leftist optimism is so depressing

[ed miliband]

sawant winning a city council seat, russell brand's conspiracy theory-laden rant, verso releasing a book about a tiny village in spain because it's "not capitalist"; looking for meaning, a sense of victory or potential, or a sign that the left isn't utterly irrelevant and finding it in the smallest, most trivial things.

it's not those of us who are critical towards these things who are trapped, stuck, not moving forward. it's you lot who cling to them, invest in them some sense of profound meaning. and it's really depressing, but you can't see it.

i don't want to harken back to times long gone that will never be repeated, but seriously, when one considers the great moments of the class struggle and then looks at what those who consider themselves part of its lineage are getting excited about, it's grim.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

That is exactly what I feel when I look at that dreadful bloody thread. Makes me lose all hope.

[Comrade Jacob]

Yeah, we suck.

[bcbm]

'there is no hope, is that why i am so optimistic?'

[The Feral Underclass]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2194/2395952969_7f4c2201c5.jpg

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

it was better when?

1917? When it was only the Russian Revolution that punctuated a world war where millions of workers were slaughtered? Do you think people were feeling optimistic then?

I don't understand your argument really. Yeah, it's depressing we live in a capitalist world. It doesn't help to keep repeating how depressing that is all th etime.

[Hit The North]

Yeah, stop whinging, you miserable bugger.

[ed miliband]

it was better when?

1917? When it was only the Russian Revolution that punctuated a world war where millions of workers were slaughtered? Do you think people were feeling optimistic then?

I don't understand your argument really. Yeah, it's depressing we live in a capitalist world. It doesn't help to keep repeating how depressing that is all th etime.

lol, where do i say it was better? you're intelligent, you surely can't be misunderstanding me as much as you appear to be.

it's not rocket science: people getting excited about sawant or brand or marinaleda says a huge amount about the isolation, intellectual and material poverty, and overall hopelessness of leftism.

[ed miliband]

Yeah, stop whinging, you miserable bugger.

oh, i'm not miserable. i'd be miserable if i invested hope in every fad only to be disappointed each time.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

l

it's not rocket science: people getting excited about sawant or brand or marinaleda says a huge amount about the isolation, intellectual and material poverty, and overall hopelessness of leftism.

I don't think anybody denies this. But if we regard these things as too small to get excited about, then surely logic dictates that there was a point, historically, where there were better things to get excited about.

I was making the point that I don't think the state of 'the left' should be taken as a barometer of our own personal optimism for our class. In fact, i'd say that the isolation and hopelessness of leftism and its academic hangers-on is necessary and should be encouraged - we know now that socialism isn't going to be achieved through the bankrupt ideologies of the 20th century, so their death is really necessary in accelerating the move towards strategies that can actually be implemented to achieve our goals.

I dunno, maybe i'm just feeling positive this weekend.

[ed miliband]

I don't think anybody denies this. But if we regard these things as too small to get excited about, then surely logic dictates that there was a point, historically, where there were better things to get excited about.

I was making the point that I don't think the state of 'the left' should be taken as a barometer of our own personal optimism for our class. In fact, i'd say that the isolation and hopelessness of leftism and its academic hangers-on is necessary and should be encouraged - we know now that socialism isn't going to be achieved through the bankrupt ideologies of the 20th century, so their death is really necessary in accelerating the move towards strategies that can actually be implemented to achieve our goals.

I dunno, maybe i'm just feeling positive this weekend.

then... what are you arguing about with me? because that's my point, or a part of it at least, and i think that's pretty clear, 'cos other people have got it.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think anybody denies this.

That's evidently not true. Lots of people deny it. They create political positions in which to do so.

[#FF0000]

i don't want to harken back to times long gone that will never be repeated, but seriously, when one considers the great moments of the class struggle and then looks at what those who consider themselves part of its lineage are getting excited about, it's grim.

yeah it is but at the same time you can't have those "great moments of class struggle" without building a movement, which means going for a lot of small and insignificant victories.

It's dumb when people make more of things when they should but tbh what I've found more depressing personally is working shitty temp warehouse jobs in the semirural wasteland of my hometown and then reading a bunch of grad school leftists from wealthy families make fun of other grad school leftists from wealthy families while also saying "yeah there is actually p much nothing u can do lol" and wallow in total ineffectiveness lmao

[ed miliband]

yeah it is but at the same time you can't have those "great moments of class struggle" without building a movement, which means going for a lot of small and insignificant victories.

yeah, of course. but the things i mentioned in the original post aren't the sort of "small and insignificant victories" that build a movement. they're just small and insignificant. that's it.


It's dumb when people make more of things when they should but tbh what I've found more depressing personally is working shitty temp warehouse jobs in the semirural wasteland of my hometown and then reading a bunch of grad school leftists from wealthy families make fun of other grad school leftists from wealthy families while also saying "yeah there is actually p much nothing u can do lol" and wallow in total ineffectiveness lmao

yeah but i'm not a wealthy "grad school leftist". and you can find plenty of wealthy grad school leftists over on jacobin or wherever arguing that like, sawant will turn the city of seattle red. this just strikes me as an underhand way of making a prolier-than-thou argument, no offence.

[Comrade Jacob]

Well I guess leftist optimism is better than leftist pessimism...right?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

What depresses me is folding fucking t-shirts all day at my minimum wage job, finding out I've not got enough money to afford meat for dinner, coming back to read some news about minor successes for radical movements and then being bombarded with 'b-b-but it's not real revolution'. No shit, Sherlock.

[ed miliband]

What depresses me is folding fucking t-shirts all day at my minimum wage job, finding out I've not got enough money to afford meat for dinner, coming back to read some news about minor successes for radical movements and then being bombarded with 'b-b-but it's not real revolution'. No shit, Sherlock.

sorry to hear that you work a shit job, but in what way does sawant's victory in seattle, or russell brand's rant, improve your material position? it doesn't.

and where do i argue "b-b-but it's not real revolution". again... missing the point.

[#FF0000]

yeah, of course. but the things i mentioned in the original post aren't the sort of "small and insignificant victories" that build a movement. they're just small and insignificant. that's it.

Yeah I agree with you for the most part, but I can understand people being interested in the Sawant thing. I still don't know how to feel about it tbh mainly because I know SAlt is too stupid and fundamentally wrong about everything to do anything beyond this campaign.


yeah but i'm not a wealthy "grad school leftist".

oh, yeah I know that ain't you. I didn't mean to imply that!


and you can find plenty of wealthy grad school leftists over on jacobin or wherever arguing that like, sawant will turn the city of seattle red.

