Turkey carries out airstrikes after deadly bombing in Ankara

[Solarstone]

By Associated Press

Turkey lashed out at Kurdish targets on Monday, bombing military positions in northern Iraq and rounding up dozens of militants across Turkey, after a suicide car bombing in the heart of the capital drew the country even deeper into the complex Syrian conflict.

There was no claim of responsibility for the attack on bus stops that killed 37 people in Ankara on Sunday, but a senior government official said the two attackers — a man and a woman — were suspected of links to the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was continuing.

The attack further complicated Turkey's place in the region as it battles a host of enemies across its borders including the Syrian government, Kurdish rebels in both Iraq and Syria, and Islamic State, even as it has been forced to absorb 2.7 million refugees from the conflict.

Turkey is also battling the PKK, a Kurdish group that has been fighting for autonomy in southeast Turkey for three decades. A fragile, 2½-year peace process broke down in July. Turkey blames the PKK, saying it was inspired by the success of the Kurdish militia forces in Syria against Islamic State in the city of Kobani and elsewhere. The PKK blames Turkey for failing to deliver on promises.

More than 200 people have died in five suicide bombings in Turkey since July that were blamed either on the Kurdish rebels or Islamic State. Sunday's attack was the second suicide bombing in the capital; a Feb. 17 attack claimed by a PKK offshoot killed 29 people.

"All five attacks are linked to the fallout of the Syrian civil war," said Soner Cagaptay, a Turkey expert at the Washington Institute. "Ankara's ill-executed Syria policy ... has exposed Turkey to great risks."

Bill Park, a lecturer on Turkish foreign policy and security at King's College London, said Turkey's aggression toward the Kurds in Syria have angered the Kurds within Turkey and inspired attacks.

"Bombings in Turkey now look like a campaign, and we have to assume that there will be more," he said.

If the bombing was the work of a PKK-affiliated group, it could mark a shift in tactics as the group had previously targeted members of Turkey's security forces instead of civilians, said Otso Iho, a senior analyst at IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre.

He said, however, that "any potential escalation of PKK attacks on purely civilian or tourist targets would likely be somewhat tempered by the group's awareness of the need to maintain its public image internationally."

Turkey considers the PKK and the Kurdish militia in Syria to be one and the same, and has been pressing its U.S. allies to stop helping the Syrian Kurds. Washington considers the PKK a terrorist organization, but has backed the Kurdish militia in Syria, which has been effective in fighting Islamic State.

Both Washington and Turkey have generally good relations with the Kurds in northern Iraq; Monday's bombing in northern Iraq targeted PKK bases rather than installations of the Iraqi Kurds.

In the raids, nine F-16s and two F-4 jets raided 18 PKK positions, including in the Qandil mountains where the group's leadership is based, the Turkish state-run Anadolu Agency reported. Ammunition depots, bunkers and shelters were among the targets hit.

Anadolu, citing unnamed security sources, said four people suspected of direct links to the bombing were detained in the southeastern city of Sanliurfa on Monday. The report didn't say in what way they were suspected of involvement. Police, meanwhile, carried out raids in the southern city of Adana, detaining 38 suspected PKK rebels, and 15 suspected Kurdish militants were detained in Istanbul, the agency reported.

Turkey already had plans for large-scale operations against Kurdish militants. Anadolu said an operation in Nusaybin, on the border with Syria, began Monday, and tanks have been deployed for another operation in the town of Yuksekova, near the border with Iraq. Authorities also imposed a curfew on Monday in the city of Sirnak, near the Iraqi border, signaling that the military was preparing an offensive there as well.

Turkey has been imposing curfews in flashpoints in the southeast since August in its fight against the PKK, which had set up barricades, dug trenches and planted explosives. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced, and human rights groups have criticized the military for scores of civilian deaths.

The death toll in Sunday's attack rose to 37 on Monday as three people died from wounds suffered in the attack. About 125 people were wounded, with 71 of them still hospitalized Monday. Of those, 15 were in serious condition.

Some of the victims were buried Monday, and details emerged of their identities.

Anadolu said one of the dead was the father of Umut Bulut, who plays for one of Turkey's top soccer teams, Galatasaray. He was on his way back to his hotel after watching his son play when the blast occurred, the agency said, adding that the son didn't learn of his father's death until he showed up for training Monday.

