Pan-Celtic Marxism Leninism

[Comrade Maxist]

Would anybody be interested in setting up a pan-Celt Marxist Leninist group ( marxist-leninist-maoists, maoists and Hoxhaists are welcome as well)

Also maybe discuss other Pan-<insert> communism.

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

Is there not a group already yet filling this niche?

[Creative Destruction]

ugh. pan-nationalism.

[VivalaCuarta]

Stinks like fascism to me.

[Atsumari]

Is this a new thing or are you trying to take things further to the left than parties such as the SNP and Plaid Cymru?

[motion denied]

sure bud

totes willing

[Medgard]

Isn't Hoxhaism just Marxism-Leninism?:confused:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Social Hoxhaism or lifestyle Hoxhaism: an unbridgeable chasm.

[Ismail]

Isn't Hoxhaism just Marxism-Leninism?:confused:Yes. The Party of Labour of Albania only ever called itself Marxist-Leninist and there was no attempt made to present Enver Hoxha's writings as constituting some sort of "higher stage" of Marxism-Leninism.

Of course the Soviet and Chinese revisionists, the Titoites, Castroites and so on all call themselves "Marxist-Leninist" as well, but they do/did actually have their own "creative," "non-dogmatic," etc. doctrines.

[Left Voice]

Can you expand on what you mean by 'pan-Celtic'? I'm not sure how the idea of communism specifically focusing on Ireland, Wales, Gaelic Scotland, Brittany, Manx etc. could lend itself to international socialism.

Left-Wing nationalism is such a strange phenomena because they seem to have the bizarre idea that nationalisms must be embraced in order to eventually destroy them. I don't get it.

[1xAntifa]

Sorry but from where I'm sitting this sounds way to close to the fascist glorification of nationality, and as an antifa, that gets my hackles up immediately. We are all human.

But if, as I think, you're emphasising a geographic region as a discussion, without an emphasis on Pan-Celtic [it sounds so very white pride] ethnicity then, I can see the value of a venue to discuss local issues,campaigns and tactics. But the name bugs me. Can I suggest a re-think on that?
:)

[Q]

Sorry but from where I'm sitting this sounds way to close to the fascist glorification of nationality, and as an antifa, that gets my hackles up immediately. We are all human.

But if, as I think, you're emphasising a geographic region as a discussion, without an emphasis on Pan-Celtic [it sounds so very white pride] ethnicity then, I can see the value of a venue to discuss local issues,campaigns and tactics. But the name bugs me. Can I suggest a re-think on that?
:)
The name is not really the issue I think. That is really just cosmetical. The nationalist disease that these comrades are defending is the real issue.

To put it differently: A turd is still a turd even when you give it a pretty name.

[bricolage]

Sorry but from where I'm sitting this sounds way to close to the fascist glorification of nationality, and as an antifa, that gets my hackles up immediately. We are all human.
Not all nationalists are fascists.
But they are still all nationalists.


But if, as I think, you're emphasising a geographic region as a discussion, without an emphasis on Pan-Celtic [it sounds so very white pride] ethnicity then, I can see the value of a venue to discuss local issues,campaigns and tactics. But the name bugs me. Can I suggest a re-think on that?
:)
But it's hardly like the local issues (and hence campaigns and tactics) are the same in all Celtic nations. They're spread over three countries for starters.

[1xAntifa]

Not all nationalists are fascists.
But they are still all nationalists.

Basically, I was following Revleft as it has an Oceania thread. As such
i have no objections on that basis.

But it's hardly like the local issues (and hence campaigns and tactics) are the same in all Celtic nations. They're spread over three countries for starters.

Well Oceania covers a whole lot more territory and cultures yet it is lumped together, so the same criticism could apply.

My point was to find a means of being inclusive and locating commonalities.

I hope you understand ;)

ps anarchist = no god, nation, master et-al.

[mushroompizza]

Couldn't you just join the left wing nationalist group?

[bricolage]

Well Oceania covers a whole lot more territory and cultures yet it is lumped together, so the same criticism could apply.

