want them to have done.


...By the way, these are all a rhetorical questions. I don't expect a coherent response after such a bizarre accusation...

Bizarre rhetorical accusations or not, I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading what my position is and it doesn't bear any relation to your fantasies.


...Yes, why would material conditions matter? How silly of me to think otherwise...

How silly of you to think that where a bourgeois was born in any way constitutes 'material conditions'. Capitalism is capitalism - it doesn't matter whether my surplus labour is extracted in Pounds Sterling, Euros, American Dollars or Yen; whether my boss speaks English, German or Japanese at home. To think otherwise is to fall into the most vile chauvinism.


...Class struggle in partitioned Poland did not take the same form as that in imperial Germany or Russia. That much should be obvious. Mouthing platitudes and slogans ("worldwide overthrow of capitalism is the prerequisite to communism") doesn't hide this. Most clearly, programmes of racial discrimination present a new challenge while the imperialist state apparatus has freer reign to suppress political activism and the development of class conciousness. Most insidiously of all, the development of trade dependency loops cripples the growth of a local working class and keeps the population in thrall to the metropole...

It promotes the growth of the working class. There was no working class in Africa before European colonisation because European colonisation went hand-in-hand with capitalism.

Do you understand Marxism at all?

The idea that explaining how revolution can come about is 'mouthing platitudes and slogans' is frankly astonishing. I advise you never to read the Communist Manifesto, you'll find it awful, it's full of 'platitudes and slogans', and cliches too.



...
In short: the idea that class struggle in Manchester was the same as that in Abuja is deeply stupid. It reveals a deep ignorance about either the conditions themselves or Marxist theory...

I don't believe that this is true. The circumstances were different but it's a mistake to see these as being inherently different class struggles. The working class is one class worldwide, the capitalist class is one class worldwide, capitalism is one system worldwide.



...
Would it be more accurate to say that you feel that the colonial subjects weren't "better off" but that their misery served some "historically-progressive developmental role"? Thus their enslavement was a good thing? You then blame Lenin for disrupting this smooth historical necessity?...

It wouldn't be very accurate at all. It contains some parts with are related to accuracy.

1 - I don't think the colonial subjects were 'better off' under the empires, that's true;
2 - but I don't think that their misery served any socially-progressive role;
3 - I don't think their enslavement was 'a good thing';
4 - I don't blame Lenin for 'disrupting this smooth historical necessity' because a) it isn't Lenin's fault if people are stupid enough to follow him in the face of 100 years of evidence, and b) I don't think that being miserable and enslaved (in your words) can be described as 'smooth historical necessity'.

So, once again...

A railway is a useful thing, even if people died building it. Does anyone want to die building a railway? No. Should be people be killed to produce railways? No. Is there any kind of trade-off between bodies and length of track? No.

But: while condemming the deaths, one can still see the railway as useful.

In the same way: though they were horrific and oppressive, the empires did begin the process of creating a proletariat in Africa, of bringing it into the world market, of developing (to some extent) capitalism in Africa which in turn creates the conditions for socialism. To deny that there was anything progressive about the establishment of the empires is to ignore any idea of historical materialism and replace it with idealism.




...

I don't think you know what any of those words mean. Your position is clearly not recognisably Marxist (see above) while no where have I argued for either a "third-worldist" or "liberal" platform. Unless you're going to suggest that the very act of cheering for the demise of the European empires is in itself both Third-Worldist and liberal?...

Cheering for the bourgeois regimes that succeeded them is both Third-worldist and liberal.

If you claim you're not cheerleading them (as you claim you're not cheerleading American domination) then, again, you are taking an idealist position that denies the reality of material conditions. There is no 'pure' abstract 'anti-imperialist nice nationalism'. There is only nationalism that proceeds to move from one big backer to another; the involvement of Germany in promoting Polish independence against Russia at the end of WWI is a perfect demonstration. You have to realise that bourgeois national-liberation movements are still bourgeois.


...I'm fairly sure that I made an explicit reference to post-independence problems facing Africa. The difference is that I explain these in terms of imperialism, economics, class, state development, etc. This is, and I hesitate to come off as a teenage neophyte who's just read the Manifesto, a materialist analysis...

