Do you support self-determination of nations and national liberation movements?

[Leftsolidarity]

Self-explanatory.

Just curious.

[Blanquist]

self-determination of nations-is-pretty-much-a-'duh'-for-any-leninist

don't-know-what-you-mean-by-nat-lib-can-you-cite-contemporary-example?

[Tukhachevsky]

I support the self determination of Georgia.

I support the self determination of Chechnya.

I support the self determination of Palestine, I think they should avoid anticonceptional preventive medicine, breed until outnumber the Israelis, then simply appropriate all factories, industries, farms, solar panels, universities, etc the israelis built with their own hands in that god forsaken land.

I support Siberia independence.

I support Ireland, all irish oil should be paid with market price.

I support any central or south american secession, is a land that need serious balcanization to stop the exploitation by the elites. Argentine should break in three different countries, Brazil in 4, the biggest being the southeast, etc.

I don't support Finland as a nation: they are only a veil created by Sweden to cover Soviet Union and they are being manipulated until today.

[honest john's firing squad]

I support the self determination of Georgia.

I support the self determination of Chechnya.

I support the self determination of Palestine, I think they should avoid anticonceptional preventive medicine, breed until outnumber the Israelis, then simply appropriate all factories, industries, farms, solar panels, universities, etc the israelis built with their own hands in that god forsaken land.

I support Siberia independence.

I support Ireland, all irish oil should be paid with market price.

I support any central or south american secession, is a land that need serious balcanization to stop the exploitation by the elites. Argentine should break in three different countries, Brazil in 4, the biggest being the southeast, etc.

I don't support Finland as a nation: they are only a veil created by Sweden to cover Soviet Union and they are being manipulated until today.
lol what the fuck is this business about outbreeding the israelis? anyway, "all irish oil should be paid with market price"? you couldn't get more petit-bourgeois if you tried.

p.s. your e-support for x or y movement means literally nothing to the bourgeois state or any mythical "progressive national bourgeoisie", you total dweeb.

[The Douche]

No to self determination, no to national liberation, yes to communism.

[Raúl Duke]

eh, I support the self-determination of Puerto Rico a little bit (thus, not the be hypocritical, I would have to support self-determination in a general sense); but ever since I moved out I put myself mostly out of that equation.

But would never support a bourgeois capitalist/nationalist liberation movement.

[Tim Cornelis]

I support the self determination of Georgia.

I support the self determination of Chechnya.

I support the self determination of Palestine, I think they should avoid anticonceptional preventive medicine, breed until outnumber the Israelis, then simply appropriate all factories, industries, farms, solar panels, universities, etc the israelis built with their own hands in that god forsaken land.

I support Siberia independence.

I support Ireland, all irish oil should be paid with market price.

I support any central or south american secession, is a land that need serious balcanization to stop the exploitation by the elites. Argentine should break in three different countries, Brazil in 4, the biggest being the southeast, etc.

I don't support Finland as a nation: they are only a veil created by Sweden to cover Soviet Union and they are being manipulated until today.

Why do you support any nonsensical, artificial construct in the first place? What sense does it make to divide people on the basis of nationality, which has no basis in anything whatsoever?

National self-determination means the self-determination for the national elite through legislative, judicial, and/or executive branches in varying degrees. There is no such thing as an "oppressed nation" and hence no basis for national liberation (as national liberation boils down to the liberation of the national elite that will subdue their own population).

[Tukhachevsky]

you couldn't get more petit-bourgeois if you tried

Implying your own concept of nations as bourgeois social constructs isn't something inherent to the enlightened white middle class of the 21th century.
I'm happy I'm not a proponent of socialism in one country and I don't wish national identities and diversity dissolved; this is only a excuse for further domination around the world; and while people talk about some utopia like "communism in the whole world, abolish genres and trade unions, blahblah" there are actual people struggling for their objectives somewhere in the globe.
E-support? No, I just feel emotionally touched when reading about the continuous exploitation of georgians since mongol invasions to soviet times; or about the mass deportations of chechnyans under Stalin. I'm a human being.

[Leftsolidarity]

you total dweeb.

You wanna not personally insult people just for stating their opinions?


There is no such thing as an "oppressed nation" and hence no basis for national liberation

What?

So you don't view countries oppressed and exploited by imperialism as oppressed nations? What is that to you?

What do you view the black and latino communities as in the USA other than oppressed nations?

[Leftsolidarity]

No to self determination, no to national liberation, yes to communism.

What if a communist organization was waging a national struggle?

[marl]

While I understand ethnicity and culture is a social construct, being Palestinian (and having family in Palestine), I voted yes.

[Leftsolidarity]

Anyone who voted Yes to self-determination but No to National liberation movements want to explain that?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I support each nation and country the right to decide for themselves which direction they wish to go with without fear of invasion, attack, and blockade by foreign powers. National liberation struggles I support in the context of said nation freeing themselves from imperialist occupation; this being said I only support them in such a context as the groups waging such a struggle are often reactionary organizations.

[JAM]

Anyone who voted Yes to self-determination but No to National liberation movements want to explain that?

I voted that way. Very simple. While I agree with the principle of self-determination as a right of any people to have their own independence and free themselves from the oppressor nation, I recognize that historically the national liberation movements tend to be the oppressors of tomorrow. The case of Angola (a very familiar case to me personally) is very elucidative of how some national liberation movements can be even more repressive and exploitative to its own people than its predecessors.

[The Douche]

What if a communist organization was waging a national struggle?

Communists seek to abolish nations, not establish them. Communists don't fight for national liberation.

[Magón]

What do you view the black and latino communities as in the USA other than oppressed nations?

Black and Latino are an ethnicity, not a nationality. Plain and simple.

[Tim Cornelis]

What?

So you don't view countries oppressed and exploited by imperialism as oppressed nations? What is that to you?

Imperialists almost always cooperate with the local "elite" or would-be elite. "Nations" are not oppressed, those at the bottom of society are. For example, the Vietnamese would-be capitalists that cooperated with the French were part of "the nation" but were also the oppressors. It is oppression of members of the working class confined to those particular artificial, nonsensical borders.


What do you view the black and latino communities as in the USA other than oppressed nations?

By extension of your logic people like Colin Powell, Condaleezza Rice, and Barrack Obama--few of the most powerful people--are oppressed because they are of African descent. African or Latino police officers are not oppressed, they are the oppressors. African or Latino politicians are not oppressed, they are oppressors. African or Latino capitalists are not exploited, they are the exploiters.

Exploitation and oppression is not based on nationality, ethnicity, or race, but one's relation to the means of production.

You could be an Afro-American and less oppressed or exploited than a Euro-American because the former is a capitalist and the latter is a member of the working class.


I support each nation and country the right to decide for themselves which direction they wish to go

Which is impossible given that "countries" don't decide political policy, rather the national elite does. Therefore when you support "national self-determination" you support the self-determination of the national political elite to oppress the working masses.

EDIT:

In fact, if you support national self-determination then, say, International Brigades would be a violation of that principle. Revolution itself, arguably, contradicts national self-determination.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Which is impossible given that "countries" don't decide political policy, but the national elite. Therefore when you support "national self-determination" you support the self-determination of the national political elite.

when I say countries I mean social movements are defined by people, not governments (I.E elites).

[The Douche]

Just look at all the populist rhetoric in this thread and the way that it lacks any class analysis from those defending natlib, makes it pretty clear why that is not a communist position...

[NewLeft]

The right to self-determine for oppressed people.

[blake 3:17]

While I understand ethnicity and culture is a social construct, being Palestinian (and having family in Palestine), I voted yes. I voted for the yes-yes position too.

National oppressions may be social constructs, but they are also material realities. Like Palestinians being starved, deprived of employment, education, housing and water.

Edited to add: Oh and being the victim of the most powerful military technologies funded by the most powerful country in the world.

[OCMO]

I voted that way. Very simple. While I agree with the principle of self-determination as a right of any people to have their own independence and free themselves from the oppressor nation, I recognize that historically the national liberation movements tend to be the oppressors of tomorrow. The case of Angola (a very familiar case to me personally) is very elucidative of how some national liberation movements can be even more repressive and exploitative to its own people than its predecessors.
Are you talking about MPLA? If so, in what way do you compare them as worst than the fascist regime? Of course a civil war (read proxy war) spanning more than 25 years will put the country in bad shape, but I still find this confusing.

[JAM]

Are you talking about MPLA? If so, in what way do you compare them as worst than the fascist regime? Of course a civil war (read proxy war) spanning more than 25 years will put the country in bad shape, but I still find this confusing.