Yeah that's certainly true. I think they are just as out of touch as any other variety of grad school leftist.

[ed miliband]

oh, yeah I know that ain't you. I didn't mean to imply that!

yea, i know you didn't man, but i thought other people would pick up on your line of argument to be all like 'yeah, you're only saying this because you can afford to say it' as a counter-argument to the op.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

then... what are you arguing about with me? because that's my point, or a part of it at least, and i think that's pretty clear, 'cos other people have got it.

cos you're coming across as negative towards anything that is 'leftist by association'. I don't really associate with these cold war marxist-leninist notions of leftism as you know, but I don't think it's particularly healthy to almost seem to enjoy leftist failures, as you seem to.

Tbh I do agree with a lot of what you say, just the way you say it comes across a bit...mocking maybe? I dunno if that's the right word, it's a saturday night and my brain's not engaged, so don't take it as me having a go because you know I don't mean anything particularly personal. I just think we need to steer a course between burying marxism-leninism on the one hand, and not becoming self-defeatingly pessimistic on the other hand. We can win.

[Ele'ill]

but I don't think it's particularly healthy to almost seem to enjoy leftist failures

when the movements or whatever are so predictably shit from the beginning it is hard not to be at least slightly amused when they turn out to be obviously shit and everything falls apart it is like a thing in itself

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Having hope is not the same as optimism.
Looking on the bright side is not the same as letting oneself be blindsided.

I don't know anybody on the left who thinks, "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds."

Despair is bad strategy. Hope can be armed.

Fuck Nihilist Communism.

I'll abandon everything Marxist except revolutionary theory - ie the subjective factor.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

cry about it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Despair is bad strategy. Hope can be armed.

Yawn.

[Ele'ill]

Having hope is not the same as optimism.

yeah it kind of is


Looking on the bright side is not the same as letting oneself be blindsided.looking on the bright side of being blindsided is being blindsided


I don't know anybody on the left who thinks, "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds."me either


Despair is bad strategy. Hope can be armed.so can despair


Fuck Nihilist Communism.where did this come from?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Yawn.

Yawn all you want, it makes sense.

Self-despair about phantasmal blobs people like to label as 'the left' is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. Especially on an English/Dutch dominated internet forum.

[Alexios]

Fuck Nihilist Communism.

"It seems as nice as pie to advocate the transmission of revolutionary ideas to workers in struggle so that they have a wider perspective on the world and are therefore more prepared to engage with society at a higher level, but when you get to the nuts and bolts of it, the actual details of how it should be done, then there are immediate problems: the most glaring of which is that in this transmission of ideas and goals the pro-revolutionary ‘party’ also imports into the very heart of the revolutionary project a reproduction of the capitalist social relation: workers organised by revolutionary experts. We see this missionary work, this hierarchical relation, replicated in everything from the support for rebellion in Chiapas to the handing out of leaflets by activists visiting picket lines. We see it in the vague pronouncements which usually appear at the end of such leaflets: where calls are made to the working class, or it is stated that some kind of leap of intellectual faith and working class solidarity (consciousness) is needed before capitalism can be threatened: “When will you workers wake up?” We see it also in the cosy social and political world that the ‘revolutionary experts’ and activists have built for themselves, where they can create their own importance through their political activism"

[The Feral Underclass]

yawn all you want, it makes sense.

Self-despair about phantasmal blobs people like to label as 'the left' is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. Especially on an english/dutch dominated internet forum.

arm my hope!

[#FF0000]

"It seems as nice as pie to advocate the transmission of revolutionary ideas to workers in struggle so that they have a wider perspective on the world and are therefore more prepared to engage with society at a higher level, but when you get to the nuts and bolts of it, the actual details of how it should be done, then there are immediate problems: the most glaring of which is that in this transmission of ideas and goals the pro-revolutionary ‘party’ also imports into the very heart of the revolutionary project a reproduction of the capitalist social relation: workers organised by revolutionary experts. We see this missionary work, this hierarchical relation, replicated in everything from the support for rebellion in Chiapas to the handing out of leaflets by activists visiting picket lines. We see it in the vague pronouncements which usually appear at the end of such leaflets: where calls are made to the working class, or it is stated that some kind of leap of intellectual faith and working class solidarity (consciousness) is needed before capitalism can be threatened: “When will you workers wake up?” We see it also in the cosy social and political world that the ‘revolutionary experts’ and activists have built for themselves, where they can create their own importance through their political activism"

yo that's cool and all but totally presupposes that there can never be a party in which the rank and file have any voice or control which isn't necessarily true. cool criticism of the leninist party tho

[o well this is ok I guess]

i always figured everyone on this forum has a drinking problem
but i mean if you can't get excited about something you'll probably drink yourself to death. A riot or an action against a boss might not bring down the state or capitalism or whatever, but they're pretty fun in their own right, yeah?
Dunno if anyone could call campaigning for Sawant fun though. That's straight masochism.
That's what's really depressing, leftists exaggerating what they do.

[hatzel]

i always figured everyone on this forum has a drinking problem

That's what's really depressing, leftists exaggerating what they do.

In reality everyone on this forum has half a shandy on a Saturday evening and then calls it a night.

[ed miliband]

Having hope is not the same as optimism.
Looking on the bright side is not the same as letting oneself be blindsided.

I don't know anybody on the left who thinks, "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds."

Despair is bad strategy. Hope can be armed.

Fuck Nihilist Communism.

I'll abandon everything Marxist except revolutionary theory - ie the subjective factor.

this is why you jump around from decent ultraleftism to cheerleading any random nationalist shit you can find. activist mentality. as long as they're doing something!!!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

part of the problem in this thread is that there doesn't seem to be any distinction between 'leftism' and the working class.

Should we support the accelerated implosion of existing leftist sects? Sure. But what about when the 'left' actually does win victories that do benefit the working class, either in the short- or the long-term? I think that's more of a grey area and, whilst people (i.e. TAT) have been right to ask what the long-term strategy behind things like Sawant's election is and similar questions, we should at least be open to the possibility that it's a good, rather than a bad, thing that we can still win small victories occasionally.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

this is why you jump around from decent ultraleftism to supporting any random nationalist shit. activist mentality. as long as they're doing something!!!

