National liberation movements worth supporting?

[flaming bolshevik]

Do you think national liberation movements are worth supporting? Personally I'm leaning towards yes, since imo it's easier to have a revolution in a small country for example Serbia as opposed to ex yugoslavia( sorry for spelling ) if that makes sense, and as long as they don't give up supporting the workers of whatever country and abandon the world revolution

those are my thoughts
What do you guys think?

[khad]

Moved to learning.

[Slavic]

Do you think national liberation movements are worth supporting? Personally I'm leaning towards yes, since imo it's easier to have a revolution in a small country for example Serbia as opposed to ex yugoslavia( sorry for spelling ) if that makes sense, and as long as they don't give up supporting the workers of whatever country and abandon the world revolution

those are my thoughts
What do you guys think?

I think you'd just end up with an isolated socialism in one country scenario.

[Thirsty Crow]

How would Serbia be nationally liberated? From which dominant nation within a common state?

This connection between national liberation and socialism doesn't make sense when you apply it to existing nation-states. The question would be whether the Basque nation-state project is worth supporting, or the Scottish or Catalan one.

I don't think this is the case as it is not reasonable to assume any real working class gains in terms of factors benefiting class unification and militancy, and international working class solidarity from a process of bourgeois state formation.

[flaming bolshevik]

@ linksradikal Serbia wasn't the best example but i couldn't think of anything else at the moment.


"The question would be whether the Basque nation-state project is worth supporting, or the Scottish or Catalan one." That's what I meant.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

First the "national question" cam be very complicated and there has been a huge amount of debate on this.National liberation movements have been and are problematical. They have a tendency to be dominated by petit bourgoise elements and local business interests. They cam be oppressive of their own national minorities.The state, any state, is ultimately the expression of a ruling class.

Socialists should give critical support to national liberation movements while pointing out that full independence and autonomy isn't possible under capitalism. The SNP's proposal for Scottish independence will essentially be "independence lite", Scotland will still be tied to the Bank of England, still be tied to British capitalist institutions. Same would true of Catalonia, Quebec, Kurdostan, Palestine,etc.

So, in a nutshell, I would (very critically) support all national liberation movements, while pointing out their pitfalls.

[Slavic]

@ linksradikal Serbia wasn't the best example but i couldn't think of anything else at the moment.


"The question would be whether the Basque nation-state project is worth supporting, or the Scottish or Catalan one." That's what I meant.

It's not worth supporting as a path to socialism. Socialism does not come about from nation building but by class struggle. National liberation movements are a struggle of nationalities, there is no room for socialists in a nation's struggle.

[Sasha]

The only remotely "nat-lib" group i actively support would be the EZLN.
Some groups I recognize as the most progressive movement in certain regions (so I would at best critically cooperate with them) but all nationalism is a dead end and a distraction.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Socialists should give critical support to national liberation movements while pointing out that full independence and autonomy isn't possible under capitalism. The SNP's proposal for Scottish independence will essentially be "independence lite", Scotland will still be tied to the Bank of England, still be tied to British capitalist institutions. Same would true of Catalonia, Quebec, Kurdostan, Palestine,etc.

This seems like a rhetorical more than a political point: of course "full independence and autonomy" isn't possible under capitalism. Even those who fully support national liberation don't believe this. But this isn't really what is at stake. You said it best yourself, really:


The state, any state, is ultimately the expression of a ruling class.

In other words, any movement aiming for national liberation is ultimately the expression of a (political) formation of a national bourgeoisie, any nation state is bourgeois. In the face of this, communists need to agitate and push for working class autonomy.

[Thirsty Crow]

First the "national question" cam be very complicated and there has been a huge amount of debate on this.National liberation movements have been and are problematical. They have a tendency to be dominated by petit bourgoise elements and local business interests. They cam be oppressive of their own national minorities.The state, any state, is ultimately the expression of a ruling class.

Socialists should give critical support to national liberation movements while pointing out that full independence and autonomy isn't possible under capitalism. The SNP's proposal for Scottish independence will essentially be "independence lite", Scotland will still be tied to the Bank of England, still be tied to British capitalist institutions. Same would true of Catalonia, Quebec, Kurdostan, Palestine,etc.

So, in a nutshell, I would (very critically) support all national liberation movements, while pointing out their pitfalls.
This makes no sense whatsoever.

