National Liberation and Socialist Revolution

[Positivist]

The national question is one which has afflicted marxist revolutionists since the late 19th century. The conflict has been one of resolving proletarian internationalism with the national sensitivities of the actual proletarians of separate nations. Clearly how this problem should be approached varies depending on the context, but I have come to believe that in the situation of occupied peripheral (aka "third world") economies, national identity could be an effective revolutionary tool.

This position of mine is derived from a recognition of the distinctive character of imperialist exploitation. Either when performed by or under the supervision of a foreign force, the oppression of capital becomes blatant and visible to the working-class on a daily basis. The concealed oppression performed via propagation and political manouvering which we experience in the core capitalist countries is superceded by a more violent, militaristic form of oppression executed by an imperial military and its cronies.

It is easy to see how this situation would, and has, stirred deep anti-western (particularly anti-american) sentiment throughout the periphery. This in itself is a positive revolutionary development, and is cheered by leftists because of it. Though, what most leftists fail to recognize is that this growing anti-american sentiment is accompanied by a reaffirmation of indigenous culture! Not only have Iraqis become more opposed to America since the occupation, they have become more aligned in their identity as Iraqis! They only see so far as to detect that America is the source of their ailments rather than the system which it operates on. This presents both consequences and opportunities.

The consequences of mobilized anti-americanism mainly pertain to the development of reactionary movements to counter American domination. The simple view is that American power can be defeated by simply driving out Americans or restricting American ideas. We know of course that this is false. Even if American soldiers were to be driven from a particular region, American businesses would sweep in with their private security to purchase up the assets of the ascendant regime, and even if American commerce was restricted, the developing economies would be crushed under the weight of sanction and competition. But this, being unclear to the populace, does not detract from the fervor of the people of these countries in supporting the withdrawal of American troops.

The solution is that employed by Irish Republican socialist, James Connolly. Exploit the rising anti-americanism to explain to the people that foreign domination is intrinsic to capitalism itself, and that driving out individual Americans and American practices can only do so much in a globalized economy. It may, and even probably, will be necessary to cloak this explanation in nationalist, or atleast pan-nationalist rhetoric. This would amount to making specific calls for "Thai workers" or "Muslim workers" or something of the sort, in order to avoid upsetting national sensitivities and, on the contrary, engaging them.

Could this approach have problems? Absolutely. One of which that springs to mind is how this would work between national rivals such as Pakistan and Iran. Still, this is a topic which is important to address, and I look forward to your feedback on my position.

[Mr. Natural]

A simple way to state Positivist's OP theme is that we must address people as they live and think. As Positivist implies, nationalism is not inherently counterrevolutionary, although it must evolve into a full revolutionary awareness of the root problem.

Capitalism is the root problem, and capitalism has captured the US and its government and people, and this must be kept in mind and anti-Americanism turned into anti-capitalist imperialism.

And Americans must learn to be "anti-American" and oppose the capitalist imperialism that has turned us into beasts living in the belly of The Beast.

My red-green best.

[Thirsty Crow]

A simple way to state Positivist's OP theme is that we must address people as they live and think. As Positivist implies, nationalism is not inherently counterrevolutionary, although it must evolve into a full revolutionary awareness of the root problem.

Or in other words, nationalism has to cease to be and turn into something else.

[Manic Impressive]

It is easy to see how this situation would, and has, stirred deep anti-western (particularly anti-american) sentiment throughout the periphery. This in itself is a positive revolutionary development, and is cheered by leftists because of it. Though, what most leftists fail to recognize is that this growing anti-american sentiment is accompanied by a reaffirmation of indigenous culture! Not only have Iraqis become more opposed to America since the occupation, they have become more aligned in their identity as Iraqis! They only see so far as to detect that America is the source of their ailments rather than the system which it operates on. This presents both consequences and opportunities.

Why in the world would you think that them identifying as Iraqis is in any way a positive. It's highly negative. There is only one identity which they should be identifying with and that's their class identity. What you're saying is to drop class issues in favour of opportunism. Riding on the back of a reactionary position to further revolutionary goals only leads to confusion of the two and you end up with hybrids like the Khmer rouge. You might as well transfer that logic to any position. Why not say to the BNP ; hey you're hatred and xenophobia is ok because <insert Marxism>. What needs to be said is nationalism separates us based on political constructs created by the very class that is the cause of our current situation and that only by recognizing what unites us, our class, can we overcome them.

