Anarchism and the question of self-determination

[DimSumMetal]

Hello,

I've been involved in anti-national and anarchist struggle for several years now and yesterday I encountered a question that I found difficult to answer.
Of course I'm way into the no border-no nation thing, and that's fine, but what about those who don't?
Many communists and radical thinkers from many places see their liberation as one that will have them manage themselves in an economically equal way as a stateless classless society, but want to have a strong emphasis on their people's past and present, as a way to unite and to have an easier time finding other people with their history and culture, as well as maintain their culture without having it "westernized" in the name of anti-nationalism.

I find such attachments to one's national symbols to be kind of pointless and potentially dangerous if taken to the wrong way, but can I deny such people their struggle of self-determination as a meaning of liberation?

I don't have any clear solution to this dilemma right now but I would want to hear your thoughts about this.

Thanks.

[Sinister Intents]

I feel slightly confused: What's your question specifically?

If someone claims to be a communist and hold onto such tendencies I feel that may make them a nascent nationalist, as it they can be lead down the path of nationalism if they're convinced that defending their 'people' and exclusively their 'people' is liberatory, then they're trying to uphold some kind of privilege for the group they perceive as superior to others. One's culture isn't important, people shouldn't take cultural differences to heart to the point that they feel they're so vastly different from one another. The devastation of the capitalist class system will have a profound effect on the world I feel, and allow cultures to flourish in a natural way and allow all people to feel oneness without having some state, church, or some other coercive force giving them something to fear.

Before I continue anything am I misinterpreting you?

[PhoenixAsh]

Well....

It may be a simplification of the complexity of the issue. But as far as my opinion goes the wish for self determination and national liberation comes from the unequal terms in the current reality as well as the material and social realities of the current econmomic system.

Within that system and this set of realities that wish is logical.

I do not think however that these movements offer solutions to the fundamental causes of class society nor that it is even an inherrent aspect of these movements nor their main objective. Aside from segments of these movemenst being inspired by revolutionary ideals this, as far as my experience goes, is usually skin deep.

But when it comes to culture. The necessity to safeguard cultural, ethnic and national identity is merely a reflection of the current hierarchical and unequal realities as a means to distinguish from others and attach meaning and a common feeling where these seem to undervalued or repressed. It is, as religion, an opiate...a bandage against increasing alianation.

When class society vanishes so will the necessity for cultural identity become less important and communities will become more transient, fluent and more voluntary.

[newdayrising]

I have a different, but related question. Does it make sense to be against a period of transition/dictatorship of the proletariat but at the same time support national liberation, which means, basically, to support a form of bourgeois rule and/or founding new bourgeois states?

[DimSumMetal]

I feel slightly confused: What's your question specifically?

If someone claims to be a communist and hold onto such tendencies I feel that may make them a nascent nationalist, as it they can be lead down the path of nationalism if they're convinced that defending their 'people' and exclusively their 'people' is liberatory, then they're trying to uphold some kind of privilege for the group they perceive as superior to others. One's culture isn't important, people shouldn't take cultural differences to heart to the point that they feel they're so vastly different from one another. The devastation of the capitalist class system will have a profound effect on the world I feel, and allow cultures to flourish in a natural way and allow all people to feel oneness without having some state, church, or some other coercive force giving them something to fear.

Before I continue anything am I misinterpreting you?

What I meant is close but less exclusive and more focused on shared things in a certain geographical point.
For example, some French libertarian-communists from Brittany are very much in touch with the regions' culture and history and want to preserve it instead of being overrun with French (or Spanish) traditions that may erase some of the special things that are exclusive to there, not instead of other French people but for their sake.
That can also apply to Palestinian culture, cuisine and history, gaelic ones and so on...
It's less about "who matters more" (which is a subject that is very important for the nationalist rightists) and more about "Let's embrace our differences rather than eliminating them, because it's okay to have a different cultural background".
Another example, a bit different than the others I mentioned, are the EZLN.
Their struggle is very clearly one that is not just about economical and organisational differences with Mexico, it's also about liberation from another ethnic group that threatens to erase the history, culture and background of the indigenous.

I hope my dillema is a bit more clear and apologize for any typos, grammar mistakes or bad wording since English is not my first language.

[Sinister Intents]

I have a different, but related question. Does it make sense to be against a period of transition/dictatorship of the proletariat but at the same time support national liberation, which means, basically, to support a form of bourgeois rule and/or founding new bourgeois states?