1. Living in a colonial settler state and supporting the anti-colonial struggles of indigenous peoples isn't "random nationalist shit". Perhaps if you had any real sense of the context you'd understand, instead of talking shit while the Canadian government continues to carry out de facto genocide. If you wanna support the white supremacist mass murder of indigenous peoples have the courage to say it outright, instead of brushing their fight for survival aside as "random nationalist shit". On the other hand, assuming that this isn't the case, I suggest you take a serious look at the history of my country, and the ongoing struggles taking place here.

2. If you want to brand anyone who does anything an "activist" in the pejorative sense, fine, be my guest. I'd sooner be engaged with ongoing struggles and taking some joy in little victories, while learning from the limits, than the alternative. In fact, I'd argue that the strategy of "talk shit from the sidelines" by and large leads to extremely poor theory, rife with dogmatism. My own "jump[ing] around" is a product of theory that has developed dialectically out of practice - and I'm not ashamed at all that I can't find a single dead dude who shares my particular perspectives.

[Per Levy]

1. Living in a colonial settler state and supporting the anti-colonial struggles of indigenous peoples isn't "random nationalist shit". Perhaps if you had any real sense of the context you'd understand, instead of talking shit while the Canadian government continues to carry out de facto genocide. If you wanna support the white supremacist mass murder of indigenous peoples have the courage to say it outright, instead of brushing their fight for survival aside as "random nationalist shit".

strawmanning it up, "if you dont see things my way you support genocide".


2. If you want to brand anyone who does anything an "activist" in the pejorative sense, fine, be my guest. I'd sooner be engaged with ongoing struggles and taking some joy in little victories than in a mutually unpleasant cock-size competition with holier-than-thou prolier-than-thou jerks whose politics are premised not on their daily activity, but on the very important ideas they've developed by watching others fail and talking shit from the comfort of their armchairs.

while you do the same thing you criticize, you doing something is your "i do more than you therefore im better" atttiude while also sitting in an armchair. oh the irony.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

strawmanning it up, "if you dont see things my way you support genocide".

while you do the same thing you criticize, you doing something is your "i do more than you therefore im better" atttiude while also sitting in an armchair. oh the irony.

1. Please note my, "Oops, I was totally flaming," edits, made after calming my initial-anger. But, uh, yeah, in a real on-the-ground way, if you want to go to Native people in Canada and say, "Fuck your nationalism! What's this two-row wampum bullshit? Join The Working Class(TM)!" you're demanding they disarm their struggle for survival. I feel no qualms about what I've said, especially when the alternative presented is "Colonized peoples struggles are 'random' and not worth supporting."

2. Buddy, you can make lots of critiques of me - I'm not perfect. "Activist" is far more apt than "armchair", however.

[Art Vandelay]

1. Please note my, "Oops, I was totally flaming," edits, made after calming my initial-anger. But, uh, yeah, in a real on-the-ground way, if you want to go to Native people in Canada and say, "Fuck your nationalism! What's this two-row wampum bullshit? Join The Working Class(TM)[SIZE=2]!" you're demanding they disarm their struggle for survival. I feel no qualms about what I've said, especially when the alternative presented is "Colonized peoples struggles are 'random' and not worth supporting."

Its just ignorance. Anyone who has grown up here would be able to see that as clear as day. I'd be interested if anyone could give a brief rundown of the history of indigenous in Canada, there continued treatment and still flippantly dismiss it as defacto nationalist shit. Either that or I'd be interested in them spending even a weekend on a reserve, which is like walking into a third world country in alot of places here and not come out of it supporting their self determination.

[Crabbensmasher]

Yeah, really I can see revolutionary leftism being a more optimistic affair around the turn of the 20th century.
But then after that, you have cold-war era shittery socialism, which, at least in my opinion, derailed the whole movement. We're just recovering from that.

So really then, what do we have to compare to? There's a major obstacle removed from our field of sight. That's one reason to be optimistic. Can you imagine trying to forward our ideas during the cold war?
Of course, we're still not at all tabula rasa, but younger generations raised outside of the cold war era are able to see our movement in genuine honesty. Plus, they're/we're operating on a completely different mindset, like it or not. We see the world from a different perspective; national borders mean less, racial, gender divides mean less. We actually acknowledge there are problems in this world. Don't get me wrong, of course it's FAR from perfect, but I think this generation is completely different from the preceding ones, and more optimistically open to our ideas. Our ideas can actually be viewed from a more rational, balanced perspective, which is a rare breath of fresh air.

So please, give us twenty years, see what happens.

But then again, I'm a stupid white kid sitting on a swivel chair in a 1st world country, so what do I know? Take what you want from it though.

[Alexios]

Its just ignorance. Anyone who has grown up here would be able to see that as clear as day. I'd be interested if anyone could give a brief rundown of the history of indigenous in Canada, there continued treatment and still flippantly dismiss it as defacto nationalist shit. Either that or I'd be interested in them spending even a weekend on a reserve, which is like walking into a third world country in alot of places here and not come out of it supporting their self determination.

nah, you can support indigenous struggles without glorifying warrior cultures and arguing 4 the formation of new nation states. no one denies that there's a huge disparity between the way the indigenous are treated and the way europeans are, but cheering on blatant nationalism isn't going to win any victories.

[The Feral Underclass]

if you want to go to Native people in Canada and say, "Fuck your nationalism!

Are you a Native people in Canada? Because I'm pretty sure ed's criticism was aimed at you, not the entire Native population of Canada.

[The Feral Underclass]

Its just ignorance. Anyone who has grown up here would be able to see that as clear as day. I'd be interested if anyone could give a brief rundown of the history of indigenous in Canada, there continued treatment and still flippantly dismiss it as defacto nationalist shit. Either that or I'd be interested in them spending even a weekend on a reserve, which is like walking into a third world country in alot of places here and not come out of it supporting their self determination.

This is just emotionalism and has no place in revolutionary communist analysis.