Police officer Nevzat Alagoz, another victim, was heading home after working security for the same match, according to Anadolu.

Another of the victims, 19-year-old engineering student Ozan Akkus, had lost a close friend October bombings, the newspaper Hurriyet said.

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-turkey-airstrikes-ankara-bombing-20160314-story.html

[Devrim]

Now that it is clear that this was a PKK bombing do people who have supported Kurdish nationalism think that the spreading of the war everywhere as the PKK leadership has called for, and more bombs like the recent one in Ankara would be a good thing?

Does the fact that the Turkish state is engaging in a barbaric war, particularly in some Kurdish towns such as Cizre, make terror bombing in Turkish cities a response that socialists can support?

Devrim

[hexaune]

Now that it is clear that this was a PKK bombing do people who have supported Kurdish nationalism think that the spreading of the war everywhere as the PKK leadership has called for, and more bombs like the recent one in Ankara would be a good thing?

Does the fact that the Turkish state is engaging in a barbaric war, particularly in some Kurdish towns such as Cizre, make terror bombing in Turkish cities a response that socialists can support?

Devrim

I thought this latest bombing hasn't been claimed by anyone yet and the previous one was TAK not PKK?

I don't think that these bombings can or should be supported by the way, the targeting of civilians plays right into Erdogans hands.

[ckaihatsu]

Now that it is clear that this was a PKK bombing do people who have supported Kurdish nationalism think that the spreading of the war everywhere as the PKK leadership has called for, and more bombs like the recent one in Ankara would be a good thing?

Does the fact that the Turkish state is engaging in a barbaric war, particularly in some Kurdish towns such as Cizre, make terror bombing in Turkish cities a response that socialists can support?


No.

[Devrim]

I thought this latest bombing hasn't been claimed by anyone yet and the previous one was TAK not PKK?

I don't think that these bombings can or should be supported by the way, the targeting of civilians plays right into Erdogans hands.

Member of the PKK leadership says the bomb was aimed at the police, which presumably means they did it:
http://odatv.com/mob_n2.php?n=pkkdan-ankara-saldirisiyla-ilgili-ilk-ses-cikti-1503161200
Devrim

[Recuperation]

I had read that since the car was in motion when it exploded that it was suspected to have been in accident, as in it exploded in the wrong place at the wrong time. However it should be obvious to anyone that attacks of this nature cannot be seen as responsible by any means in a dense urban environment and home made explosives are bound to detonate at inconvenient times. Not that the PKK has shown much regard for bystanders in the past or anything.

I harbored some optimism for the YPG for a while thinking that they might maintain autonomy from the PKK and therefor some rational decision making. Their willingness to jump into bed with anyone who would provide them with airstrikes and possible future state recognition put an end to that.

[Heretek]

Now that it is clear that this was a PKK bombing do people who have supported Kurdish nationalism think that the spreading of the war everywhere as the PKK leadership has called for, and more bombs like the recent one in Ankara would be a good thing?

Does the fact that the Turkish state is engaging in a barbaric war, particularly in some Kurdish towns such as Cizre, make terror bombing in Turkish cities a response that socialists can support?

Devrim

Interesting questions. I'd be interested in your response, though I imagine it to be opposed from your phrasing.

I'm of the opinion that national liberation nonsense such as this doesn't help the working class or the road to socialism. One dictator for another, one CEO for another, means nothing but continued struggle for us. Its like the Israel-Hamas debate. Terrorists, or tyrannical oppression. There is no "win" here, not for us.

[ckaihatsu]

Interesting questions. I'd be interested in your response, though I imagine it to be opposed from your phrasing.




I'm of the opinion that national liberation nonsense such as this doesn't help the working class or the road to socialism.


We can't generalize to *all* national liberation movements from this one, though -- *any* African, Latin American, or Asian country with a colonial past would probably find national liberation to be a good 'first step', if only to break the inertia of the default 'economic nationalism' nationalist political mindset / consciousness. Certainly much could still go awry afterwards, *or* it could 'springboard' into more of a *continental* and *international* mass uprising like the Arab Spring of 2011.





One dictator for another, one CEO for another, means nothing but continued struggle for us.


True.





Its like the Israel-Hamas debate. Terrorists, or tyrannical oppression. There is no "win" here, not for us.