Actually I can't see any reference to class, or class conflict in any of your posts - just 'freedom' and 'the people' and 'national self-determination' and other bourgeois notions.



...So I'm not sure where you've gotten "a continent without class-conflict"...

From the fact that you don't seem to have mentioned it.



...a "pre-Lapserian wonderland", "Care Bear Country", "unicorns and fairies", etc, etc. You're obviously very keen on excruciatingly literal readings, where did I mention any of the above? Where did I suggest that Africa was "hunky-dory" when clearly it has massive issues. I've never pretended otherwise...

You don't address class conflict between the proletariat in the former colonies and the new bourgeoisie at all, as far as I can see. Maybe you could highlighht some of the many times you have mentioned it that I've failed to see and respond to.


...Is Africa "Care Bear Country" post-independence? Of course not. Is it better off than it was under European rule? Probably...

Right, this is at least an argument that might be worth exploring. The fact that you only think it's 'probable' that people in Africa are better off than under European rule, means that a) you may consider that post-colonialism might be as disatrous as colonialism was; or b) that not everything about the colonial period was without use to succeeding generations; one of the two, or both.

This is at least an improvement on 'European bad, African good' which was the substance of your argument previously.


... Maybe you consider mass land seizures by a settler elite and the operation of a network of concentration camps and political prisons to be part of "historically-progressive developmental role"? I call it inexcusable exploitation and oppression...

Maybe you support American domination of Africa?

Maybe you support the Rwanda Genocide?

Maybe you think the wars in the DRC and the state of Zimbabwe are fucking brilliant?

I can at least claim that my readings of your posts as such are based on what you have said; but I haven't ever said that concentration camps are historically progressive.

Many a time and oft I have said that the empires were horrible...

I support neither the old empires, nor US hegemony, nor the warring genocidal failed states of the post-colonialist era.... (Clear? I don't support the old empires)

...I think a quote from Bakunin is apposite here: "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not happier if it is called 'the people's stick'." Capitalism is capitalism and oppression is oppression; it doesn't matter what colour skin or what the cut of jacket of the oppressor... (Clear? The stick is the same if it is the people's stick or the imperial stick; it's still a stick to beat people; the nationality of the one wielding it makes no difference, ie it's not better if it's a European stick)


Many things are socially progressive while at the same time being pretty horrible for those caught up in them. Was colonialism a wonderful thing? No it wasn't. Did it have some socially and historically progressive aspects? Of course it did... (Clear? Colonialism was horrible, but nevertheless began the process of industrialising and building a proletariat in Africa)

I no-where claimed that the inhabitants of Africa as a whole were 'better off' as part of European empires ... (Clear? I haven't and don't claim that and if you think I have please quote me to show it instead of indulging in the erection of strawmen)

... industrially-underdeveloped ex-colonies ... (Clear? The industrial development of the colonies was not what it could have been - in other words they were 'underdeveloped' by the colonial powers)

... I regard them as being both horrific institutions and at the same time playing a historically-progressive developmental role... (Clear? The empires were horrific institutions)




...Secondly, why are we talking exclusively of Africa? Should China still be at the mercies of European armies? What was the historical necessity of the Japanese atrocities in Korea? Should the Irish and the Poles surrender themselves to London and Berlin/Moscow respectively? ...

If you think that the point is that 'Russians' are the only ones who can speak in the RSDLP then yes I'm sure that that's how you think it should work.

I however am rather more concerned about workers, of whatever nationality, but then again I don't support racist and seperatist politics under the guise of being for the 'freedom' of 'the people'.




...
There are countless examples of independence struggles going on to form stable nationstates without collapse into "failed states" (your words) that can be seen in Africa. That's because the latter is the product of certain local conditions in the way that imperialism manifested itself...

Please, name these African success stories.



...

Personally I think you're stupid. There's no other explanation for why you think that I, as someone who wholeheartedly supports the demise of the European empires, would have any sympathy or favour for tactics to maintain colonial structures by co-opting local notables. Or can you not tell one form of African political activity from another?...

Rich, coming from you. You believe that our class enemies are our friends because they're local. Which is idiocy bordering on racism.



...A simple rebuttal: why do you believe that these empires were still "playing a historically-progressive developmental role" in the 1950s or earlier? ...