My point was to find a means of being inclusive and locating commonalities.

I hope you understand ;)

ps anarchist = no god, nation, master et-al.
why is that Oceania bit in my quote? I didn't write that.

[1xAntifa]

i made a snafu.

[G4b3n]

Stinks like fascism to me.

*calls Stalinism fascism
*Is a Trot.

Lol

[Atsumari]

Couldn't you just join the left wing nationalist group?
That would be wonderful. I could always use another tankie in my group that will be banned sooner or later.

[Rafiq]

"Left wing" nationalism in the globalised 21st century is inherently reactionary. There is simply no debate here: the very expression of nationalism today is a political position one could even call fascist. I mean, ask yourselves: Why do significant organizations like Casapound glorify Chavez and Che Guevara? Why is there almost this tacit solidarity between the "old" near eastern Left today and Russo-allied Islamist organizations? As it happens, left wing nationalism today is not only entirely compatible with Fascism, it is arguably a form of fascism.

Of course historically, this isn't always true. The nationalism of the Jacobins should be defended, as always - but even then, one can contest this as nationalism being that the existence of the nation-state, the source of ALL nationalism (rather than patriotism), didn't come to pass until decades later. Bottom line, there is no room for nationalism within the context of a capitalist totality for Communists. Nationalism *as we know it* LITERALLY coincided with reaction to the Communist project.

[Cliff Paul]

"Left wing" nationalism in the globalised 21st century is inherently reactionary.

no


There is simply no debate here: the very expression of nationalism today is a political position one could even call fascist.

no


I mean, ask yourselves: Why do significant organizations like Casapound glorify Chavez and Che Guevara?

And Breivik supported the zapatistas. So what?


Why is there almost this tacit solidarity between the "old" near eastern Left today and Russo-allied Islamist organizations?

Why is this relevant? Are you implying that Islam is fascist?


As it happens, left wing nationalism today is not only entirely compatible with Fascism, it is arguably a form of fascism.

no


Of course historically, this isn't always true. The nationalism of the Jacobins should be defended, as always - but even then, one can contest this as nationalism being that the existence of the nation-state, the source of ALL nationalism (rather than patriotism), didn't come to pass until decades later. Bottom line, there is no room for nationalism within the context of a capitalist totality for Communists. Nationalism *as we know it* LITERALLY coincided with reaction to the Communist project.

What are you implying here? That the are no longer oppressed nationalities? That Irish nationalism, Kurdish nationalism, etc. are anti-communist reactions?

[Rafiq]

no


Grow the fuck up. What makes you think "no" without further qualification passes off as a response? As though it's a given... Try again. You disagree, we get it. Or are you somehow conquering my claims by simply expressing disagreement? Do you even know what qualifies something as reactionary? Hint: it's not a buzzword to designate what we don't like.



And Breivik supported the zapatistas. So what?

Why is this relevant? Are you implying that Islam is fascist?

What are you implying here? That the are no longer oppressed nationalities? That Irish nationalism, Kurdish nationalism, etc. are anti-communist reactions?

For all the romanticism of the Zapatas, has it ever occurred to you why a reactionary would commend them? A rural based movement reacting to globalization... It doesn't matter that their reasons were perfectly justified, or that they were a better alternative for the people they aimed at: this doesn't negate their approximate character and consequently their positive reception among reactionaries.

"Islam" isn't even worth talking about but Islamism possesses the same characteristics as fascism that are worth mentioning: an appropriation of peoples grievances built off of the carcass of a failed revolution or the absence of a left alternative. This isn't "fascism" literally but it has the same form. I mean, by your logic, most who don't identify as fascists, but are "white nationalists" aren't. Tell me though: what the fuck was your point anyway? Why do you think I mentioned this? Because I talk out of my ass for no reason? I mean, go ahead with your idiotic pre-conceived judgements, you only embarrass yourself. And while oppressed nationalities will always exist within capitalism, these nationalities are composed of distinct classes: today national self determination is an impossibility as a result of the developments of the late 20th century. Nationalism today, rather than being an expression of the fight against national oppression, is the obscufation of its real nature. Today we live in a global capitalist totality wherein ALL states constitute an affirmative totality, wherein in the early 20th century they were economically an extension of advanced capitalist economies. But don't kid yourself: you need a communism for an anti-communist reaction and we don't have this: But yes, these are all reactionary in the 21st century if they are approximated against the globalised economy.