Hate all nationalism not just some

[Peoples' War]

Not all national liberation movements are based in this reactionary nationalism. They are truly movements of an oppressed peoples within an oppressor nation.

Though I have only read it once, I lean towards a more "Luxembourgian" idea on the national question, which if I understand correctly, is to take each case for national liberation and judge it based on it's relation to the international proletarian struggle.

As comrade Manic said, nationalism does separate us. Which is why, in supporting any movement, we must emphasize unity among the workers on both sides. This means we make clear to the workers of the oppressed nation, that the workers of the oppressor nation want to see you no longer oppressed. Vica versa. Socialism is international, and if the workers of the one nation cannot pass their own nationalism in not allowing the oppressed nation to have self-determination, then we have a hurdle we have to surpass. The same with the oppressed. If they can't surpass their nationalism, it will be a hurdle.

[Positivist]

It is easy to see how this situation would, and has, stirred deep anti-western (particularly anti-american) sentiment throughout the periphery. This in itself is a positive revolutionary development, and is cheered by leftists because of it...

Why in the world would you think that them identifying as Iraqis is in any way a positive. It's highly negative. There is only one identity which they should be identifying with and that's their class identity. What you're saying is to drop class issues in favour of opportunism. Riding on the back of a reactionary position to further revolutionary goals only leads to confusion of the two and you end up with hybrids like the Khmer rouge. You might as well transfer that logic to any position. Why not say to the BNP ; hey you're hatred and xenophobia is ok because <insert Marxism>. What needs to be said is nationalism separates us based on political constructs created by the very class that is the cause of our current situation and that only by recognizing what unites us, our class, can we overcome them.

Hate all nationalism not just some

If you read my post you'll see that it reads "this presents consequences and opportunities." No where does it say that this development is in itself a good thing, and on the contrary later in the piece acknowledges it will actually develop destructively if not addressed. I do not celebrate this phenomenon, I observe it and understand that it exists and suggest that instead of pretending it doesn't exist within the working class, we work with it.

[Manic Impressive]

I do not celebrate this phenomenon, I observe it and understand that it exists and suggest that instead of pretending it doesn't exist within the working class, we work with it.
But this is opportunism. Breaking your principles in order to score political points. We could say the same of racism. We can recognize that it exists, we can link the cause to capitalism, that doesn't mean we should condone these behaviors in order to try to change them into a revolutionary position.

The only way to do that is confront their anti-working class views head on and explain why they are wrong and how capitalism is the real enemy not their fellow worker.

[Prometeo liberado]

I think it's important to bring up the NL movements in the so called "first world" countries and how this chokes the life out of any revolutionary momentum. The Black, Brown and to a lesser extent Asian liberation movements that came out of the 60's showed great promise and socialist revolutionary zeal. Yet having exhausted that very narrow path of this type of liberation, the movement stalled. With varying degrees of success the flames of NL appeared on a few campuses in the early 80's. Hunger strikers at UCLA, for one, demanded a Chicano studies dept. Yet even the threat of death failed to ignite a larger movement once more. Today only a very small part of the left in the U.S. continues to push this as a program. Most notably FRSO and to a lesser degree RCP. The lesson to be learned may be that as a movement, at least in the U.S., what is needed is a two front approach where as NL must be seen as more of a kernel of Liberation consciousness as opposed to the end all, be all that it has been. Good topis, largely ignored in the States.

[Positivist]

But this is opportunism. Breaking your principles in order to score political points. We could say the same of racism. We can recognize that it exists, we can link the cause to capitalism, that doesn't mean we should condone these behaviors in order to try to change them into a revolutionary position.

The only way to do that is confront their anti-working class views head on and explain why they are wrong and how capitalism is the real enemy not their fellow worker.

I see your point, though I do not quite agree. Nationalism does not necessarily need to be explicitly reactionary the way racism does. Racism is violently, and immediately exclusionary. This isn't the case with nationalism given a broad definition of national identity.