I don't think any one here is criticising the desire of Native Canadians to have a proper standard of living, but there is a perfectly reasonable criticism to be made against nationalistic sentiments and it should be made. And if you're not making that criticism while also supporting any worker who is being exploited and oppressed then you are doing it wrong.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

"It seems as nice as pie to advocate the transmission of revolutionary ideas to workers in struggle so that they have a wider perspective on the world and are therefore more prepared to engage with society at a higher level, but when you get to the nuts and bolts of it, the actual details of how it should be done, then there are immediate problems: the most glaring of which is that in this transmission of ideas and goals the pro-revolutionary ‘party’ also imports into the very heart of the revolutionary project a reproduction of the capitalist social relation: workers organised by revolutionary experts. We see this missionary work, this hierarchical relation, replicated in everything from the support for rebellion in Chiapas to the handing out of leaflets by activists visiting picket lines. We see it in the vague pronouncements which usually appear at the end of such leaflets: where calls are made to the working class, or it is stated that some kind of leap of intellectual faith and working class solidarity (consciousness) is needed before capitalism can be threatened: “When will you workers wake up?” We see it also in the cosy social and political world that the ‘revolutionary experts’ and activists have built for themselves, where they can create their own importance through their political activism"

See, I think this seems rooted a grasp of consciousness which places it outside of class and history, rather than emerging from the collective experience of the class. It posits class militants as fundamentally outside of the class, rather than shaped by it. While the "cozy world of revolutionary experts" exists, and certainly in the imperial center from where M. Dupont make their trite generalizations, I think it's a serious mistake to project one's own failings the world over (reflecting, perhaps, the consciousness and impotence of the withering white European labour aristocracy?). The consequence of this perspective, of course, is a do-nothing purism, dogmatic rejection of struggles that serve to problemetize dated Marxian categories, etc. If there is an equally theoretically bankrupt flip-side to the Activist-Movementist Coin, this is surely it. They orient themselves vis-a-vis the same red herrings, producing different but equally opportunist conclusions. Either tailism or a sad sub-tailism dressed up as critique.
Are you a Native people in Canada? Because I'm pretty sure ed's criticism was aimed at you, not the entire Native population of Canada.

Oh, really? So, he in fact supports the struggles of Indigenous Nations, while opposing my support of those struggles? That sounds pretty incoherent. No, I'm pretty damn sure he was deriding the struggles in question. He's welcome to correct me, and come out in solidarity with peoples resisting genocide, if he is in fact in solidarity with them.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh, really? So, he in fact supports the struggles of Indigenous Nations, while opposing my support of those struggles? That sounds pretty incoherent. No, I'm pretty damn sure he was deriding the struggles in question. He's welcome to correct me, and come out in solidarity with peoples resisting genocide if he is in fact in solidarity with them.

Criticising nationalism is not the same as not supporting people who are resisting genocide. That is ridiculous.

You seem to be conflating two things. Is the struggle to create an Indigenous Nation the same thing as resisting genocide?

I'm fairly certain it is possible to support indigenous people against attacks from the state, while fighting to improve their lives and at the same time critiquing the nationalist idea of establishing an indigenous nation.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Criticising nationalism is not the same as not supporting people who are resisting genocide. That is ridiculous.

You seem to be conflating two things. Is the struggle to create an Indigenous Nation the same thing as resisting genocide?

I'm fairly certain it is possible to support indigenous people against attacks from the state, while fighting to improve their lives and at the same time critiquing the nationalist idea of establishing an indigenous nation.

Indigenous nations exist, and are not being "created" - they are struggling for their autonomy, and against their destruction. These national struggles are fundamentally inseparable from resisting genocide since the genocide is premised on their national destruction, and integration into settler-colonial society as non-nations, rather on than the "genetic" destruction of native people (the "racial" component of indigenous nations being, in fact, a creation of settler juridico-political power, rather than the basis of their historical constitution).

The project of "improving their lives" while destroying their nations is precisely central to the colonial project, and re-articulating this as "Kill the Indian, save the worker," doesn't make it any less vile.

[The Feral Underclass]

Indigenous nations exist, and are not being "created" - they are struggling for their autonomy, and against their destruction. These national struggles are fundamentally inseparable from resisting genocide since the genocide is premised on their national destruction, and integration into settler-colonial society as non-nations, rather on than the "genetic" destruction of native people (the "racial" component of indigenous nations being, in fact, a creation of settler juridico-political power, rather than the basis of their historical constitution).

That's just a nationalist way of framing the issues. If you frame it as a national struggle, then that is what it is. And I simply don't accept that you cannot fight alongside indigenous people to protect them from assault from the state while critiquing the idea of nationalism from a class perspective.

[ed miliband]

yeah, i think tat has covered a lot of what i'd say, main point i'd like to echo being:


And I simply don't accept that you cannot fight alongside indigenous people to protect them from assault from the state while critiquing the idea of nationalism from a class perspective.

i think that's pretty obviously what communists should be doing, avoiding the 'emotionalism' which tat identified.

i want to say however, i didn't have your position on indigenous struggles in canada in mind when i posted that - lets not pretend you only support nationalism in that case. personally i seem to remember you quizzing up an irish user about why they didn't support irish republicanism, whether it meant they thought the irish should roll over and accept british colonialism. as the child of irish immigrants, i have a very low tolerance for north americans making pronouncements on the ira or whatever, or basically telling irish people who take a good internationalist line that they're wrong and they should actually think and do this. fuck that.

[Art Vandelay]

Wait so is the argument being put forth, that Indian nations do not exist? Cause that's some pretty ignorant bullshit.

[Creative Destruction]

lol. First Nations and American Indian struggles are, by definition, nationalist struggles since they are struggling for the preservation of their own nations. you cannot be "anti-nationalist" in this sense and also support the struggles of indigenous people and cultures. it's a diametric opposition. there could be an argument made for that -- you're an anarchist or a communist who absolutely opposes nationalism, so you don't think the concept of American Indian nations is a "valid" one, but then you run the risk of not respecting their right to self-determination.

to up and call the support for the Indian struggle though "emotionalism" is absolutely fucking ridiculous. if that's "emotionalism," then the working class struggle is rooted in the worst kind of "emotionalism".

[Remus Bleys]

Wait so is the argument being put forth, that Indian nations do not exist? Cause that's some pretty ignorant bullshit.
Nations do not exist. That's pretty clear Communism 101.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

i want to say however, i didn't have your position on indigenous struggles in canada in mind when i posted that - lets not pretend you only support nationalism in that case. personally i seem to remember you quizzing up an irish user about why they didn't support irish republicanism, whether it meant they thought the irish should roll over and accept british colonialism. as the child of irish immigrants, i have a very low tolerance for north americans making pronouncements on the ira or whatever, or basically telling irish people who take a good internationalist line that they're wrong and they should actually think and do this. fuck that.

This was the post in question:


Is it your feeling that the British sovereignty in Northern Ireland is acceptable, or, at least, doesn't have a particular colonial character makes it worse than, say, unity with the Republic?