[Cliff Paul]

Or are you somehow conquering my claims by simply expressing disagreement?

No I was just making my own unsubstantiated claims too.


Tell me though: what the fuck was your point anyway? Why do you think I mentioned this? Because I talk out of my ass for no reason? I mean, go ahead with your idiotic pre-conceived judgements, you only embarrass yourself.

:wub:


And while oppressed nationalities will always exist within capitalism, these nationalities are composed of distinct classes: today national self determination is an impossibility as a result of the developments of the late 20th century. Nationalism today, rather than being an expression of the fight against national oppression, is the obscufation of its real nature. Today we live in a global capitalist totality wherein ALL states constitute an affirmative totality, wherein in the early 20th century they were economically an extension of advanced capitalist economies.

Not sure what you are hinting at here: that the globalization of the economy has eliminated economic exploitation of nationalities? that we should ignore the oppression of certain nationalities in favor of promoting 'internationalism'?


But yes, these are all reactionary in the 21st century if they are approximated against the globalised economy.

That seems like a weird qualifier to add since most nationalist movements aren't anti-globalization.

[Rafiq]

Not sure what you are hinting at here: that the globalization of the economy has eliminated economic exploitation of nationalities? that we should ignore the oppression of certain nationalities in favor of promoting 'internationalism'?

Why do you even make pretenses to engaging in a debate with me when you clearly don't know what you're talking about? I mean, what's the point of acting like you do? The fact of the matter is that the "economic exploitation of nationalities" as a whole is no longer possible as a result of the rise of respective national bourgeois classes with respective, independent interests. I dare you to name me a single example where this isn't the case: Even Imperialism today can only be articulated as a global system with different levels of respective domination - the Syrian state serves the Russian state by merit of its own, real affirmative interests, various organizations serve the Syrian state by merit of their own real, independent and affirmative interests and so on. The domination of nationalities, so to speak, has no longer defined the global imperialist system - though the oppression of nationalities is an irrevocable result of the nation-state. The difference is that the period wherein "nationalism" in the form of anti-imperialism had a favorable role to the global proletariat no longer exists. This is most evident in a place like Israel, where a people seeking "national liberation" are unable to do so while at the same time not constituting the oppression of other nations. I mean, let's be honest: Do you think that the kurdistan project could be any different? One only need look at newly formed nation states, whether it is Turkey or various African states to see this.

The point isn't to shy away from recognizing that national oppression exists, but to recognize that nationalism is a deterrent to the liberation, dare I say even conservation of nations.


That seems like a weird qualifier to add since most nationalist movements aren't anti-globalization.

Is this a joke? All nationalism is anti-globalization. What "nationalism" isn't, that is peculiar to our present epoch? Ask yourself - what does "nationalism" mean, what does it mean to prattle of nationalism - against the backdrop of what? Rival nations? Or the loss of national sovereignty to trans-national entities? In which case, I guess we ought to trail Putin, Orban, Farage and Le Pen on this righteous crusade.

[Comrade Maxist]

I mean that these countries would be marxist-leninist and form a confederation of sorts.

I don't think a peoples republic of donetsk would lead to international communism however I still support it.

[Comrade Maxist]

Your probably right about the name. the emphasis is more on independance and confederation rather on nationalism.

What about "Celtic-Confederalism"

Its about the celtic nations working together as marxist-leninists.:)

[Comrade Maxist]

Much further left than than those parties.
I am not a huge fan of them.