Of course the Palestinian situation is brought to mind here, but I don't think there's much of a parallel -- Israel's apartheid is far more onerous and controlling than the situation that the Kurds are in.

[Devrim]

Of course the Palestinian situation is brought to mind here, but I don't think there's much of a parallel -- Israel's apartheid is far more onerous and controlling than the situation that the Kurds are in.

In what way? If you are talking about death toll, the death toll of Kurds in Turkey is higher in a much shorter period.

Devrim

[ckaihatsu]

In what way? If you are talking about death toll, the death toll of Kurds in Turkey is higher in a much shorter period.


No, I'm talking 'geopolitically' and in 'humanitarian' terms, not raw death count -- the Kurds are on a generally better footing than the Palestinians are. (Consider that the Kurds have limited support from the U.S. and other major powers.)

So, to clarify, the Kurdish forces are *not* justified in any use of terrorism against civilians in Turkey.

[Recuperation]

The Kurds are able to leverage America's influence domestically inside of Turkey to just about the same extent that the Palestinians are able to leverage it inside of Israel. Which is to say not at all. Why does the political isolation of a government or self-appointed would-be government justify attacks which target civilians directly or indirectly?

[Heretek]

We can't generalize to *all* national liberation movements from this one, though -- *any* African, Latin American, or Asian country with a colonial past would probably find national liberation to be a good 'first step', if only to break the inertia of the default 'economic nationalism' nationalist political mindset / consciousness. Certainly much could still go awry afterwards, *or* it could 'springboard' into more of a *continental* and *international* mass uprising like the Arab Spring of 2011.

De-colonisation, in theory, is different from national liberation. Liberal national liberation and right to self-determination has caused the arbitrary borders now found in Africa and Asia, dividing people and tribes nonsensically, providing fuel for the fires of ethnic wars and genocides. Look at the Rwandan genocide. An artificial ruling class of a different 'race' was constructed, and then blamed for all the things that happened, all enforced by internationl law. If colonies were simply abandoned due to whatever, I feel as though things would simply drift back to where they were prior, perhaps a bit different. National liberation has caused the Balkans to regress into a backwater (not that I support the ethnic polices of Yugoslavia), and some of the countless wars in the Middle East, which has also contributed to the very crisis of kurds, assyrians, and other minorities.

[John Nada]

Member of the PKK leadership says the bomb was aimed at the police, which presumably means they did it:
http://odatv.com/mob_n2.php?n=pkkdan-ankara-saldirisiyla-ilgili-ilk-ses-cikti-1503161200
DevrimA shitty Google Translation of that article:
PKK near Ozgur Gundem "Hussein Ali," the pen name by the leader of the PKK in Kandil Mustafa Karasu, after the terrorist attack in Ankara in the article penned by the newspaper, said that target the riot point of attack.

Newspaper columnist Karasu "Union of People's Movement" in an article entitled told alliance formed by 10 organizations used the following phrases: "After the action aimed at the police riot in Ankara the AKP 'we crush, we will not' rhetoric, the dirty war that exacerbated and the massacre of civilians in Cizre, Silopi, İdil and reveals recklessly will be conducted as in the walls. This reality even fascist AKP hbdh'n up against what has occurred that reveals the right time to be announced. "

PKK Karasu article, "HBDH, Turkey is an alliance that needs. Form is very important to know. But that's beside the other democratic forces in Turkey formation is also important to establish a democracy bloc," he pointed to hdp'n legal overtake alliance.The article was selective quoting an article with Mustafa Karasu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Karasu) about the recently formed united front (https://anfenglish.com/news/peoples-united-revolutionary-movement-established-for-a-joint-struggle) of ten leftist organizations in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan.

AFAIK no one has yet claimed responsibility for the attack, though the government claims the suspects as well as the bomber were involved with the PKK. If it was the PKK, I think the target likely was the police but the bomb went off early. Very sad.

And I oppose both intentionally targeting civilians and fuck ups that end up killing civilians.
I'm of the opinion that national liberation nonsense such as this doesn't help the working class or the road to socialism. One dictator for another, one CEO for another, means nothing but continued struggle for us. Its like the Israel-Hamas debate. Terrorists, or tyrannical oppression. There is no "win" here, not for us.The other half of national liberation is fighting both the semi-feudal elements and capitalism, the economic base of colonialism, in addition to the dominate nation's colonial rule in the superstructure, direct, neocolonial or semi-colonial. Hamas is a reactionary semi-feudal force latching on parasitically to Palestinian liberation. The Palestinian proletariat will have to fight them too, in addition to the Palestinian and Israeli bourgeoisie.