Sincere question - I'm not trying to bait you.

Really, I would appreciate if you took it at face value. It's a situation which, though I do still have family living in Ireland*, I don't understand the on-the-ground intricacies of. I hardly think it's fair to construe this as a "[pronouncement] on the IRA".

*Interestingly, my family in Ireland includes both Catholics, and the decedents of the tiny, tiny community of Irish Quakers.

[Creative Destruction]

Nations do not exist. That's pretty clear Communism 101.

No, nations do exist. They are a reality, bound by cultures, hierarchies and laws. If nations didn't exist, then there'd be no reason for us to struggle with the "national question" has many communists have and still do. Under communism, they shouldn't exist and would have no need to exist. We don't live under communism. That's Communism 101.

[Remus Bleys]

No, nations do exist. They are a reality, bound by cultures, hierarchies and laws. If nations didn't exist, then there'd be no reason for us to struggle with the "national question" has many communists have and still do. Under communism, they shouldn't exist and would have no need to exist. We don't live under communism. That's Communism 101.
No. Nations are a bourgeois construction. There is no "American" just as there is no "Italian." There is proletariat and bourgeoisie.

Why do you have Luxemburg as your profile picture if you support all nations "right to self determination"?

[Creative Destruction]

No. Nations are a bourgeois construction. There is no "American" just as there is no "Italian." There is proletariat and bourgeoisie.

Under our current reality, there are Americans and there are Italians. There are Cherokee and there are Inuit. It's also ridiculous to say that because it's a "bourgeois construction" means it doesn't exist. That's just on-the-face absurd. Capitalism is a bourgeois construction, but it still exists.

There's nothing from Marx that says because it is a "bourgeois construction" doesn't make it a part of the reality now. Our entire society is of bourgeois construction, which is why there is a struggle The reality now is that nations exist. Denying this would be about as dumb as denying that the Soviet Union wasn't a shining pinnacle of socialism.


Why do you have Luxemburg as your profile picture if you support all nations "right to self determination"?

Pretty sure this was already discussed (and I think you were in on the conversation as well) the last time Nationalism had a big thread.

[Remus Bleys]

Under our current reality, there are Americans and there are Italians. There are Cherokee and there are Inuit. It's also ridiculous to say that because it's a "bourgeois construction" means it doesn't exist. That's just on-the-face absurd. Capitalism is a bourgeois construction, but it still exists.
No, capitalism is a production reality. Nations are ideological claptrap. There are certain disparities between a Cherokee and an American, but that does not mean they are separate nations.


There's nothing from Marx that says because it is a "bourgeois construction" doesn't make it a part of the reality now. Our entire society is of bourgeois construction, which is why there is a struggle The reality now is that nations exist. Denying this would be about as dumb as denying that the Soviet Union wasn't a shining pinnacle of socialism.
So your solution is to fight for nationalism instead of class struggle? Where has the national liberation struggles lead us? The local bourgeoisie are every bit as "bad" as the international ones. The problems isn't that Indian Nations aren't a separate nation - the problem is they are victims of capitalism, as is the proletariat. The only solution to these problems is not nationalism the solution is class consciousness. Having a new nation has time and time again shown to be ineffective.

National struggle is a distraction from class struggle.



Pretty sure this was already discussed (and I think you were in on the conversation as well) the last time Nationalism had a big thread.It still doesn't make any sense.

[o well this is ok I guess]

maybe this all should get a separate thread

My dad spent quite a few years involved in a particular treaty struggle. I was young, so I don't remember the details. However, I remember it leaving him pretty bitter afterwards. I don't think the nearby bands were very cooperative, and the band council wasn't very ambitious. When offered a superficially large amount of cash (a few million) for a settlement, despite the fact that, in terms of purchasing power, they could at most afford to build a couple of roads. I also recall him complaining about Enoch (the biggest band around) being supremely uncaring. But those were years ago, so I don't remember the details as well as I used to.

What I'm trying to drive at here is that these grand pronunciations on the aims of the movement or whatever are about as useful of grand pronunciations by other activists groups on their thing. You know, not useful in the slightest. Outsiders (not that I'm not one, I'll assume GDU keeps up with the news more than I) tend to define the struggle by the most militant groups.

[Creative Destruction]

No, capitalism is a production reality. Nations are ideological claptrap. There are certain disparities between a Cherokee and an American, but that does not mean they are separate nations.

The Cherokee would probably disagree with you on this. In any case, I think you're confusing a "nation" with "the state." There can be overlap, but they are not the same. The state that we know today and that is addressed by Marx is a bourgeois, ideological construction, which must be taken over and transformed by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

These are terms that have their own meanings. I can remember Marx using them in relation to each other, but not interchangeably. Of course, I could be wrong. To deny that nations exist is to deny that different cultures exist, which is to deny a people's identity.


So your solution is to fight for nationalism instead of class struggle? Where has the national liberation struggles lead us? The local bourgeoisie are every bit as "bad" as the international ones. The problems isn't that Indian Nations aren't a separate nation - the problem is they are victims of capitalism, as is the proletariat. The only solution to these problems is not nationalism the solution is class consciousness. Having a new nation has time and time again shown to be ineffective.

National struggle is a distraction from class struggle.

No, class struggle should still be front and center, but there are instances where a nationalist movement is justifiable considering the current, material circumstances. The Irish nationalist question, for instance, or American nationalists in the American Civil War, which became inextricably linked to the abolition of slavery as time went on. Black nationalism has had its time, and indigenous nationalism is still a question to be addressed. Those are the real forces of history. Not some theorized division of a national question vs. class struggle. Nations of people who are oppressed aren't just oppressed by capitalism and Marxism doesn't explain all the different kinds of oppression that happens. For example, socialists can still be extremely patriarchal and oppressive to women. There needs to be an intersectional analysis here or else it'll fail to grab any sort of broad, popular support.

There are times when nationalism isn't appropriate and can be harmful, like if the national question was used to oppress minority populations within those nations, a la the BNP, Nazi Party and whatever nativist Scandinavian movements that are popular right now. When the national question turns to one of supremacy rather than equality, then it becomes dangerous.


It still doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense if you're not a dogmatic person. That may be asking too much from many here at RevLeft, though.

[Remus Bleys]

What is a people's identity if not false consciousness?

[Creative Destruction]

What is a people's identity if not false consciousness?