Yeah, that makes sense, but I'm the other way around where I'm neutral on the subject of the dictatorship of proletarian transition, and I oppose national liberation because it simply puts the proletariat into another cage, perhaps a prettier cage, but a cage nonetheless.


What I meant is close but less exclusive and more focused on shared things in a certain geographical point.
For example, some French libertarian-communists from Brittany are very much in touch with the regions' culture and history and want to preserve it instead of being overrun with French (or Spanish) traditions that may erase some of the special things that are exclusive to there, not instead of other French people but for their sake.
That can also apply to Palestinian culture, cuisine and history, gaelic ones and so on...
It's less about "who matters more" (which is a subject that is very important for the nationalist rightists) and more about "Let's embrace our differences rather than eliminating them, because it's okay to have a different cultural background".
Another example, a bit different than the others I mentioned, are the EZLN.
Their struggle is very clearly one that is not just about economical and organisational differences with Mexico, it's also about liberation from another ethnic group that threatens to erase the history, culture and background of the indigenous.

I hope my dillema is a bit more clear and apologize for any typos, grammar mistakes or bad wording since English is not my first language.

It sounds a bit like nascent nationalism still in the respect that they're defending the culture they're attached to from outside influences. Say that the French and Spanish were more rabid in nationalism, it could push these people into being nationalistic, it could push them to defending their exclusive culture from being consumed by another by force or destroyed by another culture. It also makes me think about national liberation, but with left leaning liberatory trimmings. I haven't a problem with what you're describing, but I do have a problem with nationalism and national liberation, and what you describe isn't exactly those, save for the case with the Palestinians that are being oppressed by the state of Israel. Cultures are perfectly fine and should be able to meld and intermingle, to be something that anyone can be a part of, and not something exclusive for one group of people

[DimSumMetal]

Could you rephrase "...and what you describe isn't exactly those, save for the case with the Palestinians that are being oppressed by the state of Israel. Cultures are perfectly fine and should be able to meld and intermingle, to be something that anyone can be a part of, and not something exclusive for one group of people"

My not-perfect-enough English is giving me trouble in understanding that specific part.

[Sinister Intents]

What I'm trying to say is that there exists nascent nationalism with certain individuals and their love for a culture they didn't have any say in its creation. Its fine to love it, but its not a part of you or me. Culture when getting pressed by others can elicit some to react in a way as to defend the culture and it can get to the point of nationalism. Culture should become something more than what it is and be allowed to mix and disperse, to not be defined by borders. Culture should never be exclusive.

[DimSumMetal]

Yeah, pretty much.
But let me make it even harder and give two different examples of imaginary places, just for the sake of the discussion and so we could talk about the most complex of cases.
1. Imagine a place that has a culture, history, flag, symbols etc.
The people of that place don't care if you come in, live with them, be a part of everything that is this place has to offer (as in, outsiders are welcome to join and the culture and symbols are open for everyone who finds those enjoyable). Be that as it may, what they do care about is that the culture and symbols "stay alive" in the sense that they demand autonomy where they live and have a big focus on their culture and symbols.
It's clearly nationalistic, very dumb and has a dangerous potential, but fails to have the "We're better than you" or "You must be from that ethnicity to be a part".

2. I don't know if you watched the South Park episode in Hawaii where the whites call themselves "native-Hawaiians" and make an absolute mess from Hawaiian culture and the indigenous are both a marginalized group and considered not native Hawaiian since the whites have invented a "native-card" that they don't own.
I use this example for a case when culture wasn't naturally changing due to time being what it is but a case in which it was forcibly "stolen" for the benefit of others (this native-card granted discounts at most places).

I apologize for using annoying examples of cases that are imaginary but I really try to get to the very special cases and discuss those too.

[newdayrising]

Yeah, that makes sense, but I'm the other way around where I'm neutral on the subject of the dictatorship of proletarian transition, and I oppose national liberation because it simply puts the proletariat into another cage, perhaps a prettier cage, but a cage nonetheless.

What makes sense, my question or being against a proletarian state but supporting a bourgeois one in the name of national liberation? If the latter? How?

[cyu]

In terms of power relationships, as long as you're not forcing something on others, then it's fine. For example, let's say everyone in a region eats rice. Then anarchist ideology sweeps the region. Does that mean everybody suddenly stops eating rice? No. If you want to eat rice, then eat rice. Anarchists would protect your right to keep eating rice, if that's what you want to eat. However, if you are trying to force someone else to eat rice, and that person rebels against your choice of cuisine, then anarchists would support his right to eat something else.