The MPLA itself is a fascist party. If you know something about Angola reality today you know what I mean. Angola is today ruled dictatorially by a family which owns the entire Angola's wealth, depriving its people from benefiting from it. This was a direct consequence of how the decolonization process was wrongly conducted by the Portuguese authorities which sought to benefit MPLA (supported at the time by USSR, later by USA) over the other movements, denying any real democratic choice to the people of Angola. Don't get me wrong, I'm for the decolonization, but not one that trades one fascist ruling for another.

[Leftsolidarity]

While I agree with the principle of self-determination as a right of any people to have their own independence and free themselves from the oppressor nation, I recognize that historically the national liberation movements tend to be the oppressors of tomorrow.

Well, you got me a little confused here. It seems that you agree with the theory behind national liberation movements but just don't like any that have actually come about, is this correct?

[Revolution starts with U]

I think since I'm the only one who voted "yes. no." I misunderstood the question :lol:

Yes, I think "nations" should be able to rid themselves of imperialist powers. No, I don't want to see them self-determine their way into capitalism.

[JAM]

Well, you got me a little confused here. It seems that you agree with the theory behind national liberation movements but just don't like any that have actually come about, is this correct?

You have historical examples of self-determination without national liberation movements. I usually refer Finland as a good example of it but you have more than that.

[Leftsolidarity]

You have historical examples of self-determination without national liberation movements. I usually refer Finland as a good example of it but you have more than that.

I have absolutely no understanding of the history of Finland. Care to explain?

[JAM]

I have absolutely no understanding of the history of Finland. Care to explain?

Finland was part of the Imperial Russia before 1917. After the October Revolution the Bolsheviks instituted a general right of self-determination including the right of complete secession for the peoples of Russia. The Finnish parliament immediately declared its independence and secession from Russia and the soviet government recognized it. You had an independence without a national liberation movement. Years later the soviets under Stalin tried to recover Finland as they did with other former Russian territories (the Baltics) but failed to do so.

I can give you the Baltics example as well.

The three Baltic Republics followed the Finnish example and declared their own independence but this time USSR failed to recognized it and waged war against it. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia resisted successfully to the aggression and the soviets ended up recognizing their independence.

[Leftsolidarity]

Finland was part of the Imperial Russia before 1917. After the October Revolution the Bolsheviks instituted a general right of self-determination including the right of complete secession for the peoples of Russia. The Finnish parliament immediately declared its independence and secession from Russia and the soviet government recognized it. You had an independence without a national liberation movement. Years later the soviets under Stalin tried to recover Finland as they did with other former Russian territories (the Baltics) but failed to do so.



So if the Soviet government failed to recognize their independence would you support the Finnish people waging a struggle of independence?

Why or why not?



I can give you the Baltics example as well.

The three Baltic Republics followed the Finnish example and declared their own independence but this time USSR failed to recognized it and waged war against it. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia resisted successfully to the aggression and the soviets ended up recognizing their independence.

Do you support the actions of the Baltic states?

[JAM]

So if the Soviet government failed to recognize their independence would you support the Finnish people waging a struggle of independence?

Why or why not?

That was what happened to the Baltics. Yes, I would. There was no national liberation movement involved whatsoever.




Do you support the actions of the Baltic states?

Yes. As I told you above no national liberation movement was involved in the struggle.

[bcbm]

there is no such thing as 'self-determination' or 'national liberation' in a capitalist world

[Luís Henrique]

I support the self determination of Georgia.


Argentine should break in three different countries, Brazil in 4, the biggest being the southeast, etc.So, do you support self determination, or do you support some kind of international agency telling people what they should do - which is the exact opposite of self determination?

Luís Henrique

[wunks]

self-determination isn't a real thing.

[OCMO]

The MPLA itself is a fascist party. If you know something about Angola reality today you know what I mean. Angola is today ruled dictatorially by a family which owns the entire Angola's wealth, depriving its people from benefiting from it. This was a direct consequence of how the decolonization process was wrongly conducted by the Portuguese authorities which sought to benefit MPLA (supported at the time by USSR, later by USA) over the other movements, denying any real democratic choice to the people of Angola. Don't get me wrong, I'm for the decolonization, but not one that trades one fascist ruling for another.
I know all the big problems with the current state of Angola, still I think it's a strecht to call them fascist. Authoritarian, yes, fascist, not really.

The thing is, you're saying they are more repressive and exploitative than the fascist regime, and I disagree with you in that point. What you had until the death of Savimbi is a direct consequence of the conditions imposed upon the angolan people during fascism. MPLA are to condemn, but I put them far from the agressiveness of colonialism.

[Tim Finnegan]

"The nation" is bourgeois.

I am opposed to the bourgeoisie.

Therefore, I am opposed to the existence of "the nation".

Therefore, I reject the "right" of a "national" state to exist.

Therefore, I do not support attempts to bring "national" states into existence.

[JAM]

I know all the big problems with the current state of Angola, still I think it's a strecht to call them fascist. Authoritarian, yes, fascist, not really.

The thing is, you're saying they are more repressive and exploitative than the fascist regime, and I disagree with you in that point. What you had until the death of Savimbi is a direct consequence of the conditions imposed upon the angolan people during fascism. MPLA are to condemn, but I put them far from the agressiveness of colonialism.

Why they aren't fascist? You have a dictatorial rule that protect the private interests of a family and the oligarchy, the most aggressive capitalism with no free trade-unions or any basic worker rights. I think you have here all the ingredients of a fascist dictatorship.

While you have a significant part of the Angolan population dying from hunger, the president's daughter is expending billions of dollars buying foreign banks.

The issue here is that the average Angolan didn't benefit from the decolonization due to the political elite which took over the country. This political elite was one of Angola's national liberation movements. Angola's example is just one example of why I oppose national liberation movements.

I'm not here defending the colonial exploitation of course, far from it. When I say that they are more exploitative than its colonial predecessors I am referring to the final years of colonialism where Angola benefited from an enormous economic growth which brought better living condition to its native people. This economic investment and development was never paralleled in the post-colonialism period due to the lack of will to do that by MPLA. The living conditions worsened a lot for the average Angolan, except for the elite of course. This elite became billionaire overnight and the political freedom is more repressive now than in the final years of colonialism. In this sense you can say that they are more exploitative than even its colonial predecessors. The racism that you saw in another colonial empires was not so prevalent in Portuguese colonies although you had some as well.

[Peoples' War]

Any sensible Marxist would support the right of the oppressed nations to rise up and get out from the jaws of Imperialism.

Ireland, Palestine, etc.

[wsg1991]

No to self determination, no to national liberation
why can't occupied people by an imperialist country fight their occupation
you probably have no clue on Real life neither history , i suggest you start reading history start by British \ french imperialism

[wsg1991]

"The nation" is bourgeois.

I am opposed to the bourgeoisie.

Therefore, I am opposed to the existence of "the nation".

Therefore, I reject the "right" of a "national" state to exist.

Therefore, I do not support attempts to bring "national" states into existence.

the nation is beyond the "Bourgeois"
occupied nations were always treated as second class , even by workers and trade , national liberation come first . this is silly idea is the main reason why communists failed miserably in arab world back in the 50ies , as this stance was inaccepted and weird in Palestinian struggle , in national liberation in Algeria . and it's now that opinion is largely abandoned ) . and BTW you should read about syndicalism history in ex colonies , for example the reason why Tunisian workers formed independent trade unions , because they were not treated fairly by French unions .

[wsg1991]

there is no comparison how treats their citizens , and how they treat colonized country citizens , do any of those against national liberation have an idea how post war french treated Algerians ? you can't try and compare it to how bad capitalism is doing to French society , unlike the ''soft side'' of capitalism that use propaganda , Police on occasions to how they treats non citizens in colonies . you can called them what you want , petty bourgeois nationalists , imperialist wanna be , no real socialist , Fascists , but they proved that they successfully increased life standards in post colony country . and even if they are wanna be imperialists they successfully damaged original imperial power by creating ''new ones '' although i doubt some under developed third world country will be imperialist any time soon

[Magón]

why can't occupied people by an imperialist country fight their occupation
you probably have no clue on Real life neither history , i suggest you start reading history start by British \ french imperialism

They can, but simply put, nothing will ultimately change in that nation. Sure you might not have French/British/Portuguese/Spanish, etc. landlords and rulers making sure the natives are put in their place, but the native leaders after the colonists leave, who are put in charge will be no different in how they go about.

