synthesis
11th May 2014, 18:23
The argument against separatism and secessionism that I hear most often is that it makes it harder for the working classes of the avulsed regions to organize with those of the original country. While I agree that you do run the risk of creating new national identities that would culturally split the working class in times of low activity, I don't think that would make much of a difference when it comes to the sort of conditions that would be conducive to a working class revolution.
For that same reason it seems to me that separatism and secessionism (i.e. Kosovo, South Ossetia, etc) would actually be beneficial in such circumstances. Not, again, for anything to do with the actual secession or separation, but because the smaller the state, the smaller its ability to coordinate effectively to suppress working class revolution. Instead of a single entity with strongly coordinated investigative and intelligence apparatuses, you have to have more and more inefficient coordination efforts between "sovereign" states that will be less and less effective at doing something about "illegal" revolutionary activity.
Separatism and secessionism aren't movements we should support - certainly not as ends in themselves, no matter how apparently "progressive" they are or however much they constitute what is arbitrarily called "nationalism of the oppressed." But I think that the wholesale, unwavering opposition to them might also be a little misguided and dogmatic.
It seems to me that historically there is a growing tendency towards smaller and smaller states and I'm wondering if that's such a bad thing. I think, just as an example, internationalists would be better off facing down Interpol than the CIA, FSB, and other organizations inherent to the larger states we have today. But I could be wrong - maybe NATO is just as effective an instrument of the bourgeoisie as a single state would be. Yet smaller states would also make it easier to exploit the antagonisms between various national bourgeoisies. I'm going to stop myself here and just ask the rest of you what you think of this concept, that smaller states are more conducive to international working class revolution.
For that same reason it seems to me that separatism and secessionism (i.e. Kosovo, South Ossetia, etc) would actually be beneficial in such circumstances. Not, again, for anything to do with the actual secession or separation, but because the smaller the state, the smaller its ability to coordinate effectively to suppress working class revolution. Instead of a single entity with strongly coordinated investigative and intelligence apparatuses, you have to have more and more inefficient coordination efforts between "sovereign" states that will be less and less effective at doing something about "illegal" revolutionary activity.
Separatism and secessionism aren't movements we should support - certainly not as ends in themselves, no matter how apparently "progressive" they are or however much they constitute what is arbitrarily called "nationalism of the oppressed." But I think that the wholesale, unwavering opposition to them might also be a little misguided and dogmatic.
It seems to me that historically there is a growing tendency towards smaller and smaller states and I'm wondering if that's such a bad thing. I think, just as an example, internationalists would be better off facing down Interpol than the CIA, FSB, and other organizations inherent to the larger states we have today. But I could be wrong - maybe NATO is just as effective an instrument of the bourgeoisie as a single state would be. Yet smaller states would also make it easier to exploit the antagonisms between various national bourgeoisies. I'm going to stop myself here and just ask the rest of you what you think of this concept, that smaller states are more conducive to international working class revolution.