In some nations, imperialism and colonialism greatly prevent the growth of a proletariat. Their economies are geared towards extracting resources and manufacturing a few select commodities in the imperialist centers. This leaves the majority as peasants or semi-proletarians stuck in seasonal work or perpetually unemployed. How can the proletarian minority have proletarian socialist revolutions with imperialism not only oppressing everyone by keeping them under semi-feudalistic neo-colonial capitalism, but stunting the development of the proletariat?
De-colonisation, in theory, is different from national liberation. Liberal national liberation and right to self-determination has caused the arbitrary borders now found in Africa and Asia, dividing people and tribes nonsensically, providing fuel for the fires of ethnic wars and genocides. Look at the Rwandan genocide. An artificial ruling class of a different 'race' was constructed, and then blamed for all the things that happened, all enforced by internationl law. If colonies were simply abandoned due to whatever, I feel as though things would simply drift back to where they were prior, perhaps a bit different. National liberation has caused the Balkans to regress into a backwater (not that I support the ethnic polices of Yugoslavia), and some of the countless wars in the Middle East, which has also contributed to the very crisis of kurds, assyrians, and other minorities.This is putting the horse before the carriage. In addition to few of the examples actually being about national liberation(Rwanda, Balkans, many of the wars in the Middle East, since it was often was not between different nations or to uphold neo-colonialism and even semi-feudalist elements), those problems would still be there even if colonialism was upheld. It isn't that people want independence and that causes problems, but that they have problems with national oppression causing them to seek independence. If the workers in the dominate nation seized power and pursued an anti-chauvinist policy, then the people in oppressed nations would be more willing to stay voluntarily.

[Devrim]

Juan, if you could read the piece your would see that it's a quotation from a newspaper close to the PKK in which Karasu says the target of the attack was the riot police. One would assume that if he knew the target, then they are responsible.

Devrim

[John Nada]

Juan, if you could read the piece your would see that it's a quotation from a newspaper close to the PKK in which Karasu says the target of the attack was the riot police. One would assume that if he knew the target, then they are responsible.

DevrimI knew that, though anyone could've guessed the cops were the target. I think it's likely the cops were the target, and the bomber was reportedly part of the PKK(more damning than your link) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/world/europe/turkey-identifies-ankara-bomber-as-a-kurdish-rebel.html?ref=europe

[Devrim]

I couldn't have guessed that the cops were the target. They didn't manage to kill any as far as I know. I think the link I made is 'more damning' as it quotes a member of the PKK leadership, not the Turkish state, which blames Kurds as a matter of course.

Devrim

[John Nada]

"More damning" as in if the bomber was actually in the PKK. Of course the government lies. Don't think that helps the victims and their families either way.

[Devrim]

Interesting questions. I'd be interested in your response, though I imagine it to be opposed from your phrasing.

I'm of the opinion that national liberation nonsense such as this doesn't help the working class or the road to socialism. One dictator for another, one CEO for another, means nothing but continued struggle for us. Its like the Israel-Hamas debate. Terrorists, or tyrannical oppression. There is no "win" here, not for us.

Basically, I agree with you. I don't think that national liberation offers anything to the working class.


We can't generalize to *all* national liberation movements from this one, though -- *any* African, Latin American, or Asian country with a colonial past would probably find national liberation to be a good 'first step', if only to break the inertia of the default 'economic nationalism' nationalist political mindset / consciousness. Certainly much could still go awry afterwards, *or* it could 'springboard' into more of a *continental* and *international* mass uprising like the Arab Spring of 2011.

We couldn't generalise to all if this were just one isolated. It's not though. It's not though. It's just one example of a general tendency. Also the Arab spring did not start as a 'national liberation movement'.


No, I'm talking 'geopolitically' and in 'humanitarian' terms, not raw death count -- the Kurds are on a generally better footing than the Palestinians are. (Consider that the Kurds have limited support from the U.S. and other major powers.)

So, to clarify, the Kurdish forces are *not* justified in any use of terrorism against civilians in Turkey.

I really don't like this idea of quantifying oppression. Do I take it from your response that Palestinians are justified in attacks on civilians.