[Manic Impressive]

This isn't the case with nationalism given a broad definition of national identity.
could you expand on this a bit please

[Leo]

Though I have only read it once, I lean towards a more "Luxembourgian" idea on the national question, which if I understand correctly, is to take each case for national liberation and judge it based on it's relation to the international proletarian struggle.Then you haven't understood it correctly, I'm afraid. Rosa Luxemburg rejected to support all sorts of national liberation movements, and she opposed the right of nations to self determination.

In the Junius Pamphlet (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/junius/ch07.htm), she says:


Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will. From this point of view only is it possible to understand correctly the question of “national defence!’ in the present war.
(...)
Today the nation is but a cloak that covers imperialistic desires, a battle cry for imperialistic rivalries, the last ideological measure with which the masses can be persuaded to play the role of cannon fodder in imperialistic wars.And in the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch03.htm):


[T]he famous “right of self-determination of nations” is nothing but hollow, petty-bourgeois phraseology and humbug.

Indeed, what is this right supposed to signify? It belongs to the ABC of socialist policy that socialism opposes every form of oppression, including also that of one nation by another.

If, despite all this, such generally sober and critical politicians as Lenin and Trotsky and their friends, who have nothing but an ironical shrug for every sort of utopian phrase such as disarmament, league of nations, etc., have in this case made a hollow phrase of exactly the same kind into their special hobby, this arose, it seems to us, as a result of some kind of policy made to order for the occasion. Lenin and his comrades clearly calculated that there was no surer method of binding the many foreign peoples within the Russian Empire to the cause of the revolution, to the cause of the socialist proletariat, than that of offering them, in the name of the revolution and of socialism, the most extreme and most unlimited freedom to determine their own fate.
(...)
While Lenin and his comrades clearly expected that, as champions of national freedom even to the extent of “separation,” they would turn Finland, the Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic countries, the Caucasus, etc., into so many faithful allies of the Russian Revolution, we have instead witnessed the opposite spectacle. One after another, these “nations” used the freshly granted freedom to ally themselves with German imperialism against the Russian Revolution as its mortal enemy, and, under German protection, to carry the banner of counter-revolution into Russia itself. The little game with the Ukraine at Brest, which caused a decisive turn of affairs in those negotiations and brought about the entire inner and outer political situation at present prevailing for the Bolsheviks, is a perfect case in point. The conduct of Finland, Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic lands, the peoples of the Caucasus, shows most convincingly that we are not dealing here with an exceptional case, but with a typical phenomenon.

To be sure, in all these cases, it was really not the “people” who engaged in these reactionary policies, but only the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois classes, who – in sharpest opposition to their own proletarian masses – perverted the “national right of self-determination” into an instrument of their counter-revolutionary class politics. But – and here we come to the very heart of the question – it is in this that the utopian, petty-bourgeois character of this nationalistic slogan resides: that in the midst of the crude realities of class society and when class antagonisms are sharpened to the uttermost, it is simply converted into a means of bourgeois class rule. The Bolsheviks were to be taught to their own great hurt and that of the revolution, that under the rule of capitalism there is no self-determination of peoples, that in a class society each class of the nation strives to “determine itself” in a different fashion, and that, for the bourgeois classes, the standpoint of national freedom is fully subordinated to that of class rule.

[Peoples' War]

Then you haven't understood it correctly, I'm afraid. Rosa Luxemburg rejected to support all sorts of national liberation movements, and she opposed the right of nations to self determination.

In the Junius Pamphlet (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/junius/ch07.htm), she says:

And in the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch03.htm):
I have read The National Question, which sums it up a bit better than these quotes. These quotes, while being a vague representation of her views, do show her opposition to the "eternal formulae", as she called it, of "the right to all nations to self-determination". This did not mean she opposed all struggles for self determination, as you claim. Luxemburg supported, contrary to Marx and Engels decades earlier, the South Slavs against Turkey. It was the content of the movement, the material conditions, etc. which need be judged.