Just look at former European colonies. Nothing has really changed. You can't shine shit and call it gold.

[wsg1991]

They can, but simply put, nothing will ultimately change in that nation. Sure you might not have French/British/Portuguese/Spanish, etc. landlords and rulers making sure the natives are put in their place, but the native leaders after the colonists leave, who are put in charge will be no different in how they go about.

Just look at former European colonies. Nothing has really changed. You can't shine shit and call it gold.

i am not arguing it became Perfect , but i assure you it's better than before , after all there aren't any more mass murder \ bombing in Algeria or Tunisia either , perhaps if i showed some picture about how french Legionnaires treats Algerians to change your mind , and it's nicknamed country of the million Martyr ( they are more actually ) . and btw even french trade unions didn't treat non citizens fairly

[Lanky Wanker]

Yes, yes.

[Magón]

i am not arguing it became Perfect , but i assure you it's better than before , after all there aren't any more mass murder \ bombing in Algeria or Tunisia either , perhaps if i showed some picture about how french Legionnaires treats Algerians to change your mind , and it's nicknamed country of the million Martyr ( they are more actually ) . and btw even french trade unions didn't treat non citizens fairly

I don't need to be shown or told, how bad colonialism is. There's no debate it's bad, but those leader's who follow after, are no better than how the European leader's treated the natives.

Algeria and Tunisia might be better off than they were with the French in control, but the native leaders who replaced the French, weren't better. Obviously recently in Tunisia, and other places like Libya, we saw how the native leader's treat the other natives in the Arab Spring. In Syria, we see it still, and so on.

Mexico (where I'm originally from), was under Spanish rule for quite awhile. Mexico today, with it's leaders and landlords, is really no better than before. Just now it's arrogant Mexicans ruling Mexicans, rather than arrogant Spaniards.

[wsg1991]

I don't need to be shown or told, how bad colonialism is. There's no debate it's bad, but those leader's who follow after, are no better than how the European leader's treated the natives.

Algeria and Tunisia might be better off than they were with the French in control, but the native leaders who replaced the French, weren't better. Obviously recently in Tunisia, and other places like Libya, we saw how the native leader's treat the other natives in the Arab Spring. In Syria, we see it still, and so on.

Mexico (where I'm originally from), was under Spanish rule for quite awhile. Mexico today, with it's leaders and landlords, is really no better than before. Just now it's arrogant Mexicans ruling Mexicans, rather than arrogant Spaniards.
well you are someone who actually live in an ex colony great, you know that foreign oppressors allies himself with some of the top bourgeois in the colony . Liberation movement will be composed from the people who don't benefit from this relation : small business ( petty bourgeois is an important percentage of the society as there were and still many self employers ) , peasantry , tribes , and the small workers class who were never fairly treated by foreign unions and eventually form their own .

of course france did not like that , and did what it could to stop such movement , and eventually did change tactics (in the 50ies ) by assassinating any real revolutionary leader ( 2 leaders of trade unions ) and supported the least revolutionary movement ( led by Bourguiba ) but although i don't approve on that guy politics , i should thank him for the free education system , which was very beneficial to me personally

Bourguiba regime declined in the late 70ies , he got sick , and his ministers became the real rulers of the country , then came Ben ali in 1987 ( unnecessary details so Ben ali is not a part of the liberation movement

you are making some errors here , some natives are just backed dictators some others are just rogue bourgeois ,the idea of national liberation itself must have priority on any remove-nation-communist , as i can assure you can't do much even with the french proletariat ,

BTW unlike other colonies france wanted to Keep Algeria , and it did commit ethnic cleansing there killing over 10 % of the population after WW2 , so i don't believe there was another way

[Althusser]

Liberation Movement is way too vague.

[Imposter Marxist]

No, never, we have seen it in the past all the so called "National Liberation" struggles of the past, such as Vietnam, Korea, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Germany, Madagascar, and etc, have all gone through the evil metamorphosis and have emerged as brutal, unforgiving, genocidal, state capitalist regimes.

Even the Israeli National Liberation movement has descended into state capitalist oppression of the arabs.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1948/07/israel.htm

[blake 3:17]

you are making some errors here , some natives are just backed dictators some others are just rogue bourgeois ,the idea of national liberation itself must have priority on any remove-nation-communist , as i can assure you can't do much even with the french proletariat ,

I've mentioned this many times on this board, but I think it's worth repeating. When a delegation representing Italian Communist Party went to Vietnamese to meet with NLF, they asked what they could do to help. The Vietnamese responded the best help they could provide would be to lead a revolution in Italy.

Those of us in the imperialist countries must make sure to consistently oppose our own rulers abroad.


Algeria and Tunisia might be better off than they were with the French in control, but the native leaders who replaced the French, weren't better. Obviously recently in Tunisia, and other places like Libya, we saw how the native leader's treat the other natives in the Arab Spring. In Syria, we see it still, and so on.

Mexico (where I'm originally from), was under Spanish rule for quite awhile. Mexico today, with it's leaders and landlords, is really no better than before. Just now it's arrogant Mexicans ruling Mexicans, rather than arrogant Spaniards.

The ANC in South Africa's another example.

So abstain? I feel embarrassed that we didn't do more to oppose the NATO attack on Libya. The Left here mostly only fence sat or supported the intervention in some half hearted way. We fucked up.

I just got an email from a movement organization I usually support, but it is calling for the Canadian government to do something(the what is totally unclear) to stop the violence in Syria. I don't see at all how this is anything but requesting imperialist intervention that will lead to social disaster.

[wsg1991]

even if the new rulers are cannot be imperialist any time soon as the under developed country will take some time to achieve surplus production and need more resources .

* prevent imperialism from efficient direct control of the land thus the resources they need , which will weaken it , as this resources will be distributed between local capitalist and a portion for others classes ( variable )
* creating new imperialist power ( in long term ) , This is beneficial in fact , as the fragmentation of power between 2 or more camps will create opportunities , division of power between several major power will governments to choose camps that serves their interest better , of course they won't change puppets dictator issue , and might create WW3 ,

[wunks]

Any sensible Marxist would support the right of the oppressed nations to rise up and get out from the jaws of Imperialism.

Ireland, Palestine, etc.Ireland is not an oppressed nation.

[blake 3:17]

Ireland is not an oppressed nation.

Then why don't the English leave?

[The Young Pioneer]

...I stopped reading when someone said that crap about Finland.

:blink:

Absolutely hilarious that such speech appears on a leftist forum.


I don't know how to answer the question because I think that if things were existing in an international communist sense, neither theory would be needed. I think that oppressive, imperialist governments should stop killing thousands of people (whom they're killing just because those peoples want to be free of said oppressive, imperialist governments). But self determination as an idea is always coupled with nationalism, and that can cause even more oppression and imperialism...

What I think should happen?

Such instances as Russian military killing Chechens and Israeli military killing Palestineans need to be fucking stopped, yes. How? I don't know. Because the Chechens and Palestineans etc. have reactionary factions that will always blow shit up in response.

And leave Finland alone, man! :crying:

[blake 3:17]

...I stopped reading when someone said that crap about Finland. Umm yeah.


I don't know how to answer the question because I think that if things were existing in an international communist sense, neither theory would be needed.

In that case we'd be in a completely different world. What does matter is what world we're in now.


I think that oppressive, imperialist governments should stop killing thousands of people (whom they're killing just because those peoples want to be free of said oppressive, imperialist governments). But self determination as an idea is always coupled with nationalism, and that can cause even more oppression and imperialism...

Sure. There is absolutely no reason to idolize or romanticize the oppressed, or simply accept any national leadership. Women's groups in the West have been at the forefront of solidarity with the people of Gaza. This both gives support to the people of Gaza, and emboldens Palestinian and Arab feminists.



Such instances as Russian military killing Chechens and Israeli military killing Palestineans need to be fucking stopped, yes. How? I don't know. Because the Chechens and Palestineans etc. have reactionary factions that will always blow shit up in response. The best means are building international solidarity movements that are responsive to oppressed people and their left wing representatives. We have a very strong Palestine solidarity movement here, largely oriented around the BDS campaign, but also working on other fronts.

The Russians treatment of the Chechnyan people is horrible and disgusting -- I don't know what steps to take to try to end it. There may have been a demostration or two here over the years, but probably the most effective steps are basic educationals.

[blake 3:17]

You seemed to have agreed with the troll regarding Finland. Perhaps you wanna explain me what I've said wrong about Finland's past.