Not only are such movements dominated by local petite bourgeois elements, but also by the bourgeoisie "proper"; but you're aware of that, and also of the real prospects for fostering other kinds of ethnic tensions.

So where does the idea of support in the first place come from? From another idea, that not to give critical support would seem equivalent to justifying this kind of oppression? That doesn't compute at all as it is perfectly possible to be outspoken against this and simultaneously not to support these drives for state formation.

At the same time, the idea of "critical support" is dubious at best. You'd presumably criticize what you think are the necessary consequences of the political project whose goal...you end up supporting all the while. Not a very coherent view of things. Actually, it's completely incoherent.

So what gives?


This seems like a rhetorical more than a political point: of course "full independence and autonomy" isn't possible under capitalism. Even those who fully support national liberation don't believe this. But this isn't really what is at stake. You said it best yourself, really:But "full independence and autonomy" for a particular nation isn't anyway the aim of communists; it is rather the liberation of the global working class, implying the dissolution of the nation as a functioning unit of social reproduction in all of its dimensions (today's political sphere, economic development, and so on).

While it may seem like a rhetorical point, it is nevertheless possible that a far more problematic political point is hiding underneath (one not having much to do with problems like minority discrimination).

[Zukunftsmusik]

But "full independence and autonomy" for a particular nation isn't anyway the aim of communists; it is rather the liberation of the global working class, implying the dissolution of the nation as a functioning unit of social reproduction in all of its dimensions (today's political sphere, economic development, and so on).

This was what I was trying to point out: 1) "full independence and autonomy" (if it were possible) is not the aim of any national liberation struggle, and 2) this shouldn't be supported by communists, however "critical". The following, however, is worth adding to my post, and I think it actually hits the nail on its head:


While it may seem like a rhetorical point, it is nevertheless possible that a far more problematic political point is hiding underneath (one not having much to do with problems like minority discrimination).

[DigitalBluster]

Some socialists withhold support for things that don't help socialism. I only withhold support for things that harm socialism. Not helping isn't the same as harming. If you want to support something that's orthogonal to socialism, go ahead. I support chocolate ice cream, and I don't feel guilty about it just because it isn't socialist, or because I could be spending my ice cream licking time doing socialist stuff.

[Thirsty Crow]

Some socialists withhold support for things that don't help socialism. I only withhold support for things that harm socialism. Not helping isn't the same as harming. If you want to support something that's orthogonal to socialism, go ahead. I support chocolate ice cream, and I don't feel guilty about it just because it isn't socialist, or because I could be spending my ice cream licking time doing socialist stuff.
Ah the craft of making analogies.

So, judging from this wonderful piece, supporting the formation of nation-states is analogous to supporting...ice cream since neither of the two "harm" socialism.

It's a funny way to view things which make one conclude that nationalism doesn't "harm" socialism in any way since the entire effect is to rally significant portions of the particular working class around a particular capitalist class. If that's what you're implying after all.

The distinction between diet habits and social and political movements is also not really important here, is it?

[consuming negativity]

Our goal should not be communism because it is communism but communism because it is in our interests, and we should be supportive of things in the interests of the masses lest we rightly be accused of not working in their best interests. It is essential for us to support, at least nominally, any movement which seeks an immediate betterment of conditions for an oppressed people. Imagine, for example, communists being lukewarm towards anti-apartheid activists or the abolitionist movement because they "merely" wanted to get rid of apartheid or slavery. It sounds ridiculous and it is.

With this in mind, we can look towards previous national liberation movements to see how things might turn out based on the unique conditions of each movement. For example, in Iran, the puppet Shah was replaced with an Islamist government which is anti-communist, despite being initially fueled by persons of our persuasion. Whereas in China, the nationalists were useful for the Communists until they were crushed and the Communists took power at least for a time. In South Africa, the far-left wing groups essentially sold out and while there were gains, they weren't nearly as large as they could have been. And the Kurds in Turkey are leftists who hate the Turks, as opposed to their Iraqi counterparts who sell that same Turkish government oil. So in this case, the lesson might be that we really won't know how these things will turn out until they do. But generally speaking, nationalists have proven to really only be useful to us insofar as they can fight our enemies and be used to help us achieve our goals.

[DigitalBluster]

If that's what you're implying after all.

It isn't.