To quote Luxemburg herself on the topic:

"A glaring example of how the change of historical conditions influences the evaluation and the position of socialists with respect to the nationality question is the so-called Eastern question. During the Crimean war in 1855, the sympathies of all democratic and socialist Europe were on the side of the Turks and against the South Slavs who were seeking their liberty. The “right” of all nations to freedom did not prevent Marx, Engels, and Liebknecht from speaking against the Balkan Slavs and from resolutely supporting the integrity of the Turks. For they judged the national movements of the Slavic peoples in the Turkish empire not from the standpoint of the “eternal” sentimental formulae of liberalism, but from the standpoint of the material conditions which determined the content of these national movements, according to their views of the time. Marx and Engels saw in the freedom movement of the socially backward South Slavs only the machinations of Russian tsardom trying to irritate the Turks, and thus, without any second thoughts, they subordinated the question of the national freedom of the Slavs to the interests of European democracy, insisting on the integrity of Turkey as a bulwark of defense against Russian reaction. This political position was maintained in German Social Democracy as late as the second half of the 1890s, when the gray-haired Wilhelm Liebknecht, on the occasion of the struggle of the Ormian Turks, still spoke in that spirit. But by this time the position of German and international Social Democracy on the Eastern question had changed. Social Democracy began to support openly the aspirations of the suppressed nationalities in Turkey to a separate cultural existence, and abandoned all concern for the artificial preservation of Turkey as a whole. And at this time it was guided not by a feeling of duty toward the Ormians or the Macedonians as subjugated nationalities, but by the analysis of the material base of conditions in the East in the second half of the last century. By this analysis, the Social Democrats became convinced that the political disintegration of Turkey would result from its economic-political development in the second half of the nineteenth century, and that the temporary preservation of Turkey would serve the interests of the reactionary diplomacy of Russian absolutism. Here, as in all other questions, Social Democracy was not contrary to the current of objective development, but with it, and, profiting from its conclusions, it defended the interests of European civilization by supporting the national movements within Turkey. It also supported all attempts to renew and reform Turkey from within, however weak the social basis for such a movement may have been."

[The Jay]

Or in other words, nationalism has to cease to be and turn into something else.

Socialism itself went through a large change as well. Why can't nationalism? What Positivist is trying to say is that if we take another definition of nationalism, one without racism or imperialism, is it so bad that we should exclude it at the risk of alienating workers from the cause?

At least I think that is what he is saying. If it is, then I also think that this is a good question.

[Mr. Natural]

Why is it so difficult for some comrades to acknowledge we must engage people where they live and think? This is the necessary starting point.

Nationalism may be reactionary ultimately, but that is how many? most? of the world's people perceive themselves, and national liberation movements against imperialism contain much radical potential.

Revolutionaries need to take advantage of the available openings, and it seems to me that kneejerk dismissals of "nationalism" are paralytic ultra-left dogma, and are themselves conservative.

My red-green best.

[Manic Impressive]

Why is it so difficult for some comrades to acknowledge we must engage people where they live and think? This is the necessary starting point.

Nationalism may be reactionary ultimately, but that is how many? most? of the world's people perceive themselves, and national liberation movements against imperialism contain much radical potential.

Revolutionaries need to take advantage of the available openings, and it seems to me that kneejerk dismissals of "nationalism" are paralytic ultra-left dogma, and are themselves conservative.

My red-green best.
I agree that we need to be actively engaging with workers every chance we have. But what we need to be doing is offering them an alternative and explanations which counter their anti-worker views not bowing to popular opinion. Otherwise where does it end? A lot of workers think capitalism is ok, would you resort to populism and condone capitalism because you want to be in power?

One of the outcomes of a successful revolution will be the destruction of all nations. It cannot be any other way. So to condone nationalism is to lie to the workers about the ultimate goal. You then end up, not with a conscious movement capable of creating a successful revolution but as the head of an unconscious mob. Unconscious by the fact that you haven't told them what they are fighting for. So when you take power you'll have resistance to revolutionary goals from your own movement. As all they were fighting for is freedom from another nation. A freedom which is not a liberation from the bonds of capital but only freedom for a national bourgeois.