My bad.

I know nothing about Finland except from a drinking buddy and two friends named Sami in honour of the people.

[The Young Pioneer]

JAM, I was referring to this:


I don't support Finland as a nation: they are only a veil created by Sweden to cover Soviet Union and they are being manipulated until today.

And don't call me a troll, I've been here for a year contributing to this forum (much longer than you, I'm afraid) and that's the first accusation of such I've ever received.

:sneaky:

[JAM]

JAM, I was referring to this:



And don't call me a troll, I've been here for a year contributing to this forum (much longer than you, I'm afraid) and that's the first accusation of such I've ever received.

:sneaky:

My bad this time. A completely misunderstanding. I didn't see the post that you quoted and since I referred specifically Finland as one example of my explanation (and even talked about its independence process) I assumed that you were referring to me, also because you didn't quoted in your post, and got a little bit angry. If it's possibly to do it I'll ask to the moderator to erase my posts that I've wrote after yours since it resulted from a misunderstanding. I'll edit it anyway.

[Leftsolidarity]

The main argument of the "No"'s seem to be that the next group will be just as bad as the imperialists. Is this correct?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The main argument of the "No"'s seem to be that the next group will be just as bad as the imperialists. Is this correct?

No, that is a practical outcome of it. The other reason is that the nation must be destroyed, that "self-determination" is a farce within the spectre of bourgeois politics.

[wsg1991]

No, that is a practical outcome of it. The other reason is that the nation must be destroyed, that "self-determination" is a farce within the spectre of bourgeois politics.

results justify the means ? so you support destroying a nation and merging 2 nations even by occupation ?? READ trade union history in ex colonies , you will know even syndicalists did not treat occupied colonies Fairly ;
practical outcome ? guess what , the practical outcome was stopping ethnic cleansing and Nuclear testing Algeria ? i think that is more than enough ,

stop reading Theories , READ HISTORY ,

[The Douche]

The main argument of the "No"'s seem to be that the next group will be just as bad as the imperialists. Is this correct?

I think the main argument is that we want to fight for communism, not capitalism with nationalist rhetoric.

[Omsk]

I think the main argument is that we want to fight for communism, not capitalism with nationalist rhetoric.


That's not an argument.

[bcbm]

The main argument of the "No"'s seem to be that the next group will be just as bad as the imperialists. Is this correct?

the argument is that 'national liberation' does not address the issue of class and has nothing to offer the workers of whatever country. they will continue to be exploited while the bosses laugh all the way to the bank.

[The Douche]

That's not an argument.

Yeah it obviously is. National liberation has not created anything but capitalism, I'm down with the struggle for communism, not patriotic capitalism.

[Omsk]

All right, don't create strawman arguments. That is not what self-determination and national-liberations are about. What you described is the possible negative result of a national-liberation struggle, and not something which i (I as in, someone in support of self-determination or national liberation) would support.

[The Douche]

Well I'm talking about the historical reality of these movements, despite the rhetoric of some people involved. Even on the theoretical level, these movements advocate cooperation with capital.

[wsg1991]

Yeah it obviously is. National liberation has not created anything but capitalism, I'm down with the struggle for communism, not patriotic capitalism.

national liberation creates an social democrat economic . Arabic national liberation leaders did focus on free education and health care , education here is still more equal than it's american counterpart even after years of recession


direct cooperation between occupied , and imperialist country proletariat , cannot be achieved , the creation of native trade unions witness that . Results don't justify the means , you can't abolish Nations by Imperialism , which oppress the entire population with the except of tiny rich elite .

this position is exactly why Utopian communists failed miserably in arab nations as it was Weird , and received hostilely by the oppressed population , and has no touch with reality specially in Palestinian arab conflict , In Tunisia , and Algeria , and dropped in the 50ies with the rise of arab Nationalism , and now even denied

it would be interesting if some french communist tried to explains this view to algerian Fellagah ( resistance militia ) and see his response , i don't see how a Tribal \ peasantry would accept such opinion


there was great improvement in Algeria for example
No more ethnic cleansing
No nuclear testing in Algerian desert and on Algerian population
a leader who's main focus is free education and social services ( Ben Bella )

i did point out that the composition of national liberation is from the entire population except local military \ people employed by Imperialist to suppress the population and the local Bourgeois , who frankly neither has any interest to change their comfortable life style

it's obvious that result of this formula would be a social democrat \ state capitalist ( direct limited intervention in the economy ) , a progress

i have been repeating the same arguments again and again

[Omsk]

Well I'm talking about the historical reality of these movements, despite the rhetoric of some people involved. Even on the theoretical level, these movements advocate cooperation with capital.


Not necessarily, the objective for those who are in the struggle should be the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, national-liberation does not need to be leftist, and in most cases, it was not. However national-liberation struggles led by Vanguard parties and by the communists can be positive and should be supported.

[wsg1991]

the argument is that 'national liberation' does not address the issue of class and has nothing to offer the workers of whatever country.


i don't think any one who done his research about at least the 10 years after a real national liberation can say that . of course unless of course free education and social services are for the interest of the bourgeois .

revolutionary left is absent in most of the world , i wonder how much you can name in arab world \ Africa ?
*the workers will take what they got
*it's certainly better than Direct Imperialism
do your homework , read history , stop reading theories

[Dr Doom]

oh my :/

i mean are we as communists for working class liberation or are we are for a cross class movement and lining up behind one section of the bosses ? a nation is an entity that assumes there is a greater interest between those who belong to it than there is between those who belong to the same class. we should obviously think the opposite.

also fuck this 'oppressed nations' nonsense. the struggle for communism transgresses all that shit.

[Omsk]

or are we are for a cross class movement and lining up behind one section of the bosses

Another man who doesn't know anything about self-determination and national-liberation.

[wsg1991]

oh my :/


also fuck this 'oppressed nations' nonsense. the struggle for communism transgresses all that shit.

another guy who has no clue about 'oppressed nations' , i like you to make 1 hour search on Algerian resistance \ Ben Bella and his party \ french crime in Algeria \ nuclear testing in Sahara , and on local population . you may also
search for any trace on a revolutionary left in Africa \ Arab countries

i like the Algerian example since i am familiar with , you may try others if you like

Fuck this nonsense you just wrote

[campesino]

how many voted yes, due to support for palestinian liberatioin movements.

I see it like this, would you support a palestinian liberation movement if there was one Arab state that covered Syria, lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Palestine, with no zionist state.

[wunks]

Then why don't the English leave?how does that prove that Ireland is an oppressed nation?

[Tukhachevsky]

So, do you support self determination, or do you support some kind of international agency telling people what they should do - which is the exact opposite of self determination?

The october revolution only happened because germans funded and partially supported it, later to impose the breit-litovsk tract.
Also, your country- like China, USA, Russia, Korea, or any proper one- should have entered in civil war during the coup of 64.

[Leftsolidarity]

Yeah it obviously is. National liberation has not created anything but capitalism, I'm down with the struggle for communism, not patriotic capitalism.

You really are using logical falacies. You are attacking national liberation struggles as solely "patriotic capitalist" movements. That is one type of group that can wage those struggles. Like others have pointed out, national liberation is not always a class-oriented movement. It is simply a course of action, a course of action that is also needed for communism. So, while it might be used as a tool of a national bourgeoisie, it can also (and I say will have to be) used as a tool of the working class. Communist organizations can wage national liberation struggles and it can be used as a way to achieve communism.

An oppressed nation will never overthrow capitalism and the state until it overthrows imperialism. These countries will have their anti-imperialist movements on the course of destroying capitalism.


Anywho, even if capitalism completely blows, I'd rather have to deal with a more local bourgeoisie than some massive overseas imperialist power. Even if it's the "same shit", I'd rather have to deal with ones here. Imperialism does horrible things to countries. While some may have their theorectial and intellectual criticisms, in real world effects, it is a positive step for the population.

[Tim Finnegan]

You really are using logical falacies. You are attacking national liberation struggles as solely "patriotic capitalist" movements. That is one type of group that can wage those struggles.
Give us one example of an authentically working class "national liberation" movement.

[Leftsolidarity]

Give us one example of an authentically working class "national liberation" movement.

In theory or in history?

I feel like I shouldn't have to explain to another communist how the argument of "It hasn't happened yet." does not prove that it can't.

[Tim Finnegan]

Perhaps not, but the burden of proof is you on to demonstrate that an authentically working class "national liberation" movement is a possibility we should expend any effort considering, and you are failing to meet it pretty entirely.