If I thought a particular national liberation movement would "rally significant portions of the particular working class around a particular capitalist class" to a degree not already existent, I'd withhold support. Otherwise, it's orthogonal to socialism, like ice cream.

[#FF0000]

What do you mean by "support"

[DigitalBluster]

What do you mean by "support"

Good question. I was going to write "endorse" instead, since I don't actually support anything, but I didn't want to digress.

To support something means more than merely to endorse it. The legs of a table carry its weight; if they fold under that weight, they can't be said to support it. If I'm not actively helping to prop up or maintain something, then I'm not supporting it, even if I enthusiastically endorse it.

Liking stuff on Facebook isn't support.

[motion denied]

Good question. I was going to write "endorse" instead, since I don't actually support anything, but I didn't want to digress.

To support something means more than merely to endorse it. The legs of a table carry its weight; if they fold under that weight, they can't be said to support it. If I'm not actively helping to prop up or maintain something, then I'm not supporting it, even if I enthusiastically endorse it.

Liking stuff on Facebook isn't support.

In this sense, and jumping on the discussion to contribute with (not two) but one cent, all I can say is that "national-liberation", despite all that has been said throughout the thread, usually (to not use always) led to illusions and lost of autonomy by the working class. It was in the name of national interest that the Brazilian CP supported the progressive and nationalist bourgeoisie (no less!) against feudal (!) elements... Turns out the bourgeoisie was not that progressive nor democratic: military coup against a "popular" government.

These kind of movements, radical-democratic, lead to nationalization - which, in best scenarios, will increase the States' receipt.

If anything, Rosa Luxemburg already posed the question a hundred years ago: Is there such thing as independent people in capitalism? Even better, "people" means nothing, as these peoples and states are divided by classes.

In an era of transnational capital, national liberation is even more of an illusion, a refusal to stand against capital in its totality. To paraphrase from João Bernardo, the only "anti-imp" force is the proletariat, because anti-capitalist.

[Thirsty Crow]

It isn't.

If I thought a particular national liberation movement would "rally significant portions of the particular working class around a particular capitalist class" to a degree not already existent, I'd withhold support. Otherwise, it's orthogonal to socialism, like ice cream.
This is the core of national liberation movements as they consist in nation-state formation, and of course grassroots support is crucial here.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Our goal should not be communism because it is communism but communism because it is in our interests, and we should be supportive of things in the interests of the masses lest we rightly be accused of not working in their best interests. It is essential for us to support, at least nominally, any movement which seeks an immediate betterment of conditions for an oppressed people. Imagine, for example, communists being lukewarm towards anti-apartheid activists or the abolitionist movement because they "merely" wanted to get rid of apartheid or slavery. It sounds ridiculous and it is.

With this in mind, we can look towards previous national liberation movements to see how things might turn out based on the unique conditions of each movement. For example, in Iran, the puppet Shah was replaced with an Islamist government which is anti-communist, despite being initially fueled by persons of our persuasion. Whereas in China, the nationalists were useful for the Communists until they were crushed and the Communists took power at least for a time. In South Africa, the far-left wing groups essentially sold out and while there were gains, they weren't nearly as large as they could have been. And the Kurds in Turkey are leftists who hate the Turks, as opposed to their Iraqi counterparts who sell that same Turkish government oil. So in this case, the lesson might be that we really won't know how these things will turn out until they do. But generally speaking, nationalists have proven to really only be useful to us insofar as they can fight our enemies and be used to help us achieve our goals.

Can you point to any situation where communist cooperation with nationalists has had postivie results from a communist perspective? You named several times where it turned out to be a mistake without listing any positive examples in spite of your insistance that those partnerships are generally beneficial.

Abolitionists and nationalists are apples and organges. The abolitionists were not looking to create a new slavery after freeing blacks, and the anti-apartheid groups were not seeking a black supremacist state to replace the white supremacist state. Nationalist struggles seek to replace a foreign bourgeoisie with a local one, it makes sense to support that if you're the local bourgeoisie yourself, but if you're a communist then that's pretty fucking stupid tbh.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Not only are such movements dominated by local petite bourgeois elements, but also by the bourgeoisie "proper"; but you're aware of that, and also of the real prospects for fostering other kinds of ethnic tensions.

So where does the idea of support in the first place come from? From another idea, that not to give critical support would seem equivalent to justifying this kind of oppression? That doesn't compute at all as it is perfectly possible to be outspoken against this and simultaneously not to support these drives for state formation.