This isn't ultra left dogma, this is scientific socialism. Lets keep the insults out of this thread. It's been going so well thus far :)

[The Jay]

I agree that we need to be actively engaging with workers every chance we have. But what we need to be doing is offering them an alternative and explanations which counter their anti-worker views not bowing to popular opinion. Otherwise where does it end? A lot of workers think capitalism is ok, would you resort to populism and condone capitalism because you want to be in power?

I think that you are conflating populism and nationalism, which in most cases is true but it is not true by definition.

Is it inconceivable that there could be a push towards socialism in which a certain group governs themselves and would have to democratically decide to join governments with a neighbor? Can or should that merger be forced?


One of the outcomes of a successful revolution will be the destruction of all nations. It cannot be any other way. So to condone nationalism is to lie to the workers about the ultimate goal. You then end up, not with a conscious movement capable of creating a successful revolution but as the head of an unconscious mob. Unconscious by the fact that you haven't told them what they are fighting for. So when you take power you'll have resistance to revolutionary goals from your own movement. As all they were fighting for is freedom from another nation. A freedom which is not a liberation from the bonds of capital but only freedom for a national bourgeois.

You are making the assumption that the revolution being fought would only be for opposing the rule of an oppressor, but what if it also had socialist goals in the first place: common ownership of the MoP, egalitarian laws, democracy in both politics and economics, the elimination of class, ect? I think that you must first prove that those things are contradictory, because it's been on my mind lately.


Lets keep the insults out of this thread. It's been going so well thus far :)

Agreed, I've been meaning to ask everyone's opinions myself in a healthy discussion.

[Hit The North]

Out of curiosity, which are the "occupied nations" that exist today?

[Manic Impressive]

You are making the assumption that the revolution being fought would only be for opposing the rule of an oppressor, but what if it also had socialist goals in the first place: common ownership of the MoP, egalitarian laws, democracy in both politics and economics, the elimination of class, ect? I think that you must first prove that those things are contradictory, because it's been on my mind lately.
Excuse me for getting to this in the wrong order but I felt this is the important point. It is of course contradictory, communism cannot exist within one nation we know that world revolution is necessary for goods to be supplied according to people's needs. So it's a given that nations must be destroyed in order for this to be achieved. Furthermore a point that should be raised is to what extent nations still exist in the traditional sense and what their function is in an ever more globalized capitalism. I'll try and come back to that later. Perhaps a historical example could be made by comparing this proposition to the Irish independence movement. You might find this article (http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1897/01/socnat.htm)by Connolly interesting. While working with and appealing to nationalists he warns about the dangers of nationalism and the need for socialism. Essentially this is the practical application of Positivist's theoretical ponderings. Well we can see how well that tactic worked by looking at Ireland today. We could look at any of the numerous national liberation movements that flew the red flag. Whether you conceive that they created a kind of socialism or not you cannot deny that all have failed miserably and degenerated into dictatorial capitalist regimes. So I would say that it cannot work in relation to actually creating a communist society, which must include the abolition of nations and also in the actual practical implementation of this tactic as a revolutionary strategy which actually leads to communism.

Can we please stop banging our heads against the proverbial brick wall? It's beginning to hurt!



I think that you are conflating populism and nationalism, which in most cases is true but it is not true by definition.

Is it inconceivable that there could be a push towards socialism in which a certain group governs themselves and would have to democratically decide to join governments with a neighbor? Can or should that merger be forced?
I'm saying that appealing to nationalism is playing to popular opinion. Popular opinion which runs contrary to Marxist theory. The point is to change people's minds and to give them the truth about how they can emancipate themselves. Not to change theory to suit political constructs which are manifestations of bourgeois society.

Socialists should be in constant conflict with all others on the battlefield of ideas to win the word "we". Workers are taught from cradle to grave that they are We the English or We the Americans or We the Iraqis and everyone else is They. They the outsiders, They the uncivilized, They the oppressors . To make communism a reality we must win the battle of ideas for the only real We and They that exist. That is we the working class who have the same conditions and the same enemy and They the capitalists, They the exploiters, They the parasites. When workers identify themselves primarily according to their common interest rather than by nationality, race or culture. Then revolution will be around the corner.