[Tim Cornelis]

The october revolution only happened because germans funded and partially supported it, later to impose the breit-litovsk tract.
Also, your country- like China, USA, Russia, Korea, or any proper one- should have entered in civil war during the coup of 64.

The Russian revolution would have occurred irrespective of funding by the Germans. It is ridiculous to think that all those thousands of people would not have marched and fought against the Czar if the Germans had not paid Lenin's train ticket.

[Lanky Wanker]

Perhaps not, but the burden of proof is you on to demonstrate that an authentically working class "national liberation" movement is a possibility we should expend any effort considering, and you are failing to meet it pretty entirely.

Why is the burden of proof on those who favour national liberation and not those who oppose it?

[Tim Finnegan]

Why is the burden of proof on those who favour national liberation and not those who oppose it?
Because they're the ones making a positive claim. Is that not kind of obvious? :confused:

[Lanky Wanker]

Because they're the ones making a positive claim. Is that not kind of obvious? :confused:

You claim to have a better alternative, no?

[Tim Finnegan]

Why would my views be relevant to the validity of somebody else's? That's really not how theoretical criticism works.

[Lanky Wanker]

Why would my views be relevant to the validity of somebody else's? That's really not how theoretical criticism works.

I see this isn't going anywhere, never mind.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I support none of the above. I think the squabbles over fictional lines in the sand are silly. I only support workers uniting against the common enemies. National lines is just another tool of dividing the proletariat. Fuck nations, I'm a citizen of the world and so is everyone else, we need to start working as a collective species instead of this bullshit.

[Nox]

Overall; no to both.

In extreme circumstances, yes to both.

[Leftsolidarity]

Because they're the ones making a positive claim. Is that not kind of obvious? :confused:

Yes, I understand (Lanky Wanker you are mistaken). I'll respond with my answer when I have more time later.

[black magick hustla]

i think once upon a time, when the experiment of national liberation hadn't been tried yet, it made sense to have a favorable view of it. however, today it is pretty much obvious that national liberation for the peripheral states is impossible. in the cold war, "national liberation" generally meant little beyond paying tribute to soviet/chinese bosses. today, with the demise of the ussr, it is pretty much raw ethinic-sectarian squabbles. "national liberation" wars generally bring death and misery to working people and turns them into kinslayers. people generally forget that behind the cool imagery of a black teen carrying a rifle,there is a pile of corpses and children turned into monstrous killers.

[bcbm]

i don't think any one who done his research about at least the 10 years after a real national liberation can say that . of course unless of course free education and social services are for the interest of the bourgeois .

many national liberation movements originally delivered some positive gains but also maintained economic ties with their former colonial powers and by the 70s and 80s most had been integrated into the world economy in a dependent position and drowned it debt, much to the benefit of the former colonial powers and to the detriment of local populations. this is why i say there is no such thing as 'national liberation' in a capitalist world, capitalism is integrates everything.


revolutionary left is absent in most of the world

capitalism is not


do your homework , read history , stop reading theories

lol i have read a lot more history than theory

[wsg1991]

many national liberation movements originally delivered some positive gains but also maintained economic ties with their former colonial powers and by the 70s and 80s most had been integrated into the world economy in a dependent position and drowned it debt, much to the benefit of the former colonial powers and to the detriment of local populations. this is why i say there is no such thing as 'national liberation' in a capitalist world, capitalism is integrates everything.



most national liberation liberation movements did deliver "Some positive" gain that i did mention , if you read liberation movements you will know that foreign powers did fight back this movements as they prove to be threat to their interest , unless they were killing armed resistances , political figures and Union leaders for fun .


after WW2 , after realizing that cannot keep all colonies ,, they did adapt different tactics as supporting least revolutionary movements in some colonies and assassinating others ( like supporting Bourguiba in Tunisia ) and assassinating the rest . Even so he managed to do an excellent healthcare program , education programs , like FREE secular education , although his foreign policies were bad

cutting ties with foreign colonies was impossible initially , as the entire high skilled workers were foreigners , it took several years here until we no longer need foreign Professors here , and took much more to remove foreign professors from university as there was insufficient educated class . i don't see your ''revolutionary scenario'' of complete cutting relation with ex occupiers will work in actual life . Although i approve that economic independence should be achieved much faster

most liberation movements take time in the 50 ies and early 60ies , and that was the time of the most positive gains , but with the decline of USSR globally
they became more easily pressured by USA . A good example would be Egypt , and by that time most this liberation movements have died out ,
there is 20-30 years period between the first accident and the second , i don't know how each liberation movement end up , assassination \ corruption \ pûppet dictator .


. Algeria in the other hand , an example you seem to avoid "coincidentally" , if you read history you will know that France did want to keep desperately . i am no historian specialist , you probably can know much more than me about ethnic cleansing , The country of million martyr , France Nuclear experiences in Sahara and on Algerian population .

Imperialism occupation treated occupied population as non-human , and irrelevant , as ethnic superiority was affecting even normal soldiers acts , there are some detailed testimonies of french legionnaires shows that

you will also know how they were treated as second grade citizens even by Trade unions .

[bcbm]

i don't see your ''revolutionary scenario'' of complete cutting relation with ex occupiers will work in actual life .

curious why you are putting in quotation marks and attributing to me an idea i never suggested.


Although i approve that economic independence should be achieved much faster

no nation in a capitalist world has 'economic independence,' they are all interconnected though obviously the more powerful economies dominate the rest.


Algeria in the other hand , an example you seem to avoid "coincidentally" , if you read history you will know that France did want to keep desperately . i am no historian specialist , you probably can know much more than me about ethnic cleansing , The country of million martyr , France Nuclear experiences in Sahara and on Algerian population .

you will also know how they were treated as second grade citizens even by Trade unions .

i am not 'avoiding' anything, i have described general trends and the impossibility of an actual 'national liberation' in a capitalist world. as far as i know no one is suggesting that the french atrocities were preferable to the rule of the fln, but simply that no colonial country is truly 'liberated' after these struggles- they remain part of capitalism, empower a new local ruling class while the former colonizers countries re-assert control in new ways, often with much greater benefits than actual colonialism and as such 'national liberation' politics are not a feature of communist politics.

[Comrade Jandar]

Interestingly enough Bakunin addressed this exact issue far before Lenin's much needed revision to Marxist policy on imperialism.

" Every land, every nation, every people, large or small, weak or strong, every region, province, and commune has the absolute right to self-determination, to make alliances, unite or secede as it pleases, regardless of so-called historic rights and the political, commercial, or strategic ambitions of States. The unity of the elements of society, in order to be genuine, fruitful, and durable, must be absolutely free: it can emerge only from the internal needs and mutual attractions of the respective units of society...." - Revolutionary Catechism

[MotherCossack]

Ireland is not an oppressed nation.


says who.... you annoy me greatly.... arrogant fool!



oh my :/

i mean are we as communists for working class liberation or are we are for a cross class movement and lining up behind one section of the bosses ? a nation is an entity that assumes there is a greater interest between those who belong to it than there is between those who belong to the same class. we should obviously think the opposite.

also fuck this 'oppressed nations' nonsense. the struggle for communism transgresses all that shit.

Similarily.... your attitude is intolerant and dogmatic..... who are you to dismiss the oppression of millions over time.... you will never have global success without understanding that the world is populated by different people with different issues, concerns, experiences.
Oppressed people will fight first for freedom to govern themselves before they will consider the universal plight of the working classes and their oppression by the bourgeoise.
it is like... as a parent trying to protect your kids from booze by hiding it from them and not allowing them to discover it for themselves.....
and it dont work.... for long!



Overall; no to both.

In extreme circumstances, yes to both.

Hey..... ??????? what????
shaky..... yet concise!

[wsg1991]

i want to see this anti liberation opinion on Lebanese resistance ? a recent example ,

[bcbm]

i want to see one place a national liberation struggle hasn't empowered a new local bourgeoisie and ruling class and been completely integrated into the world market.

and to be clear, being against national liberation politics doesn't mean being for imperialism, but fighting imperialism as we fight any other ruling class, with the weapons of our class and through internationalism, not by cutting deals with nationalist gangsters and rulers in waiting.

[Qavvik]

Perhaps as a starting point for a liberation, but I oppose both on the basis that in a communist future, the state and all notions of the "nation" would be abolished and replaced by a worker's world. Besides, self determination is just yet another tool used by capitalists to separate workers along national lines and exploit them.