Why do you think I believe anything of the kind? We were arguing about 1911. I think after WWI it's quite obvious that neither the capitalist metropoles nor the bourgeoisises of the colonies and former colonies had any progressive role to play.



...Frankly the fact that 'old' colonialism went into such decline from WWI suggests the opposite. But that's you jumping to conclusions again: where did I say that the empires at no point in time played "no progressive role"?...

Perhaps you didn't, but you sure argued against the notion that they did. Maybe you don't believe what you're saying, I don't really know for sure. It's contradictory enough to suggest that you can't believe all of it, unless you're extremely stupid, or deranged. Which if you're not means that you're a liar and a troll.



...Whether or not they ever did is a discussion I'll be happy to have with someone capable of having it. After wading through this post I'm not interested in discussing it with you. You're not one for nuance or reasoned debate, are you?

That might be debate worth having, though as you're a liberal nationalist hippie third-worldist stupid lying troll, or some combination thereof, I'd rather not have it with you.

[ComradeOm]

... because this implies that Lenin's policy has been 'vindicated' by promoting revolution.

Unless of course you think that the paragraph I quoted before this one means something different. You think Lenin's policy 'worked'. Or do you? Now you're claiming that's not what you meant at all. So what do you think it means? What do you think you are you arguing, and more importantly what do you think you're arguing against? Because you really don't seem to have much of a clue what you're sayingThis caught my eye while skimming through things that I've already explained several times but that you still don't get. It genuinely does bring a smile to my face, in a sort of sad way, to see you struggle with. This exchange sort've encapsulates our entire exchange so far

Let's look at what you said:

"Lenin's policy... didn't take into account the new situation that the world was in"

And what I said in response:

"Actually, it's quite the opposite... Lenin's self-determination was entirely correct in supposing that the prevalent form of government in the 20th C would be the nationstate. The following century has entirely vindicated this approach..."

Which seems very straightforward to me. You claimed that Lenin's approach didn't take into account "the new situation that the world was in". I return by pointing out that, in contrast to Luxemburg, Lenin's stance on the issue was more in tune with reality. He championed the nationstate and this was vindicated when this emerged as the default political unit. Easy...

...except that you are incapable of reading a full sentence. What you actually read was:

"Actually... Lenin's self-determination was entirely correct... The following century has entirely vindicated this approach..."

Which is a completely different meaning from what the sentence lays out. 'Lenin was correct in lauding the nationstate because that is now standard' (again, in contrast to Luxemburg), not 'Lenin was correct so let's get our revolution on'. You're the one who's introducing "promoting revolution" and the like. Something that is entirely absent from my statement and which I did not imply in the slightest. It was a straightforward Lenin/Luxemburg comparison

Yet you manage to make a complete meal of even this. You argue straight past it without actually pausing to note what I've actually written. And then you drag your incomprehension out until it's painful to watch. You clearly missed, by a country mile, my point here and you missed it every time I returned to correct you on it. Now we all make mistakes, some more than others admittedly, but you've dragged this out for how many posts? I've explained this one point how many times? Not enough apparently

If you don't understand something or you're not entirely sure what the point is then ask. Even if it's a sarcastic question, at least it helps to give clarity to the other person's position. But that's not how you roll, is it? It's apparently easier to call someone a "a liberal nationalist hippie third-worldist stupid lying troll" than it is to read their posts, read what you've written or actually engage in any way. Spit, spit, spit out those one liners but don't actually stop to think at any point

How can you debate with someone who takes so many posts to understand a single point. With patience I suppose. And yeah, if it feels like I'm talking down to you at this point, that's because I think you are (quite possibly) the dimmest person I've met on these boards. Congrats, of sorts


That might be debate worth having, though as you're a liberal nationalist hippie third-worldist stupid lying troll, or some combination thereof, I'd rather not have it with you.You can't fire me, I quit. How delightful :lol:

[Blake's Baby]

This caught my eye while skimming through things that I've already explained several times but that you still don't get. It genuinely does bring a smile to my face, in a sort of sad way, to see you struggle with. This exchange sort've encapsulates our entire exchange so far

Let's look at what you said:

"Lenin's policy... didn't take into account the new situation that the world was in"

And what I said in response:

"Actually, it's quite the opposite... Lenin's self-determination was entirely correct in supposing that the prevalent form of government in the 20th C would be the nationstate. The following century has entirely vindicated this approach..."