[Ismail]

Pan-"insert ethnic/cultural/religious group here" types generally have an antagonistic attitude towards Marxism-Leninism. Case in point, the right-wing Tatar "communist" Sultan-Galiev called for a union of the "proletarian nations" (i.e. Muslims) against the "bourgeois nations" (Russians, Ukrainians, etc.) He basically sought to revive the Pan-Turkish and Pan-Islamic fantasies of the Ottoman Empire, which attempted to appeal to Turkic peoples and Muslims across the former Russian Empire against the Bolsheviks.

A "Pan-Celtic" appeal doesn't make much sense. Why would the workers of Galicia (the region in Spain) want to federate with Ireland when it would make far more sense to unite with workers across Spain (including those in Catalonia, the Basques, etc.) in order to form an Iberian Federation? Wouldn't a truly equal federation of Britain make much more sense than the Isle of Mann uniting with Britanny? Wouldn't Wales as a constituent part of a socialist Britain make far more sense than that same Wales federating with its "cultural brethren" in Austria (since there are apparently people who consider Austrians to be "Celtic")?

[Guardia Rossa]

Ismail is exagerating quite a lot.

His point was not that one, not the reunion of "ethnic" but yes of cultural celts, wich is what nationalism/patriotism means: Identification to a culture, defence and expansion of that culture. His Ideology is probably one of freeing the opressed celts from London rule and create a socialist nation (opressing those who identify with brits that are not in England).

Also he used the expression "celtic nations", doing a quick search shows up only Britanic celtic nations (Britanny is a colony of the Celts of Britain Isles)

Lol.

[Ismail]

His point was not that one, not the reunion of "ethnic" but yes of cultural celts, wich is what nationalism/patriotism means:That certainly isn't the Marxist-Leninist definition of nationalism. I know in Yugoslavia "Muslims" were proclaimed a nation, which is a good example of the anti-Marxist nature of the Titoite regime, but neither Lenin or Stalin would recognize such a thing.

As Stalin pointed out: "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture... it is sufficient for a single one of these characteristics to be lacking and the nation ceases to be a nation." Thus one can easily note the existence of a Welsh nation, an Irish nation, a Scottish nation, etc., but there are no grounds for claiming a "Celtic" nation exists, much less that it faces national oppression. It would be like me claiming that Romanian communists, instead of calling for a Balkan socialist federation, should instead struggle to federate with Italy, Spain and France because of their "common bonds" forged through having languages derived from Latin.


Also he used the expression "celtic nations", doing a quick search shows up only Britanic celtic nations (Britanny is a colony of the Celts of Britain Isles)I don't see how this changes anything. He still thinks that the people of Scotland have more in common with Galicia or Britanny than with England.

[Rafiq]

If a nation is construed as something beyond its own proximity of distinct existence - i.e. if special qualifications are given that would unite people's nationally that would otherwise have nothing to do with each other, not only is this anti-Marxist, it is reactionary. Hence Pan-Arabism or even Pan-Slavism are reactionary - a Syrian man has little to do with an Algerian, and a Russian has very little to do with a Serb. Interestingly enough, at least early on, this was Stalin's policy toward the Jews as not constituting an actual nation (which proves that charges of anti-semitism are ridiculous) which turned out to be absolutely correct if one examines the Israeli state, completely full of national, ethnic divisions and tensions, with political factions formed for Russian-speakers, Arab Jews and so on - the only thing uniting the Israelis, really, is their shared opposition to the Arab states.

[Comrade Maxist]

Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

Ismail you make fairly good points however I said Confederation.

[Ismail]

Ismail you make fairly good points however I said Confederation.I don't see how that changes anything. A confederation between Scotland, Britanny and Galicia still makes no sense and there is still no basis for any sort of exclusive political entity encompassing these and a few other regions, just as there's no reason to create a confederation of Romania, Italy, Ecuador, Angola and so on just because they all use a Latin language, or a confederation of Mongolia, Tibet, Kalmykia, etc. in the name of uniting Buddhists.

[Comrade Maxist]

Fair enough. I am open minded so I think I may revise my views on this subject.

Thanks to everyone for contributing :)