[Heretek]

I don't think I folollow this line of reasoning. If the workers rise up against their oppressors, and they are truly doing it for the sake of themselves, why would they stop along the way to declare independence and contain themselves to a former colony with arbitrary borders? The only ones who benefit here are the bourgeoise of the oppressed people, being able to exploit the area without outside interference. If the workers did rise up, they'd more than likely work with the peasants, as they have done in the past, thanks to the uneven development of capital, to overthrow everything, not just regionalism.

In the past, the Russian revolution could have succeeded if one of the already industrialized nations had experienced its own revolt, allowing Russia to develop itself with their aid. Nowadays, Russia is among the most hostile places in the world to communism, even worse than some of the big western powers. How did the international proletariat benefit from the collapse of the USSR? I'm no sympathizer for the USSR, but arbitrary national liberation movements cut workers off from one another in around 16 countries. And now they each get to develop their own capital, but they compete against each other.

National liberation just further divides the workers. Rather than "overthrow the oppressive government," the thinking, or the excuse of the right, becomes "its all that other guy's fault. Hate them." A prime example would be the war in Ukraine. Workers of both countries are being very nicely exploited, but they can neatly blame their hardship upon one another, and fire up support for their fascists. It becomes "this country before any other" because they believe all the problems to be caused by their former oppressors, or their lost national territory. They would shoot workers from the other nation, rather than work with them. We can even see this hate on revleft. There are those from former soviet republics who despise the Russians on an ethnic level, and vice-versa, and their idea of communism involves some kind of genocide of their oppressor's race.

[ckaihatsu]

De-colonisation, in theory, is different from national liberation. Liberal national liberation and right to self-determination has caused the arbitrary borders now found in Africa and Asia, dividing people and tribes nonsensically, providing fuel for the fires of ethnic wars and genocides. Look at the Rwandan genocide. An artificial ruling class of a different 'race' was constructed, and then blamed for all the things that happened, all enforced by internationl law. If colonies were simply abandoned due to whatever, I feel as though things would simply drift back to where they were prior, perhaps a bit different. National liberation has caused the Balkans to regress into a backwater (not that I support the ethnic polices of Yugoslavia), and some of the countless wars in the Middle East, which has also contributed to the very crisis of kurds, assyrians, and other minorities.





[I]n addition to few of the examples actually being about national liberation(Rwanda, Balkans, many of the wars in the Middle East, since it was often was not between different nations or to uphold neo-colonialism and even semi-feudalist elements), those problems would still be there even if colonialism was upheld. It isn't that people want independence and that causes problems, but that they have problems with national oppression causing them to seek independence. If the workers in the dominate nation seized power and pursued an anti-chauvinist policy, then the people in oppressed nations would be more willing to stay voluntarily.


I've *never* heard the term 'de-colonization' in any sense of a historical political movement to get out from under finance-based exploitation of a country and imperialist hegemony over it.

I ultimately agree with JM that the *specifics* of any 'national liberation' are what matters, whether the trajectory is worker-based or is co-opted by a comprador bourgeoisie.





Basically, I agree with you. I don't think that national liberation offers anything to the working class.


Sorry, but this, too, is too much of a 'blanket' treatment over a kind of movement that can readily swing either left or right, depending on actualities.

It's the same as saying 'revolution' offers nothing to the working class -- we'd have to get more *information*, to ascertain *what kind* of revolution, etc.


---





We can't generalize to *all* national liberation movements from this one, though -- *any* African, Latin American, or Asian country with a colonial past would probably find national liberation to be a good 'first step', if only to break the inertia of the default 'economic nationalism' nationalist political mindset / consciousness. Certainly much could still go awry afterwards, *or* it could 'springboard' into more of a *continental* and *international* mass uprising like the Arab Spring of 2011.





We couldn't generalise to all if this were just one isolated. It's not though. It's not though. It's just one example of a general tendency. Also the Arab spring did not start as a 'national liberation movement'.


You're saying that Kurdish revolutionary separatism is a *general tendency* in the world today -- ?

I'd welcome the naming of just *one other* kind of bid for national independence that's similar.

The Arab Spring didn't *consciously* start out with any mentality or slogan of 'national liberation', but it *was* a national-liberation politics, in effect, in Tunisia, and then Bahrain, and Egypt, however far the people of each country actually got.