"False consciousness" isn't relevant to this conversation, unless we're talking specifically about people who disregard class consciousness for other matters. These national liberation movements do not require that someone disregard class consciousness, and neither does national identification. Many Irish socialists are and were also Irish nationalists, and they actively work in class struggle into their ongoing national struggles (see: James Connolly.) The black nationalist/liberation movement was heavily steeped in class analysis. Many American Indian movements take the same into account, though not all.

So, yeah. You should probably go back and re-read theory and the conception of "false consciousness." That's not a blanket term for you to throw around and say in order to deny how people identify. It has a specific meaning.

[Remus Bleys]

"False consciousness" isn't relevant to this conversation, unless we're talking specifically about people who disregard class consciousness for other matters. These national liberation movements do not require that someone disregard class consciousness, and neither does national identification. Many Irish socialists are and were also Irish nationalists, and they actively work in class struggle into their ongoing national struggles (see: James Connolly.) The black nationalist/liberation movement was heavily steeped in class analysis. Many American Indian movements take the same into account, though not all.

So, yeah. You should probably go back and re-read theory and the conception of "false consciousness." That's not a blanket term for you to throw around and say in order to deny how people identify. It has a specific meaning.
whoosh.
the black liberation movement was a good thing imo, just the whole aspect about creating a new nation, well, was tied up into creating "black capitalism"
I'd like to hear these peoples perspective on what they thing socialism is
And what is the "people"? The demos doesn't really exist.

[Creative Destruction]

whoosh.

It's good that you could at least hear the point going over your head.


the black liberation movement was a good thing imo, just the whole aspect about creating a new nation, well, was tied up into creating "black capitalism"

It wasn't tied up into creating any certain economic system. There were some who were interested in creating a black capitalist state, but there were others who were interested in creating a black socialist state. Some just wanted a black country of their own, no matter the economic system. It's similar to some Irish nationalists wanted a social democratic, capitalist state while others fought for an Irish socialist state.

Black nationalism was a generally good thing when it was relevant.


I'd like to hear these peoples perspective on what they thing socialism is

Well, there's Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Martin Delaney, CLR James. Some of them talk about socialism, some of them don't. The African People's Socialist Party lays claim to Marcus Garvey's legacy, whether rightly or wrongly.


And what is the "people"? The demos doesn't really exist.

You're just starting to become incoherent now.

[Remus Bleys]

It's good that you could at least hear the point going over your head.
lmao. I suggest you read luxemburg again.


It wasn't tied up into creating any certain economic system. There were some who were interested in creating a black capitalist state, but there were others who were interested in creating a black socialist state. Some just wanted a black country of their own, no matter the economic system. It's similar to some Irish nationalists wanted a social democratic, capitalist state while others fought for an Irish socialist state.

1. Black socialist state - this can be a dotp, but that has to be externally internationalist, or its some stalinist capitalist claptrap
2. apoliticals are inherently reactionary - i will not support calls to make a new nation just because, that is reactionary. It does not solve anything.
3. Why do you keep going on about irish nationalism?


Black nationalism was a generally good thing when it was relevant. you keep saying this. repeating yourself does not an argument make.



You're just starting to become incoherent now. I fail to see how acknowledging there is no talk of some unified people when we are clearly divided into two classes whatever the culture is "incoherent."
Maybe you should read up on this guy, his name was Karl Marx.

[Creative Destruction]

lmao. I suggest you read luxemburg again.

lmao. Dogmatic politics strike again. I'm sorry, but people aren't gods. I think of Luxemburg critically, though I agree with her far more than I disagree. I didn't completely agree with Fred Hampton, Seamus Costello or Leo Tolstoy either. I guess to a dogmatist, I shouldn't be claiming them as inspirations, too.

You should try that some time, though: thinking critically.


1. Black socialist state - this can be a dotp, but that has to be externally internationalist, or its some stalinist capitalist claptrap
2. apoliticals are inherently reactionary - i will not support calls to make a new nation just because, that is reactionary. It does not solve anything.

My point is that nationalism isn't inherently something that disqualifies socialism, as you conceded with point 1. Neither does its adherents necessarily have "false consciousness" because they identify with a nation of people.


3. Why do you keep going on about irish nationalism?

Because it is a direct example that rebuts your dumb bullshit. I keep going on about indigenous nationalism, too. And black nationalism.


you keep saying this. repeating yourself does not an argument make.

Goddamn dude. You really need to take your own advice.


I fail to see how acknowledging there is no talk of some unified people when we are clearly divided into two classes whatever the culture is "incoherent."
Maybe you should read up on this guy, his name was Karl Marx.

Maybe you should try that yourself. You'll see that nothing I'm saying here contradicts Marx.

[Remus Bleys]

lmao. Dogmatic politics strike again. I'm sorry, but people aren't gods. I think of Luxemburg critically, though I agree with her far more than I disagree. I didn't completely agree with Fred Hampton, Seamus Costello or Leo Tolstoy either. I guess to a dogmatist, I shouldn't be claiming them as inspirations, too.

You should try that some time, though: thinking critically.



My point is that nationalism isn't inherently something that disqualifies socialism, as you conceded with point 1. Neither does its adherents necessarily have "false consciousness" because they identify with a nation of people.



Because it is a direct example that rebuts your dumb bullshit. I keep going on about indigenous nationalism, too. And black nationalism.



Goddamn dude. You really need to take your own advice.



Maybe you should try that yourself. You'll see that nothing I'm saying here contradicts Marx.
There is literally nothing to respond to this. Ill just let it stand on its own.
What a pity.

[Creative Destruction]

lol. good lord.

[ed miliband]

This was the post in question:

Really, I would appreciate if you took it at face value. It's a situation which, though I do still have family living in Ireland*, I don't understand the on-the-ground intricacies of. I hardly think it's fair to construe this as a "[pronouncement] on the IRA".

*Interestingly, my family in Ireland includes both Catholics, and the decedents of the tiny, tiny community of Irish Quakers.

i'll take it at face value, then. i think you'll still be able to understand why i might have taken issue with it - you yourself had to point out you weren't flaming. i'll just say, i didn't exaggerate intentionally, simply because i misremembered the post.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

i'll take it at face value, then. i think you'll still be able to understand why i might have taken issue with it - you yourself had to point out you weren't flaming. i'll just say, i didn't exaggerate intentionally, simply because i misremembered the post.