[Leftsolidarity]

i want to see one place a national liberation struggle hasn't empowered a new local bourgeoisie and ruling class and been completely integrated into the world market.

and to be clear, being against national liberation politics doesn't mean being for imperialism, but fighting imperialism as we fight any other ruling class, with the weapons of our class and through internationalism, not by cutting deals with nationalist gangsters and rulers in waiting.

I'm going to go more into the theorectical and possibly not represent my own views but I want to debate this.

Is this nessescarily a negative or reactionary thing? A lot of these places that these struggles take place in are under-developed areas. They do not have a large bourgeoisie nor to the have an advanced capitalist mode of production (if they have one at all).

So couldn't the claim be made that these struggles, even if they empower the local bourgeoisie, are progressive and are just a step towards communism? Since (some Leftists don't agree but whatever) the capitalist mode of production is needed to make the material conditions of socialism come about in society, they are just progressing into the needed stages of society for communism to come about.

[Tim Finnegan]

Is this nessescarily a negative or reactionary thing? A lot of these places that these struggles take place in are under-developed areas. They do not have a large bourgeoisie nor to the have an advanced capitalist mode of production (if they have one at all).

So couldn't the claim be made that these struggles, even if they empower the local bourgeoisie, are progressive and are just a step towards communism? Since (some Leftists don't agree but whatever) the capitalist mode of production is needed to make the material conditions of socialism come about in society, they are just progressing into the needed stages of society for communism to come about.
The problem with this logic is that it's basically stageism, and stageism is basically bollocks. Not all regions develop in the same fashion, nor can imperialism simply be understood as a parasitical structure which holds back the otherwise inevitable march of history. Rather, imperialism actively restructures regions in accordance with the division of labour demanded by capital, forcing both colonial and colonised regions down avenues of development particular to their colonial relationship. Egypt (say) isn't as it is because it is in need of proper capitalistic development, it's as it is precisely because of capitalist development, precisely because capital has historically demanded that it play an agricultural role in the international division of labour, much as it demanded that Detroit produce cars or Glasgow produce ships.

At any rate, the historical implications are pretty grim. If Egyptian workers need to cooperate with their bourgeoisie to reach a "2012 level" of development, then it seems apparent that German, French or American workers were similarly obliged, and that all working class rebellion up until this point is counter-historical folly. Which, well: no, basically.

[MotherCossack]

i want to see one place a national liberation struggle hasn't empowered a new local bourgeoisie and ruling class and been completely integrated into the world market.

Well like someone said earlier.... the ongoing , overwhelmingly successful domination of Capitalism.... the world over...more or less.....
If we apply your logic...
Guys!!!! Listen up!!!! We might as well give up on Communism.... it has never worked and wont ever work.
If you cant beat 'em join em!! Lets turn into capitALIST BOURGEOIS arseholes!


The problem with this logic is that it's basically stageism, and stageism is basically bollocks. Not all regions develop in the same fashion, nor can imperialism simply be understood as a parasitical structure which holds back the otherwise inevitable march of history. Rather, imperialism actively restructures regions in accordance with the division of labour demanded by capital, forcing both colonial and colonised regions down avenues of development particular to their colonial relationship..

Well doesn't look like Marx knew his arse from his elbow then did he?

[wsg1991]

National liberation bring petty bourgeois to government as no bourgeois will join such movements not because he couldn't reach that level without collaboration with the imperialist power , it can be progressive

you keeping on purpose talking about puppet dictators as they are a part of national liberation movement , Mubarak was NOT a part of it .




Egypt is not a good example , UK did divide it into 2 countries ( Sudan the second one ) and left a puppet royal family , Britain kept it's control over Suez canal , then in 1952 was
the free officers revolution , which bring to power Nasser in 1954

Nasser was not a real socialist neither could be duo to his social origin ( son of a merchant ) and the origin of the free officers ( lower middle class ) , but his government was hostile against big business , nationalizing many corporations specially in the 60ies
while leaving smaller one intact + direct investment in the economy like Aswan steel

this was the real national liberation movement as Nasser tried to stay independent from 2 major powers ( one of the original members of non nonalignment )

then after his death , Sadat took power , who took a liberal economy path , by selling most of the 18 years of national industrial investment , and returning nationalized corporation \ lands to it's owners , he even took further measures by taking loans ( which Nasser only took in constructing Aswan dam ) , he was assassinated in 1978 , of course after crushing the economy . Mubarak did not add much

Stageism ? in the absence of dominating workers class and the present of important size of petty bourgeois and shop owners , self employers , your idea about worker is a synonym for civil war



guess we won't reach any solution

[Tim Finnegan]

Well doesn't look like Marx knew his arse from his elbow then did he?
I am genuinely unsure what in my post you see as being inconsistent with Marx's thought on the matter.

[Costello74]

Yes. As imperialism is the highest form of capitalism and a socialism state cannot be witting an empire. So here in Ireland we must remove British imperialism to bring a socialist republic. The national struggle and the class struggle are are one and cannot be separated.

I think it was Marx who said the nationalism of the opressed in noth the same as the nationalism of the oppressed.

[MotherCossack]

well.... i might well have got this totally arse about face [it wouldn't be the first time by a long chalk]
so excuse my bare-faced rebuffery.....
but didn't marx kind of decree that communism was a natural extension/development of capitalism?
And I constantly read posts on rev-left alluding to Marx's writings ...which they interpret to mean that we will all have to wait for the proletariat to become sufficiently pissed off with the increasingly inadequate status-quo... namely Capitalism.
And some even say that .... in accordance with marxist thought.....to intervene before the cake is properly baked.... or the jelly has set or the capitalist system has comprehensively failed.... would be to risk an early rejection of the communist ideal.....and a swift return to the right side, all new and re-vamped.
my belief is that Marx considered that an occupied/oppressed people would almost certainly have to gain their freedom to choose how their nation is run..... and then experience the dynamic of the the ruling bourgeois classes against the downtrodden wage slaves and have-nots....
and travel along the same, or a similar, path before they reach the the point, where we are [apparently] just reaching.... the demise of Capitalism.
Only then are things in place for the successful emergence of a new system, the anti-thesis of Capitalism.... and we can all guess what that is.....

but please excuse my uncharacteristic arrogance.... i am, by no means anywhere near knowledgable enough for that kind of dismissal.

[Luc]

I think it was Marx who said the nationalism of the opressed in noth the same as the nationalism of the oppressed.

:cool:

[Comrade Jandar]

Couldn't the revolutionary spirit of national liberation struggles be harnessed in order to usher in a communist revolution; maybe some entryism like tactic?

[black magick hustla]

Algeria in the other hand , an example you seem to avoid "coincidentally" , if you read history you will know that France did want to keep desperately . i am no historian specialist , you probably can know much more than me about ethnic cleansing , The country of million martyr , France Nuclear experiences in Sahara and on Algerian population .

Yea ... the rise of a one party authoritarian dictatorship that systematically attempted to ethnically cleanse the berber population and arguably, through its authoritarianism, instigated a bloody civil war that claimed around 150k deaths. Maybe, the berbers need their own national liberation? But the leftists would argue that could only come through imperialist meddling (After all, wasn't this the case with the berber militants who attempted to pursue their national liberation in Lybia?). Oh, how complicated the world is!

[wsg1991]

Yea ... the rise of a one party authoritarian dictatorship that systematically attempted to ethnically cleanse the berber population and arguably, through its authoritarianism, instigated a bloody civil war that claimed around 150k deaths. Maybe, the berbers need their own national liberation? But the leftists would argue that could only come through imperialist meddling (After all, wasn't this the case with the berber militants who attempted to pursue their national liberation in Lybia?). Oh, how complicated the world is!