At the same time, the idea of "critical support" is dubious at best. You'd presumably criticize what you think are the necessary consequences of the political project whose goal...you end up supporting all the while. Not a very coherent view of things. Actually, it's completely incoherent.

So what gives?

But "full independence and autonomy" for a particular nation isn't anyway the aim of communists; it is rather the liberation of the global working class, implying the dissolution of the nation as a functioning unit of social reproduction in all of its dimensions (today's political sphere, economic development, and so on).

While it may seem like a rhetorical point, it is nevertheless possible that a far more problematic political point is hiding underneath (one not having much to do with problems like minority discrimination).

What about people who have felt hiustorically oppressed based on language, ethnicity, religion, or other markers of community?Oppression of course is ukltimately class based but it isn't always horizontal. We can use the feminist concept of intersectionality here.

Would you tell workers in Poland during the early 20th century that their struggle for independence against Germany, Russia and Austria doesn't mean anything? Should Polish workers have assimilated with their German or Russian fellow workers? Should we tell Kurds that they should join with Arab or Turkish workers? Liberation struggles do have a national basis.

Having said this, history does show that nationalism is highly limited and ultimately can be reactionary./ We shouldn't ignore national struggles but use them to increase class consciousness. This can be part of what Trotsky called the Transitional Program-ultimately liberation will be blocked by pursuing purely nationalistic goals but this can best be found in the struggle itself.

Socialists should not join national liberation groups but understand , empathize and critically support struggles for national self determination as a stepping stone to working class liberation.

[Thirsty Crow]

What about people who have felt hiustorically oppressed based on language, ethnicity, religion, or other markers of community?Oppression of course is ukltimately class based but it isn't always horizontal. We can use the feminist concept of intersectionality here.
It's really symptomatic that criticism of national liberation is taken in this sense, as indicating a lack of concern over anything other than class exploitation and domination.

Far from it actually being the case.


Would you tell workers in Poland during the early 20th century that their struggle for independence against Germany, Russia and Austria doesn't mean anything? Should Polish workers have assimilated with their German or Russian fellow workers? Should we tell Kurds that they should join with Arab or Turkish workers? Liberation struggles do have a national basis.No, I would indeed tell them - if I must play this game of a hypothetical time machine scenario - that indeed some kinds of horrible effects upon their lives might be removed by nation-state formation only to find other kinds of such effects reinforced, and that I believe these latter are more significant and dangerous.

I would not put forward an argument for complete cultural erasure as I do not think all cultural practices on their own constitute barriers to proletarian internationalism; those that are inextricably embedded in nationalist programs do, in fact.

And of course, I take it as self-evident that communists would tell fellow Kurdish workers that they ought to join with Arab and Turkish fellow workers. This being most fruitful in case of the relationship between Kurdish communists and non-communist Kurd workers for specific reasons that needn't be detailed here.

Are you seriously implying that this would be something to be avoided?


Having said this, history does show that nationalism is highly limitedHighly limited. What wonderfully vague and evasive rhetoric this is.

Let's be clear on this. Nationalism is poison for the working class, the global working class from the perspective of prospects for our self-emancipation.


and ultimately can be reactionary./ We shouldn't ignore national struggles but use them to increase class consciousness.

And I'm still waiting for a coherent and evidence based view on just how this actually happens, happened and can happen.

You can start, for example, with Catalonia today.


Socialists should not join national liberation groups but understand , empathize and critically support struggles for national self determination as a stepping stone to working class liberation.
You didn't address the claim that such "critical support" is fundamentally incoherent and contradictory (but maybe the argument would run along the lines of "...but dialectics!"?).

To simplify the point made previously, basically what happens is the following.
First the support to the nation-state formation building project is offered on grounds of it eliminating particularly nasty problems of ethnic/national oppression and discrimination.
This on its own is tantamount to claiming that right now nation-state formation is the only viable way to do so. Or that it is more realistic, more probable, whatever.
But then a somersault, and suddenly criticism - because such communists can't afford themselves the luxury to pass over nationalism and the obvious fact of this being a bourgeois project in silence.

But it's like criticizing the practically inevitable consequences flowing from the same process that is supported in the first place.

[Brotto Rühle]

Modern national liberation as well as most of histories national liberation, serves only the bourgeoisie of the "oppressed nations".