I think it's really easy, on a forum like RevLeft, to caricature others' politics, rather than to grapple with their nuances. I can definitely see how certain (mis)readings of my positions on nations and national liberation could be misconstrued as undifferentiated from more common positions on the left, which are premised on generalizations from the European experience and particularly liberal-enlightenment understandings of sovereignty and the nation state. Partially, I think this is because much of what differentiates my perspective is present in what I'm not saying, rather than what I'm being explicit about.

For an imperfect analogy, one could look to questions of women's or queer autonomy, and try to understand nations in a similarly historically contingent context. Of course, if you reject feminism or queer liberation struggles, I'll accept that we have no common ground, and lack a common basis for understanding class, meaning that we can't possibly have a discussion that goes anywhere but in circles.

In any case, I think there's an irony that this whole business is occurring in a thread that began with your claiming to reject optimism. If there is a philosophically optimistic notion which dogs the left, leading it into dead ends time and again, it's the notion of a "universal" working class subjectivity. I think that the "perfect world" (ie progressing toward the end of history out of the dialectical conflict of unitary opposites) is the real expression of optimism that leads both to (rightist) movementism and (ostensibly left communist) mechanism.

Or, in other words, I think that the "pessimism" presented in this thread is actually a product of the real optimist (which I continue to differentiate from hopeful, for the record) baggage of Marxism (coming out of Hegel and liberalism). Like I said about M. Dupont - a different side of the same coin.

[Leftsolidarity]

the black liberation movement was a good thing imo, just the whole aspect about creating a new nation, well, was tied up into creating "black capitalism"


All of your other posts were equally as awful but this highlights the main reason, I think.

1)They weren't creating a "new" nation. Nations exist now, whether they are a construct of class society (not just capitalism as you said earlier) or not. They are a material reality not "ideology claptrap" (and seriously your "claptrap" stuff is not making you sound cooler). The Native Nation, the Black Nation, the Chicano Nation, the Palestinian Nation, the Korean Nation, etc., etc. have all been subject to national oppression due to their national identity.

This is just liberal colorblindness in the guise of Leftist thought. Whether you want to accept that these people make up an oppressed group based on their national identity (which they don't have a choice in) or not doesn't change that it is fact.

So they weren't fighting for a "new" nation. They were fighting to liberate the oppressed Black nation from imperialism. That's the essence of a national liberation struggle.


2) "it was a good thing, just it's entire purpose was something i don't support"
That's how it reads to me.
You don't actually support the Black liberation struggle because you interpret the goal of an independent Black Nation as "black capitalism" and seem to think that there was some other goal, that you like, behind the struggle.

[Remus Bleys]

Uhh... No leftsolidarity. I believe in black liberation... just not a seperate black nation.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Uhh... No leftsolidarity. I believe in black liberation... just not a seperate black nation.

I think the point is that black liberation in and of itself implies the recognition of a black nation that is subject to a specific national oppression - otherwise the concept is nonsensical. If you question whether or not a black sovereign state is how that should expresses itself, well, we can have that conversation, but it's a different matter.

[bcbm]

my 'strategy'...

intervene when i can and it may prove useful or bear positive results or at least enrich my own life/be fun

otherwise observe and maybe have my private chuckles but dont waste time on trainspotting or slagging... the only thing more dull than a leftist is a leftist heckler

if some liberal offers me money, take it but dont say thanks

sabotage where and when i can

read as much bad shit about the world as i can to keep my hatred sharp

buy guns

[The Feral Underclass]

bear

Force one?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

All of your other posts were equally as awful but this highlights the main reason, I think.

1)They weren't creating a "new" nation. Nations exist now, whether they are a construct of class society (not just capitalism as you said earlier) or not. They are a material reality not "ideology claptrap" (and seriously your "claptrap" stuff is not making you sound cooler). The Native Nation, the Black Nation, the Chicano Nation, the Palestinian Nation, the Korean Nation, etc., etc. have all been subject to national oppression due to their national identity.

This is just liberal colorblindness in the guise of Leftist thought. Whether you want to accept that these people make up an oppressed group based on their national identity (which they don't have a choice in) or not doesn't change that it is fact.

So they weren't fighting for a "new" nation. They were fighting to liberate the oppressed Black nation from imperialism. That's the essence of a national liberation struggle.

Oh shut the fuck up. You know exactly what he means when he uses the term 'nation'. He is using it in the context of common political terminology, not as a fucking synonym for ethnicity. 'Nation' when you phrase it in the sense you have implies that there is not only a particular ethnic/cultural group, but that this group also has a political ideology and goal. This is simply bullshit, plain as day. And 'taking away national identity' (urgh blanket terms) is not the fucking reason rich whites began exporting hundreds of millions of African slaves to the New World for cheap labour. It is not the reason why Jews in Europe were so heavily ostracised for so long. It is not the reason why many of the modern descendants of slaves are mired in poverty. 'Taking away national identity' is a result, not a cause, of ethnic oppression.

The only person being 'liberal' with their thinking here is you, by believing some ridiculous ideal of 'national identity crisis' is the reason why African-Americans are entrenched in the social and economic positions that they are within the US. Why not just cut to the chase and tell the truth?: the United States of America is a De Facto White-Supremacist society founded on massacre and slavery, and many white Americans take on worldview that comes with this. Simple and elegant, rather than this beat around the bush shit.

Orwellian speech a-fucking-hoy.

[Remus Bleys]

Sigh.
I hate when my opposition to national ,liberation is perceived as just me being a chauvinist, when that's not really the case.
Let's look at some successful national liberation. China, india, and vietnam. These places were heavily exploited, and china was everyones colony. Tthen along came their national liberation and they got the right to self govern. How exactly did that turn out for them? Let us look at these countries - I dare yyou to claim they are no longer exploited by the west. Why are they still exploited? They foucsed on nationalism, when in fact the Bourgeoisie doesn't care about nationalism - they know they have. O country.
It is 2013. History has shown us natinal liberation is a dream in a global capitalist world. The only eay you could argue for national liberation was to allow these countries to further the capitalist mode of production, and, quite frankly, that's unnecessary in the places you commonly hear about needing "national liberation."

[Queen Mab]

Force one?

Quality song.

[Leftsolidarity]

Oh shut the fuck up. You know exactly what he means when he uses the term 'nation'. He is using it in the context of common political terminology, not as a fucking synonym for ethnicity. 'Nation' when you phrase it in the sense you have implies that there is not only a particular ethnic/cultural group, but that this group also has a political ideology and goal. This is simply bullshit, plain as day. And 'taking away national identity' (urgh blanket terms) is not the fucking reason rich whites began exporting hundreds of millions of African slaves to the New World for cheap labour. It is not the reason why Jews in Europe were so heavily ostracised for so long. It is not the reason why many of the modern descendants of slaves are mired in poverty. 'Taking away national identity' is a result, not a cause, of ethnic oppression.