[Positivist]

could you expand on this a bit please

National identity does not necessarily pertain to fixed physical characterisitics as racism does, and broadly refers to all of the people who inhabit a specific landmass. A lot of the time nationalism does develop to be racist especially if national identity is based on the amount of time each group pf people has inhabited the venerated landmass.

Also for clarification, I am not advocating primarily nationalist rhetoric, or even secondary nationalist rhetoric, but more something along the lines of national friendly rhetoric. Also this national identity should be based on all participating people living on a certain landmass.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Also this national identity should be based on all participating people living on a certain landmass.

Okay, but how do you divide this landmass or landmasses in any logical way? There is, from a class perspective, absolutely no logical or practical reasons for nations, there are only workers on one landmass, earth.

[Mr. Natural]

Manic Impressive, I didn't intend "ultra-left dogma" as an insult but as a "scientific" description of some common attitudes on the left. Thus I find it difficult to discuss topics such as population, class, nationalism, etc., with many leftists as they have what I see as a rigid, dogmatic, pure, ultra-left position on the matter. Water that is too pure has no fish, and the left needs to go fishing for some new approaches to our newly globalized times and people/workers.

I don't know that we have any major differences on the topic of nationalism. Americans are intensely nationalistic; I encounter waving flags wherever I go. So I would use this nationalism to discuss the capture of the US by global capitalism. The USA and its government and people have become global capitalism's economic, political, and military bludgeon, and are being bludgeoned in turn. This is a big potential opening for generating popular radical awareness and action.

As for national liberation movements, once the root evil is understood as imperialism and not the US or France or Britain, it seems there would be lots of room to take campaigns from an anti-Western level to anti-capitalist awareness.

I completely agree that insults should be left out of Revleft discussions. My "scientific" remark was a bit sharp, though, and I apologize for any unintended affront.

My red-green best.

[The Jay]

Excuse me for getting to this in the wrong order but I felt this is the important point. It is of course contradictory, communism cannot exist within one nation we know that world revolution is necessary for goods to be supplied according to people's needs.


Even with an area with plenty of arable land and resources per capita? That sounds a little funny to me. Certainly it would be easier - much much easier - if the entire globe were to adopt Socialism, but couldn't a sufficiently resource and land-rich area be able to pull it off? Could South America not do it alone? It wouldn't make sense that they couldn't produce and distribute food with all that land and resources. The real argument that you could make is if it could survive either a cold or hot war with the rest of the globe.

If you were to make that argument then that would be an indictment of the effectiveness of the armed forces and not of what you meant.



So it's a given that nations must be destroyed in order for this to be achieved.I think that, given the definition in the OP, you are conflating a bourgeois nation-state with the general cultural characteristics of a geographical area. As such, your statement does not follow necessarily and must be proved through other means.


Furthermore a point that should be raised is to what extent nations still exist in the traditional sense and what their function is in an ever more globalized capitalism. I'll try and come back to that later. Perhaps a historical example could be made by comparing this proposition to the Irish independence movement. You might find this article (http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1897/01/socnat.htm)by Connolly interesting.I've read that before. It's part of why I said that I echo the question of the OP. I'll quote from that very article by James Connolly, "Nationalism without Socialism – without a reorganisation of society on the basis of a broader and more developed form of that common property which underlay the social structure of Ancient Erin - is only national recreancy."

Here he says that without Socialism it is reactionary and a detriment to the people. He implies that with Socialism the opposite is true.


While working with and appealing to nationalists he warns about the dangers of nationalism and the need for socialism. Essentially this is the practical application of Positivist's theoretical ponderings.Connolly was a nationalist and didn't just try to appeal to them, but otherwise you are correct. :thumbup:


Well we can see how well that tactic worked by looking at Ireland today. We could look at any of the numerous national liberation movements that flew the red flag. Whether you conceive that they created a kind of socialism or not you cannot deny that all have failed miserably and degenerated into dictatorial capitalist regimes. So I would say that it cannot work in relation to actually creating a communist society, which must include the abolition of nations and also in the actual practical implementation of this tactic as a revolutionary strategy which actually leads to communism.Those are basically the same arguments that are used against Communism. "Communism doesn't work, show me where it did look at Russia." I'm not trying to be rude or tick you off but that's how it is sounding. I would say that those experiments devolved into dictatorial capitalist regimes because of their authoritarian structure. I find fault in the development of bureaucracy as opposed to maintaining a geographical area.