---





No, I'm talking 'geopolitically' and in 'humanitarian' terms, not raw death count -- the Kurds are on a generally better footing than the Palestinians are. (Consider that the Kurds have limited support from the U.S. and other major powers.)

So, to clarify, the Kurdish forces are *not* justified in any use of terrorism against civilians in Turkey.





I really don't like this idea of quantifying oppression.


You don't have to 'like' *any* of it -- I'm not here for my health, so it's gotta be for *other* reasons....

I'm just saying that 'body count' *isn't* the yardstick regarding this ongoing 'Syrian civil war' -- the standards of 'geopolitics' and 'humanitarian' applies to ISIS, as well, which isn't nearly as much of a threat to people's existence as, say, the NATO countries, but it *is* far more of a threat to 'civilization' -- if you will -- in the sense of a secular, bourgeois civil society, for whatever that's worth.





Do I take it from your response that Palestinians are justified in attacks on civilians.


I could see where someone might get that impression using an *inference*.

[Heretek]

I have never seen an instance of national liberation benefit the working class, or used by the working class for further aggravation and revolution. Shockingly, most countries today belong to bourgeoise democracy. Those that don't are hereditary dictaroships (founded in the name of the workers in at least one case) or deliberate state capitalists. To quote the ICC:


All the nationalist ideologies - ‘national independence’, ‘the right of nations to self-determination’, etc. - whatever their pretext, ethnic, historical or religious, are a real poison for the workers. By calling on them to take the side of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie, they divide workers and lead them to massacre each other in the in the interests and wars of their exploiters.

Why would a worker's directed revolution stop at national liberation in the first place, rather than, perhaps, overthrowing their oppressors entirely? Or aim at instituting communism?

You should also know inference is part of usual human conversation

[John Nada]

TAK claimed responsibility for the Ankara attack: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-blast-idUSKCN0WJ0ON

Could the off-topic stuff on national liberation be split into another thread?

[John Nada]

I don't think I folollow this line of reasoning. If the workers rise up against their oppressors, and they are truly doing it for the sake of themselves, why would they stop along the way to declare independence and contain themselves to a former colony with arbitrary borders? The only ones who benefit here are the bourgeoise of the oppressed people, being able to exploit the area without outside interference. If the workers did rise up, they'd more than likely work with the peasants, as they have done in the past, thanks to the uneven development of capital, to overthrow everything, not just regionalism.Yes, that's the point. A revolutionary spark that spreads. Fighting colonialism is part of minimum programs.

Although if your going by the ICC, as indicated in the post below, AFAIK they neither support a worker-peasant alliance, the "theory of uneven development", nor minimum programs, and don't appear to have a coherent theory on what the fuck a nation actually is beyond some vague ideological trick.
In the past, the Russian revolution could have succeeded if one of the already industrialized nations had experienced its own revolt, allowing Russia to develop itself with their aid. Nowadays, Russia is among the most hostile places in the world to communism, even worse than some of the big western powers. How did the international proletariat benefit from the collapse of the USSR? I'm no sympathizer for the USSR, but arbitrary national liberation movements cut workers off from one another in around 16 countries. And now they each get to develop their own capital, but they compete against each other.It didn't benefit. The Russian Soviet Republic ceding wasn't a minimum program(precursor to a maximum program of socialist revolution) for a subjugated nation but a finish to a long drawn out counterrevolution. A unitary state wouldn't have made Uzbeks, Ukrainians, Armenians, ect. disappear, but would've favored Russian chauvinism even more. In that case, the USSR would've gone down earlier and in an even worse bloodbath. Best case scenario would be Putin having a larger country and more internal colonies. If anything, depriving Caucasus nations like Chechnya the right to self-determination has made things worse, with the brutal butchery of workers in the name of "keeping Russia united", leading to the rise of salafi-jihadism in the absences of a revolutionary socialist movement.
National liberation just further divides the workers. Rather than "overthrow the oppressive government," the thinking, or the excuse of the right, becomes "its all that other guy's fault. Hate them." A prime example would be the war in Ukraine. Workers of both countries are being very nicely exploited, but they can neatly blame their hardship upon one another, and fire up support for their fascists. It becomes "this country before any other" because they believe all the problems to be caused by their former oppressors, or their lost national territory. They would shoot workers from the other nation, rather than work with them. We can even see this hate on revleft. There are those from former soviet republics who despise the Russians on an ethnic level, and vice-versa, and their idea of communism involves some kind of genocide of their oppressor's race.Ukraine is not undergoing national liberation. It's what's called a shatterbelt in geopolitics. The US-NATO bloc moving into Russia's sphere of influence with the goal of containing a rival imperialist which controls the "heartland" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History).
I've *never* heard the term 'de-colonization' in any sense of a historical political movement to get out from under finance-based exploitation of a country and imperialist hegemony over it.What about the countless stuff written about neocolonialism and semi-colonialism? Off the top of my head, Cuba, Burkina Faso, China, ect. Generally it's one part of a minimum program, right there with fighting feudal elements and landowners. Basically a necessity since the bourgeoisie itself is dependent on imperialism and colonialism.
I ultimately agree with JM that the *specifics* of any 'national liberation' are what matters, whether the trajectory is worker-based or is co-opted by a comprador bourgeoisie.
I have never seen an instance of national liberation benefit the working class, or used by the working class for further aggravation and revolution. Shockingly, most countries today belong to bourgeoise democracy. Those that don't are hereditary dictaroships (founded in the name of the workers in at least one case) or deliberate state capitalists. To quote the ICC:
All the nationalist ideologies - ‘national independence’, ‘the right of nations to self-determination’, etc. - whatever their pretext, ethnic, historical or religious, are a real poison for the workers. By calling on them to take the side of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie, they divide workers and lead them to massacre each other in the in the interests and wars of their exploiters.If they are bourgeois-democracies, then that's a success, for defeating absolutism and feudalism was considered by Marx and Engels a prerequisite for a proletarian socialist revolution. Next revolutionary period will show whether this helped any.