The only person being 'liberal' with their thinking here is you, by believing some ridiculous ideal of 'national identity crisis' is the reason why African-Americans are entrenched in the social and economic positions that they are within the US. Why not just cut to the chase and tell the truth?: the United States of America is a De Facto White-Supremacist society founded on massacre and slavery, and many white Americans take on worldview that comes with this. Simple and elegant, rather than this beat around the bush shit.

Orwellian speech a-fucking-hoy.

When did I talk about "taking away national identity" as you apparently are quoting from me? Or a "national identity crisis"?

It seems like you just laid out a bunch of things I never said and had a go at them. All well and good I suppose but how about you don't completely miss what I actually say next time?

And no I won't "stfu" for actually knowing what the fuck I'm talking about haha I'm sorry if you think it's obvious that it means something else to him (and maybe it does) but I'm going to actually talk about what nations and national oppression really is. Not your fake ultra-left liberal hogwash.

Even when you are saying something decent it makes me sigh. Why are we a "de-facto" white supremacist society? There's nothing unplanned or "de-facto" about it.


Sigh.
I hate when my opposition to national ,liberation is perceived as just me being a chauvinist, when that's not really the case.
Let's look at some successful national liberation. China, india, and vietnam. These places were heavily exploited, and china was everyones colony. Tthen along came their national liberation and they got the right to self govern. How exactly did that turn out for them?

Then maybe you shouldn't say such borderline chauvinist things like this. But really, opposition to national liberation is supporting the privileged oppressor nation. It's really quite insane to me that anyone would be so out of touch with basic human empathy and understanding to think that their struggle to free themselves from colonialism and imperialism is not a good thing and not something to support. I find that disgusting.

[Decolonize The Left]

Someone should split the Native People's discussion from the OP as it is clearly a separate topic.

OP: Leftist optimism is indeed depressing. I sometimes get caught up in it. I feel that I oscillate rather uncleanly between optimism and feeling good about shit that's happening in my life and silent agony. Often times both are at play. I guess compartmentalizing helps a lot and keeps me out of the gutter. That and a healthy daily intake of alcohol. But I also don't think that the stereotyped opposite is good either: the burn it all down attitude. While I'd like to see a lot of shit destroyed, the truth is that leftism is about the working class and the working class cannot really 'tear it all down' in any meaningful sense as we are dependent upon so much of it. So I feel like the 'destroy everything' crowd is ever-confronted with the reality that they cannot do that in any meaningful way: hence, depression. Justified, perhaps, but a given. Stack that on top of depression which results from all the daily shit we need to go through and its not hard to see why that perspective isn't that appealing to most.

I guess my strategy, following on bcbm's post, is... well, as I think about it I can compartmentalize it into shit like: get and stay fit, learn self-defense, learn to shoot guns, write a lot, read a lot, try to connect better with people I love, put myself in a position to help folks when needed.

Also, Remus Bleys: go talk to some fucking Indians before you spout off on some shit about which you clearly have no understanding.

Also, also: Being on facebook = instant depression.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The only person being 'liberal' with their thinking here is you, by believing some ridiculous ideal of 'national identity crisis' is the reason why African-Americans are entrenched in the social and economic positions that they are within the US. Why not just cut to the chase and tell the truth?: the United States of America is a De Facto White-Supremacist society founded on massacre and slavery, and many white Americans take on worldview that comes with this. Simple and elegant, rather than this beat around the bush shit.

I think this is worth addressing, because I think it points to what would be very good points, if white supremacy functioned like you seem to be implying it does. However, what you seem to be suggesting is that white supremacy is an ideological consequence of "founding crimes". The thing is, that's not why white America is racist - white America is white supremacist because it continues to enjoy the material benefit of white supremacy. That's because what we're talking about, when we talk about race and nation, is fundamentally bound up with class.

Anyway, I'm going to lose all my anarchist points here and Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch08.htm).


Someone should split the Native People's discussion from the OP as it is clearly a separate topic.

I don't think it necessarily is, or, in my mind it could be brought back around. It raises an important distinction for me between hope and optimism; maybe more aptly, optimism/pessimism as a pair.

I think it's optimism to imagine the "unnational" proletarian subject, in the same vein as "colour blindness" or "I treat men and women the same". I think that this can be coded in pessimistic terms, and often is. I won't attempt to deny that optimism and pessimism lead to meaningfully different political conclusions, but, rather, would insist that it is within a truncated field of possibility: either/or.

I contrast this with hope, which I would associate with a broader possibility, but also one grounded in concrete reality, or the properly dialectical formulation, neither/nor. Running with the example of national liberation, I would say that it is neither innately communist nor innately capitalist: it's something like a strike. It emerges out of the contradictions within capital, but its conclusion is uncertain. It's hope, in my mind, that is the difference between crossing a picket line or not.

[Remus Bleys]

let me see the argument that is being made here - national liberation in your view TGDU I think the point you are making is the proletariat of an oppressed nation must create it's own culture and free themselves from the imperialist nation - and it being only the proletariat of this nation that fights for its own national liberation - am I correct in thinking this is your argument?

LeftistSolidarity - I do not debate people who will call me chauvinist and accuse me of being an oppressor when they sit back at home and go on about how great North Korea is - which is something your Party does. I mean, are you fucking stupid or something? where did I say "chauvinist things"? You didn't actually contradict any of my points you just went borderline third-worldist.

[Leftsolidarity]

LeftistSolidarity - I do not debate people who will call me chauvinist and accuse me of being an oppressor when they sit back at home and go on about how great North Korea is - which is something your Party does. I mean, are you fucking stupid or something? where did I say "chauvinist things"? You didn't actually contradict any of my points you just went borderline third-worldist.

You didn't say anything other than the colonialist argument that without the colonizers they wouldn't be as advanced. For your question of "How did that turn out for them?" the answer is a whole fuck of a lot better than under colonialism and imperialism. I mean this is really elementary to anyone who recognizes imperialism and national oppression.

lolol I went borderline turd-worldist? do you even understand what they say? Or what I'm saying for that matter? Actually, your recent posting history seems to show that you don't understand any of this and you just keep typing word-vomit in response to myself and others.