I'm saying that appealing to nationalism is playing to popular opinion. Popular opinion which runs contrary to Marxist theory. The point is to change people's minds and to give them the truth about how they can emancipate themselves. Not to change theory to suit political constructs which are manifestations of bourgeois society.Again, I think that you are conflating bourgeois nation-states with a nation that is defined as the cultural preferences within a geographical area.

Could you show me a quote from Marx in which he states that cultural preferences should be: 1) chastised and 2) destroyed? Quotes in which he was referring to bourgeois nation-states do not count since that would be using the wrong definition and would be irrelevant in this discussion, unless you propose that the two definitions are actually the same. If that is the case then you must prove that as well.


Socialists should be in constant conflict with all others on the battlefield of ideas to win the word "we". Workers are taught from cradle to grave that they are We the English or We the Americans or We the Iraqis and everyone else is They. They the outsiders, They the uncivilized, They the oppressors . To make communism a reality we must win the battle of ideas for the only real We and They that exist. That is we the working class who have the same conditions and the same enemy and They the capitalists, They the exploiters, They the parasites.I agree with this. :D


When workers identify themselves primarily according to their common interest rather than by nationality, race or culture. Then revolution will be around the corner.World revolution would be, absolutely. We aren't talking about that though. We are talking if it is possible to have a revolution and whether or not it would be more effective if we did not alienate people with nationalist sentiments, since in this context nationalist sentiments merely means a sentimentality towards the culture that one is a part of.

I thought this deserved a decent post. What do you think?

[Leo]

This did not mean she opposed all struggles for self determination, as you claim. Luxemburg supported, contrary to Marx and Engels decades earlier, the South Slavs against Turkey. It was the content of the movement, the material conditions, etc. which need be judged.Them too, but more importantly it was the period. Luxemburg was against supporting national movements as a rule only in the period of imperialism. As the quotes I've provided demonstrate.

[Positivist]

Okay, but how do you divide this landmass or landmasses in any logical way? There is, from a class perspective, absolutely no logical or practical reasons for nations, there are only workers on one landmass, earth.

In reality but not ingrained into the minds of many workers which is important. Much, perhaps the majority of the world primarily identifies nationally or pan-nationally and lightly incorporating this into the anti-imperialist rheoric of revolutionary struggles waged in the periphery could attract greater support to socialist organizations.

[Positivist]

Out of curiosity, which are the "occupied nations" that exist today?

Iraq and Afghanistan are the primary examples but NATO maintains a firm security presence throughout most of the periphery, and even throughout a great degree of the core, but in context I was specifically referencing the former due to the greater degree of militarization in these regions.

[Manic Impressive]

Even with an area with plenty of arable land and resources per capita? That sounds a little funny to me. Certainly it would be easier - much much easier - if the entire globe were to adopt Socialism, but couldn't a sufficiently resource and land-rich area be able to pull it off? Could South America not do it alone? It wouldn't make sense that they couldn't produce and distribute food with all that land and resources. The real argument that you could make is if it could survive either a cold or hot war with the rest of the globe.

If you were to make that argument then that would be an indictment of the effectiveness of the armed forces and not of what you meant.
Or instead of South America why not Russia. It's probably a similar area size. So why not socialism in one country?

Engels says

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries"The point is that capitalism has created a world where each country's economy is completely dependent on every other. You cannot simply remove a large section of the world market without sending the rest of it into free fall. Nor can you expect to be able to supply people on the basis of "from each according to their needs" without engaging in some form of mercantile production and trade with capitalist states. This would then not be communism. Furthermore it seems highly unlikely that this scenario would come about in the first place. With all economies so closely linked it follows that any drop in material conditions will effect all parts of the world simultaneously. This being the main factor precipitating the spread of genuine class consciousness. So if we hold that a class conscious majority is required for revolution it makes sense that this consciousness would not be confined to national, regional or cultural borders.