Vietnam's Wars of Liberation did provoke progressive movements in France and the US. The US's lost has deterred both the US and other imperialists from pursuing even more ambitions interventions(though sadly not eliminating the threat). Their heroic example of the workers and poor peasants in Vietnam and other wars of liberation have shattered the myth of an invincible superpower. Regardless of the state-capitalist nature of many of those nations today, this would provide proof for workers worldwide that revolutions can succeed in the face of imperialist onslaught.

There's plenty of negative examples, supposedly of the "evils of self-determinations" but so far more the evils of geopolitics, bigotry and war. Every attempt at fighting imperialism could be written off as shit because frankly nearly all the successor states are better but still bad or still neo-colonies. Yet are there any positive examples of opposing self-determination working out for the proletariat? Not fights against regionalism like the American Civil War or religious civil wars, but actual workers of oppressed nations(as defined below) giving up any fight for self-determination and the proletariat(and "their" bourgeoisie) of dominate nations reciprocating it, either benefiting now or some time in the future?

Nations are not religions, clans, tribes, subcultures, states, regions within nations, "mythical histories", bloodlines, races, any (insert random identity) or even a homogenous ethnicity. It's a product of the capitalist epoch consisting of a historically constituted community with a common language, common territory, common economic life and common culture. It is not purely an ideology of the state, for there are nations without states, and language, economics and territory are part of the productive forces and relations of production.

The way to combat nationalism isn't to pretend nations and oppressed nations don't exist, but to eliminate the divide already existing(de jure or de facto) for international unity.
Why would a worker's directed revolution stop at national liberation in the first place, rather than, perhaps, overthrowing their oppressors entirely? Or aim at instituting communism?

You should also know inference is part of usual human conversationYes, that's the point.

[ckaihatsu]

I've *never* heard the term 'de-colonization' in any sense of a historical political movement to get out from under finance-based exploitation of a country and imperialist hegemony over it.

I ultimately agree with JM that the *specifics* of any 'national liberation' are what matters, whether the trajectory is worker-based or is co-opted by a comprador bourgeoisie.





What about the countless stuff written about neocolonialism and semi-colonialism? Off the top of my head, Cuba, Burkina Faso, China, ect. Generally it's one part of a minimum program, right there with fighting feudal elements and landowners. Basically a necessity since the bourgeoisie itself is dependent on imperialism and colonialism.


I meant 'de-colonization' in the sense of *terminology* -- of course there are always anti-imperialist / national-liberation / minimum-program struggles going on all the time, as long as capitalism and imperialism are still around.