WTF is this ???

if you speak about Algerian civil war that happened in 90ies , after Islamists turned violent after canceling an election they rightfully won , the MILITARY caused that war because it canceled the election , Some islamists groups did commits genocides , although some people claim that the army also committed mass murder in order to blame it one the Islamists ,

In Libya they have Tuareg ethnic groups and Berbers , although they are small
and were a part of Libya from Hundred of years . it's up to you to judge a group as a national liberation movement , or Separatist , or Power seeker Parties with Imperialist intervention .

i personally consider South Sudan case a mixture of Power seeking party , Imperialist intervention (oil detected ) plus an Islamist \ military dictatorship who badly treated southern

i have a book (1982 ) for a Liberal Egyptian named Faraj Fouda ( assassinated by Islamists in 1992 ) predicting Southern Sudan Separation duo to the islamist government mistreatment , but the recent discovery of oil there attracted Imperialist intervention , and pushing the current conflict further to form a new puppet allied Puppet dictator who controls the oil .

the ones who did the ethnic cleansing are the french , that was before independence in 1962

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes. As imperialism is the highest form of capitalism...
No it isn't.


well.... i might well have got this totally arse about face [it wouldn't be the first time by a long chalk]
so excuse my bare-faced rebuffery.....
but didn't marx kind of decree that communism was a natural extension/development of capitalism?
And I constantly read posts on rev-left alluding to Marx's writings ...which they interpret to mean that we will all have to wait for the proletariat to become sufficiently pissed off with the increasingly inadequate status-quo... namely Capitalism.
And some even say that .... in accordance with marxist thought.....to intervene before the cake is properly baked.... or the jelly has set or the capitalist system has comprehensively failed.... would be to risk an early rejection of the communist ideal.....and a swift return to the right side, all new and re-vamped.
my belief is that Marx considered that an occupied/oppressed people would almost certainly have to gain their freedom to choose how their nation is run..... and then experience the dynamic of the the ruling bourgeois classes against the downtrodden wage slaves and have-nots....
and travel along the same, or a similar, path before they reach the the point, where we are [apparently] just reaching.... the demise of Capitalism.
Only then are things in place for the successful emergence of a new system, the anti-thesis of Capitalism.... and we can all guess what that is.....

but please excuse my uncharacteristic arrogance.... i am, by no means anywhere near knowledgable enough for that kind of dismissal.
I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. Are workers (and in practice that includes most of the "peasantry") in colonised countries incapable of fighting against capital? If they are not, then why not? And if they are, then why do they have to distract themselves fighting in capital's civil wars, rather than for their own interests?

[Costello74]

:cool:

Oops. Good correction.

[MotherCossack]

No it isn't.


I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. Are workers (and in practice that includes most of the "peasantry") in colonised countries incapable of fighting against capital? If they are not, then why not? And if they are, then why do they have to distract themselves fighting in capital's civil wars, rather than for their own interests?

I have not got long so better not get waylaid.... or I'll be late.....for date with doctor....
but imagine..... a bunch of kids in a playground....
For the first 4 or 5 years one half of the kids bully and steal from the other half and get away with it very successfully.
The vibe in the school is resentful, tense, and unpleasant.... one half are self-satisfied, arrogant and take their privaleges for granted....
the other half.... they worry, fret, eventually share thier grievances and finally start to organise....
The day they plan to make a stand.... a new head comes in to the school... keen and over-zealous.... sees much that could be improved and announces , with immediate effect, that the school routine is to be transformed.... making it impossible for any child to have sweets at all or any break time....
The bullied kids are saved but they have no closure.... and are left more than a little deflated.

Not a great analogy.... I will return anon.... with another.

[bcbm]

Well like someone said earlier.... the ongoing , overwhelmingly successful domination of Capitalism.... the world over...more or less.....
If we apply your logic...
Guys!!!! Listen up!!!! We might as well give up on Communism.... it has never worked and wont ever work.

i don't think this is an application of my logic. there have been 'successful' national liberation struggles- the imperialist powers were defeated and kicked out of the country and a new ruling class from the nation took power. and while some gains came out of this, the relationship was ultimately brought in line to the dominant powers interest because there is no outside from capitalism and it is not possible to forge a 'liberated' space from capitals domination. i don't think reaching these conclusions based on history has any relevance to whether the under classes can topple the ruling class on a mass scale, but i think it does suggest why something like the soviet union failed.


If you cant beat 'em join em!! Lets turn into capitALIST BOURGEOIS arseholes!

yes this was the basic trajectory of national liberation and socialist states.


but didn't marx kind of decree that communism was a natural extension/development of capitalism?

yes but then he also talks a lot about the party and the need for it to lead the dotp etc there is a tension between determinism and voluntarism in marx's work.

[Costello74]

yes this was the basic trajectory of national liberation and socialist states.

What is bourgeois about a national liberation struggle?

While the Marxist Irish National Liberation Army fought the imperialist British forces in Ireland the so called communists were nowhere to be seen. They fought an died for a socialist republic and in the long term, communism.

[wsg1991]

good civilized conversation , but that would be enough (evolved into waste of time )

[bcbm]

What is bourgeois about a national liberation struggle?

thats basically been the topic of the entire thread.

[MotherCossack]

i don't think this is an application of my logic. there have been 'successful' national liberation struggles- the imperialist powers were defeated and kicked out of the country and a new ruling class from the nation took power. and while some gains came out of this, the relationship was ultimately brought in line to the dominant powers interest because there is no outside from capitalism and it is not possible to forge a 'liberated' space from capitals domination. i don't think reaching these conclusions based on history has any relevance to whether the under classes can topple the ruling class on a mass scale, but i think it does suggest why something like the soviet union failed.


sorry i took so long responding..... too busy being sombre and morose..... mardy and yampy.....hot and bothered.... hassled and bullied....
now i am all fine and dandy.... anyway.... where was i?
oh yes.....
look i am torn on this one..... in theory i should agree with you lot on the... fuck nations.... fuck the bourgeoise... from here, there and every-bloody-where.

my first loyalty is to my class... the working class....if you have money you are sorted... wherever you are from....money is the great divide... not any perceived national border...that much is certainly true........
but......
i still think that a people that have been oppressed as a nation will have to fight that battle either before or preferably in conjunction with.... some kind of redistribution along the wealth lines.
i am sure that a dedicated marxist republican party could be worthy of support... in a place like the occupied 6 counties...cos you gotta be free to choose socialism/communism.
unless of course the democratic system is found to be unhelpful.... but that is another row just ready to roll.

[Prometeo liberado]

Communists seek to abolish nations, not establish them. Communists don't fight for national liberation.

Your kidding yourself if you think that communist do not fight under the guise of any and all kinds of liberation fronts. We take the first step by fighting and engaging along the lines and conditions that the bourgeois is at its weakest. We can not abolish the state until we conquer it.Today the nation, tomorrow the world.

[Tim Finnegan]

And when has that ever worked, exactly?

[Leftsolidarity]

And when has that ever worked, exactly?

Back to that flawed argument?

'when has communism ever worked exactly?'

[Tim Finnegan]

Communism isn't an idea which can be implemented; it cannot "work". Cross-class "national liberation" fronts are, and have been implemented on numerous occasions. It has never worked. Often, in fact, it just makes things worse. I think that should encourage a certain scepticism in the critical observer. Don't you?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Communism isn't an ideology, it's a politico-economic system.

Capitalism isn't an ideology, it's far bigger than that. So is communism. It's not something you establish at teh ballot box. It's not something you establish by getting a few dozen mates together and fighting a guerilla war. Yes, we all aim to establish communism, but we must recognise the context: communism will come ONLY when Capitalism reaches its natural demise. Only then will revolutionary change happen. Call me a pessimist, I don't care.

[Leftsolidarity]

but we must recognise the context: communism will come ONLY when Capitalism reaches its natural demise.

This might be getting off topic but what do you even mean by this? This is complete bullshit to be honest. Like I've pointed out in other threads, this is peusdo-Calvinist "pre-determined" shit that says that no matter what we do, it doesn't matter. That it is "bound to happen" anyways and that any effort put for into the struggle is a waste of time because it has to happen "naturally".

[MotherCossack]

Communism isn't an ideology, it's a politico-economic system.

Capitalism isn't an ideology, it's far bigger than that. So is communism. It's not something you establish at teh ballot box. It's not something you establish by getting a few dozen mates together and fighting a guerilla war. Yes, we all aim to establish communism, but we must recognise the context: communism will come ONLY when Capitalism reaches its natural demise. Only then will revolutionary change happen. Call me a pessimist, I don't care.


that sounds like it will make a nice, logical, pleasingly symmetrical pattern. it is a theory that one can get behind. i like it....but i disagree with your assessment that it is a pessimistic view..... in many ways it is the opposite......