Which seems very straightforward to me. You claimed that Lenin's approach didn't take into account "the new situation that the world was in". I return by pointing out that, in contrast to Luxemburg, Lenin's stance on the issue was more in tune with reality. He championed the nationstate and this was vindicated when this emerged as the default political unit. Easy...

...except that you are incapable of reading a full sentence. What you actually read was:

"Actually... Lenin's self-determination was entirely correct... The following century has entirely vindicated this approach..."

Which is a completely different meaning from what the sentence lays out. 'Lenin was correct in lauding the nationstate because that is now standard' (again, in contrast to Luxemburg), not 'Lenin was correct so let's get our revolution on'. You're the one who's introducing "promoting revolution" and the like. Something that is entirely absent from my statement and which I did not imply in the slightest. It was a straightforward Lenin/Luxemburg comparison...

Well, let's look at it again:




... from the early 20th what confronted the working class was not the bourgeois-democratic task of national unity and sovereignty and capitalist development - in other words, the bourgeois revolution for capitalism and the state, but the socialist revolution against capitalism and the state.

...

Lenin's policy, which was based on Stalin's pamphlet 'On the National Question', was a failure, because it didn't take into account the new situation that the world was in. Neither Lenin nor Trotsky fully grasped what the new epoch was, even though they proclaimed it and Permanent Revolution was part of the theoretical elaboration of it...


Right; since I brought up the comparison between Lenin and Luxemburg in the first place, mentioned the address to CI and the epoch of wars and revolutions, are you now saying that you totally failed to engage with what I was saying and instead made an unrelated point that used some of the same words?

I think the failure here is to understand what's been argued. All along I've been contrasting Luxemburg's proletarian internationalism with Lenin's bourgeois nationalism as revolutionary praxis. And you're saying all of a sudden that you've not taken into consideration the notion that what Lenin and Luxemburg were trying to do was to find the correct policy for revolutionary socialists? Much as you hadn't taken into consideration your avowed support for American imperialism, perhaps. It seems you agree or disagree with things without actually understanding what you (or other people) are saying. Or do you just have problems reading? I'm not aware that I'm using particularly difficult or long words, but you have a real difficulty in grasping what you're arguing against.

I'll go back to the beginning: Luxemburg argued that workers needed to unite to overthrow capitalism; Lenin argued that 'nations' needed to come together to be free, which would destabilise the imperial system; which of these policies was more likely to bring about the revolution?

Do you think you can answer that question?

Don't worry, history answered it 100 years ago (hint, Lenin was wrong).

[Raúl Duke]

Here's my 2 cents...

I wouldn't advise in the majority of cases to support openly secessionist elements.
In the US, and perhaps in many other places, the secessionists tend to be mostly in the right-wing.

Now, secession in it of itself I find to be a neutral subject. It's possible that in the case of a revolution that leads to a civil war it could end in a secession. This does not mean we should go around and say "we support secession of xyz region/state/province" per se; since the truth of the matter is that this is not our true goal...since our true goal would be international revolution/communism around the globe, whatever. I say this because I do not think it would be in our interest in most cases of being affiliated/perceived to be as such with secessionists.

However, in this board we do have one leftist secessionist from Vermont.

[ridethejetski]

I'm surprised the case of Yugoslavia hasn't come up yet. Secession of "cascadia" or flanders or whereever in developed countries seem like non-starters, yet regional nationalism in Yugoslavia was to some degree marginalised. perhaps not as pathetic as the free and sovereign kingdom of nevada, but still.
.

Regional nationalism in Yugoslavia saw different highs and lows in terms of support, but it was always there. The Communist Party was divided along national lines (e.g Serb section, Croat section), the state was divided between different national based republics which all had the right in theory to leave Yugoslavia, and people were referred to by these regional nationalisms. BY the 1960s the idea of a Yugoslav national identity was going, and Yugoslavism was more about the nationalities of the South Slav lands living together. An American national identity does exist, and is thought of as more meaningful than any state or regional identity.