I think that, given the definition in the OP, you are conflating a bourgeois nation-state with the general cultural characteristics of a geographical area. As such, your statement does not follow necessarily and must be proved through other means.
No I think you are working under the assumption that there is a form of positive nationalism. Re-reading the OP again. There's a few more points I'd make. What is indigenous Iraqi culture? What are indigenous people in a historical context? And in such a historical context where do we start measuring indigenousness? (not a word I know :p) I highly doubt that there's been a surge in Sumerian revivalism or how that would be progressive. I mean the areas gone through several significant cultural changes resulting from massive migrations Persian, Arab, Turkic and Mongol being the big ones. It's ridiculous to claim that there is an indigenous Iraqi culture. Being a cultural patriot is highly divisive it is not a materialist way of analyzing society. So no I don't see any definition in the OP which is markedly different.


I've read that before. It's part of why I said that I echo the question of the OP. I'll quote from that very article by James Connolly, "Nationalism without Socialism – without a reorganisation of society on the basis of a broader and more developed form of that common property which underlay the social structure of Ancient Erin - is only national recreancy."

Here he says that without Socialism it is reactionary and a detriment to the people. He implies that with Socialism the opposite is true.

Connolly was a nationalist and didn't just try to appeal to them, but otherwise you are correct. :thumbup:
It's interesting that I used Connolly as an example of why it wouldn't work as Positivist mentioned him as the inspiration and I had forgotten that he had. Aye he says that nationalism with socialism can work and he's wrong. I mean we have plenty of historical examples of attempts at combining the two from the USSR and it's satellite states to China to Vietnam to Cambodia to the African republics and Cuba and South American states. All have nationalism all allegedly attempted socialism and all succumbed to capitalism with a strong nationalist sentiment. Now I'm not saying that they failed just because of nationalism, that would be silly. But I think we can conclude that it doesn't help.


Those are basically the same arguments that are used against Communism. "Communism doesn't work, show me where it did look at Russia." I'm not trying to be rude or tick you off but that's how it is sounding. I would say that those experiments devolved into dictatorial capitalist regimes because of their authoritarian structure. I find fault in the development of bureaucracy as opposed to maintaining a geographical area.
I don't think they are the same. And I reject that the only problem was authority, however, organizational methods are clearly part of the problem. Although I think you need to go back a step and see why authority was needed to coerce an unwilling proletariat and to ask why the proletariat were unwilling.


I'm saying that appealing to nationalism is playing to popular opinion. Popular opinion which runs contrary to Marxist theory. The point is to change people's minds and to give them the truth about how they can emancipate themselves. Not to change theory to suit political constructs which are manifestations of bourgeois society.


Again, I think that you are conflating bourgeois nation-states with a nation that is defined as the cultural preferences within a geographical area.

Could you show me a quote from Marx in which he states that cultural preferences should be: 1) chastised and 2) destroyed? Quotes in which he was referring to bourgeois nation-states do not count since that would be using the wrong definition and would be irrelevant in this discussion, unless you propose that the two definitions are actually the same. If that is the case then you must prove that as well.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Nationalism is the result of the bourgeois revolution. I've written quite a bit on culture in the past and never have I said that culture should be chastised or destroyed. Culture is a dynamic thing which is in constant flux absorbing positives and allowing superfluous parts to fall out of common usage, unless artificially restricted. Cultures are only unique because of people being separated, by geography and by borders. This is not a positive thing if our goal is to unite humanity, surely you can see that accentuating differences in culture is not conducive to that goal?


I agree with this. :D
Good I'm glad :D but what I'm saying is, it's not reactionary to have a culture or even to like that culture but identifying with either your culture or nationality instead of your class or taking precedence over identifying with your class is not revolutionary.


World revolution would be, absolutely. We aren't talking about that though. We are talking if it is possible to have a revolution and whether or not it would be more effective if we did not alienate people with nationalist sentiments, since in this context nationalist sentiments merely means a sentimentality towards the culture that one is a part of.
Well what kind of revolution are you talking about? A simple changing of the guard? It's certainly possible to have a capitalist revolution with one national bourgeois replacing another. But unfortunately what works for them does not work for us.


I thought this deserved a decent post. What do you think?
Yeah good post sorry the reply took so long. I've been busy.