My problem with it is this..... do you not see the parallels with organised religon and for that matter... what we have now......
it is like.... we will be served..... we need do nothing.... we are being looked after....... a fair and decent life will come..... we just wait..... do nothing but wait and see.... the glorious honey bear in the sky will sort it/ the natural order of things demands it..... when this dastardley state of affairs is well and truly toasted.... a day will dawn..... the world will be re-arranged ..... and it is guaranteed to be a world fairer for all.

we only need faith and patience!


how much evidence do we really have that this is the case?
it is clearly one person's very clever, convincing theory..... but when, in real life, do we get what we want by sitting patiently and waiting ...no pressure... no persuasion......no reminders.... no nagging.... no negotiations...no back-handers.....no strings pulled.... no economics with the truth....no friendly pressure....

cor blimey... i mean if there is a load..[of evidence, i mean].. tell me.... i would love nothing more than to crash and wait..... i can take that it is as good as giving up on my generation.... cos it aint gonna happen for a good while yet.... is it?
trouble is...it feels like i am just suspending disbelief.....which is unfortunate since i have not been asked to do that since i was a BAPA and amongst some of the most superficial luvvies that i have ever known.

[pastradamus]

Yes to both. I support national liberation movements as did Marx.

[MotherCossack]

bejesus.... i would do well to learn and practise the art of brevity.
shit did i just make up a word?.... what the hell.... succinctitude.....concisification.... lessitude....or even better....lessismoreology.... ha ha... less-is-more-ology..
that is quite enough..... you in the back.....cosssack... behave and return to topic or star bar..... oops sorry.... its in my jeans.... oh! go away you silly old boot.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This might be getting off topic but what do you even mean by this? This is complete bullshit to be honest. Like I've pointed out in other threads, this is peusdo-Calvinist "pre-determined" shit that says that no matter what we do, it doesn't matter. That it is "bound to happen" anyways and that any effort put for into the struggle is a waste of time because it has to happen "naturally".

I think you'd have to have the imagination of a slightly backwards squirrel to really take that sort of implication from what I said.

[A Marxist Historian]

I voted that way. Very simple. While I agree with the principle of self-determination as a right of any people to have their own independence and free themselves from the oppressor nation, I recognize that historically the national liberation movements tend to be the oppressors of tomorrow. The case of Angola (a very familiar case to me personally) is very elucidative of how some national liberation movements can be even more repressive and exploitative to its own people than its predecessors.

The MPLA is pretty rotten, but you think Angola would be better off as a colony of Portugal again?

And does the fact that you are Portuguese have anything to do with this?

I must say I get very suspicious of allegedly ultra-left arguments vs. supporting, militarily at least, national liberation movements vs. colonial powers, when the person making the argument is a citizen of said colonial power.

The trouble with the the phrase "supporting national liberation movements" is that it's not too meaningful. In the era of imperialism, the bourgeoisie can't really lead any liberation struggle, so the only true national liberation movements are the movements of the working class.

But certainly Angola is better off independent than back under the vicious, murderous, racist thumb of Portuguese imperialism! Which had changed very little from back in the day when the Portuguese started the African slave trade. Or maybe even worse, of the South Africans who tried to replace Portugal as the colonial oppressor, when the semi-fascist Portuguese military dictatorship collapsed.

-M.H.-

[Rafiq]

Anyone who voted Yes to self-determination but No to National liberation movements want to explain that?

It depends on what is meant by Self Determination. In some cases, strategically, it's better for the proletariat of each state to determine it's own course of action.

As for any of these being applied to the Bourgeoisie of any nation... Well, fuck no to both, then.

[Rafiq]

I support each nation and country the right to decide for themselves which direction they wish to go with without fear of invasion, attack, and blockade by foreign powers. National liberation struggles I support in the context of said nation freeing themselves from imperialist occupation; this being said I only support them in such a context as the groups waging such a struggle are often reactionary organizations.

What exactly does this mean? What defines the "Nation and Country", i.e. who is it you are supporting? The Bourgeois state? There is no homogeneous interest in terms of ethnicity, or nationality. There is only class interest. I don't care if this is a step away from Lenin, it's something all decent Marxists have held up for a long time.

[Rafiq]

Though I don't think there can be any absolutism here. Strategically, in some cases, if it's a blow to the international Bourgeoisie, supporting movements of this nature can be useful... This is the way Marx supported them.

What I hate is this absolutist, so-called "Leninist" official line to compromise the proletariat in favor of anti imperialism.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not the Idealist romanticist who'd say that in a war, North Korea and the United States, the conflict between them, can be dismissed as an inter imperialist war. What needs to be analysed brutally is material conditions accordingly, in what context, and which class comes out victorious. In the case of the first world war, regardless of whose victory, the Bourgeois class would be victorious, in one way or another. It's not always that way, though.

In short, you can't consistently retain a single line on the issue. What you can do, though, is analyze the situations in accordance with the interests of the proletarian class. That is what must be held up consistently.

[X5N]

Yes/Yes, but I support the right to self determination and liberation for any people/person, being an anarchist and all.

[roy]

Yes/Yes, but I support the right to self determination and liberation for any people/person, being an anarchist and all.

this isn't a tenet of anarchism. supporting national liberation is necessarily support for a new national bourgeoisie and further division of workers. the freedom to be oppressed within 'your own nation' is hardly freedom.

[X5N]

this isn't a tenet of anarchism. supporting national liberation is necessarily support for a new national bourgeoisie and further division of workers. the freedom to oppressed within a 'your own nation' is hardly freedom.

Eh, I don't know. I'm a greenhorn when it comes to theory.

[human strike]

Social self-determination, not national self-determination. I'll admit that I support Palestinian national liberation, but only up until the point at which that happens - then naturally I will oppose the state of Palestine. Hey, it's an extreme case. /shrugs

[bcbm]

i still think that a people that have been oppressed as a nation will have to fight that battle either before or preferably in conjunction with.... some kind of redistribution along the wealth lines.

the battle is fought by allying with those with whom have the most in common with them- the international members of the popular classes.


i am sure that a dedicated marxist republican party could be worthy of support... in a place like the occupied 6 counties...cos you gotta be free to choose socialism/communism.

are the imperialist nations more free to choose communism than those they subjugate? no because the struggle for communism requires the workers of the world...


unless of course the democratic system is found to be unhelpful.... but that is another row just ready to roll.

it always has been so far


Strategically, in some cases, if it's a blow to the international Bourgeoisie,

generally its a soft blow and not only recovered from but expanded upon shortly thereafter


supporting movements of this nature can be useful... This is the way Marx supported them.

marx also supported imperialism in some cases in order to 'advance' some nations

[Rafiq]

generally its a soft blow and not only recovered from but expanded upon shortly thereafter

Situations must be analysed accordingly. There can't be any consistent position in this regards, but there can be a consistent interest we can hold up.


marx also supported imperialism in some cases in order to 'advance' some nations


This was early Marx. There's a wonderful book called Marx on the Margins which describes how Marx, toward the end of his days, scrapped his pro imperialist nonsense gradually.

[Peoples' War]

I would like to alter my opinion, to make clear that not every struggle for self-determination is progressive, and those that are not, should be opposed.

[A Marxist Historian]

I would like to alter my opinion, to make clear that not every struggle for self-determination is progressive, and those that are not, should be opposed.

Correct in a vague sense.

More specifically, nations have the right to self-determination, but if there is a conflict, the interests of the working class, the revolutionary class in society, comes first.

Thus for example nobody should support the "right to self-determination" of Tibet, whose exercise would mean a feudalistic theocracy in power, quite possibly bringing back slavery, abolished by Mao in the '50s, and even human sacrifice, something practiced by the Buddhist monks as late as the 1930s.

-M.H.-

[Tim Finnegan]

As one of the few people here living in a nation pursuing "self-determination", would it be acceptable for me to tell you to all fuck off and pander to your own damn bourgeoisie?

[Leftsolidarity]

As one of the few people here living in a nation pursuing "self-determination", would it be acceptable for me to tell you to all fuck off and pander to your own damn bourgeoisie?

No, flawed argument.

[Tim Finnegan]

It's not an argument.

[A Marxist Historian]

It's not an argument.

No, just another scummy statement from someone who describes himself in his very own sig as "scum."

-M.H.-

[Leftsolidarity]

It's not an argument.

No, but it is faulty logic that doesn't hold up so the statement really doesn't have any backing.

[Vorchev]

No to self-determination, Yes to National Liberation Movements

Nationalism gets you off the ground, but after that, you have to spread the movement across borders. Workers of the world unite!

[Tim Finnegan]

No, but it is faulty logic that doesn't hold up so the statement really doesn't have any backing.
Well, what's your objection?


No to self-determination, Yes to National Liberation Movements

Nationalism gets you off the ground, but after that, you have to spread the movement across borders. Workers of the world unite!
Yes, let's drink ourselves sober.

[Babeufist]

And are you Leninist?
Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm