Small nationalism

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I do not know the correct term, so I made this one up. People like the Kurds, Palestinians, Chechans, Basks, Irish have all wanted for a long time their own countries. Should we support this or not. Let me give a couple of arguments.

Pro:

- Instead of "one big capitalist" it divides them and makes them weaker and thus easier to overthrow.

- It helps with the emancipation of minorities, when they have their own nation.

- People in smaller nations have more autonomy and are harder to controll by governmental authority.

Against:

- It divides the working class further, making their unification harder.

- Nationalism feeds racism and chauvanism

- Since Capitalism/Imperialism requires war, this would make it easier for large nations to take in the smaller ones.

- This could extend the duration of capitalism in general and spark wars, inwhich the working class will participate more fanatically, since they feel that they are "closer" to their leaders.

Note: I do not agree with a lot of of these arguments and my views on this matter have changed dramatically in the past few days. For the sake of the debate, I will not reveal them yet

Have fun!

[Conghaileach]

Points one and four are the only ones that seem to be directed towards the issue of small countries and their national liberation in the 'against' section.



- It divides the working class further, making their unification harder.
Marx argued that any nation that oppresses another cannot be free, and the same is essentially true for its proletariat. As a result he called on the English working class to support the Irish national struggle.

You also run the risk, in a scenario like this, of chaining the revolutionary working class of an oppressed nation to the more reactionary working class of the oppressor. Personally I feel a Scottish Workers' Republic (for instance) would be nothing but a positive development for the English and Welsh working class.

What it comes down to is whether or not the national struggle is progressive (i.e. socialist) in nature.



- This could extend the duration of capitalism in general and spark wars, inwhich the working class will participate more fanatically, since they feel that they are "closer" to their leaders.
As above, this isn't likely if the national struggle is socialist in nature.

[Conghaileach]

In looking for that Marx quotation mentioned above, I tripped over a page (http://home.online.no/~vorhaug/politics/arkiv/hungarian_tragedy/) with these comments...


'A people which enslaves others forges its own chains'.
Karl Marx

'The victorious proletariat can force no blessings of any kind upon any foreign nation without undermining its own victory by so doing'.
Frederick Engels

'If Finland, if Poland, if the Ukraine break away from Russia, there is nothing bad about that. Anyone who says there is, is a chauvinist. It would be madness to continue the policy of the Tsar Nicholas. . . No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations'.
V. I. Lenin

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nationalism is bad, whether it comes from the oppressor or the oppressed. It is in effect saying that 'the atrocities you committed against us in the past will excuse the atrocity we're about to commit now!'
wouldn't a socialist Britain be better than a socialist Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England seperately? Or come to think of it, a socialist world? As an anarchist I see no utility in socialism, but isn't internationalism rather than nationalism considered more progressive? History has repeatedly shown that socialism leads to outright patriotism in any case. NI may break away and become independant (And maybe nicer, for the time being)
but to the proletariat it's just another nation-state, with all that that entails.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 07:17 PM
wouldn't a socialist Britain be better than a socialist Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England seperately? Or come to think of it, a socialist world?
Depends what kind of world you're looking for. Personally I have no problem with the creation of federations of free peoples, but Britain is based on the subjugation of the Scottish and Welsh (and part of Ireland, as regard the UK) people, the yoking of them to the imperialist will of the English bourgeoisie. The Acts of Union with Scotland (1707) and Ireland (1801) saw the national bourgeoisie of these countries surrender their national sovereignty in exchange for gold, and token representation in Westminister.



As an anarchist I see no utility in socialism, but isn't internationalism rather than nationalism considered more progressive?
As I've said before on these boards, the most genuine internationalists I've ever met have been Basque Nationalists - definitely moreso than the phony internationalism of many of the ultra-left.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

The question of nationalism and national liberation is key in the struggle for socialism and the revolutionary transformation of all society.

As Communists, we should support and uphold all national liberation struggles that are fighting against national oppression and foreign occupation, from Ireland to Palestine to the African-American nation in the U.$. National liberation is a key part of socialist revolution in countries that are oppressed by imperialism, as shown in the People's Wars in China, Peru, Nepal, and the Philippines. However, while nationalism is progressive and can even be revolutionary, it is not the ideology that can bring true, permanent liberation to the masses or bring about a world without classes, oppression, or exploitation. The only way that can be done is through an internationalist outlook, based in a revolutionary Communist ideology. A good article about Nationalism and Internationalism can be found here: http://rwor.org/a/ctlt/ctlt8.htm

Some quotes from the position paper:



Nationalism and Internationalism

Nationalism has played a major role in the struggles of Black people in the U.S. and in the struggles of other oppressed peoples. But the basic question is: Whose interests does the ideology of nationalism represent and can nationalism lead to all-the-way liberation?

Nationalism as an ideology actually favors the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, and in the final analysis it promotes capitalism. Of course, not all nationalism is the same. Black nationalism is hardly the same as white nationalism. The nationalism of an oppressed nation is very different from the nationalism of an oppressor nation. The nationalism of an oppressed people does have to do with fighting against oppression--against discrimination and inequality--while the nationalism of an oppressor nation only has to do with enforcing oppression and trampling on justice and equality. There is a fundamental distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations, and it is crucial to recognize this fundamental dividing line, or else you will end up siding with the oppressors.

But when all is said and done, nationalism, of any kind, is still the outlook of the bourgeoisie and ultimately serves capitalism. It is still the outlook of exploiters and wanna be exploiters, even if those exploiters and wanna be exploiters are held down and discriminated against by bigger, more powerful exploiters. Black capitalists may not be big sharks like the white capitalists who rule in the system of U.S. imperialism--and it may be possible to some degree to unite with Black capitalists against this system of imperialism--but one basic truth remains: capitalism means exploiting people. Nobody has ever accumulated capital except by exploiting other people --and nobody ever could--that's the nature of the beast.

....


Nationalism may claim to stand for everyone--for the nation as a whole--and not just the upper classes within the nation. It may even declare itself most in favor of the working classes and poor people of the nation. But to really represent the working class and poor people--the proletariat--a different ideology is needed. Because the proletariat, as a class, can win its emancipation only by ending exploitation and oppression, in every form, everywhere, the outlook that serves the interests of the proletariat is not nationalism but internationalism. Above all, the allegiance of the proletariat is not to any one nation but to the cause of emancipation--of ending all exploitation and oppression--worldwide.

The question for the proletariat is: What ideology can unite the oppressed and exploited people to fight for their highest interests? How can nationalism--even a revolutionary kind of nationalism that stands up against the system in the name of the oppressed peoples--build the highest and broadest unity? How can it build unity among all who must be united, on the best, the most powerful basis and with the most all-the-way revolutionary line in the lead? It cannot. Nationalism may be a powerful and a positive force in the struggle of an oppressed people up to a point. But nationalism cannot take things as far as they need to go--it cannot be the guide to complete liberation.

[PRC-UTE]

isn't internationalism rather than nationalism considered more progressive?

&#39;Internationalism&#39; means &#39;between nations&#39;. And imperialism isn&#39;t internationalism. Do you see Iraqi workers and American workers holding hands right now? <_<

The problem with your position is that you&#39;re actually denying reality. The truth is that British soldiers, along with a section of the working class, ie Loyalists, are actively oppressing another section of the workers because of their national identity (or percieved identity), the Catholic / nationalist community. No ideology you embrace will change that reality.

I don&#39;t see why the left is actively ignoring this -- is it because as James Connolly said, it&#39;s safer to ignore it while blathering on about a socialism that isn&#39;t around the corner?

I&#39;ve commented on this issue a lot, and I&#39;ve said before I support the Irish Republican Socialist Party (http://www.irsm.org/) who call for National Liberation and Socialist Revolution.

Many national liberation struggles are progressive and even socialist. In many ways the Irish struggle against capitalism became labelled &#39;nationalist&#39; simply because the working class of other countries didn&#39;t support the struggle. In Ireland during the Tan War there were soviets and workers collectives set up all over the country on land expropriated from British loyalists. The English Tans came in and destroyed them; when Michael Collins was put into power by the Brits he finished dismantling them.

What I find shocking amongst many anarchists and ultra-leftists is how many of them will compeltely slag off Irish republicanism whilst never questioning the national identity of the &#39;British&#39; Irish who are responisible for the entire problem. :blink:

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Dec 14 2004, 05:29 PM
I do not know the correct term, so I made this one up. People like the Kurds, Palestinians, Chechans, Basks, Irish have all wanted for a long time their own countries. Should we support this or not. Let me give a couple of arguments.

Depends, if you know some history about the ETA (Basque Liberation Front?), or if I remember correctly. The ETA was formed at the end of the Spanish Civil War as an anti-fascist guerilla organization with leftist ideology, same went with some elements in the Irish sepertist movement.


I know two Basque Nationalists at my school.....


I think Nationalism can be used as a tool of agitation to further a revolutionary cause, take for example Russia, or how it was rumoured that Morroco would revolt against Spanish Nationalist rule.
An other example would be the guerilla war against Imperialist France for the liberation of Algeria.

[leftist resistance]

People in smaller nations have more autonomy and are harder to controll by governmental authority

I beg to differ.People in smaller nations are easier to be controlled by the goverment


- It divides the working class further, making their unification harder

It shouldn&#39;t since they&#39;re working towards a common goal,independance.


- Nationalism feeds racism and chauvanism

Nationalism doesn&#39;t necessarily lead to this.If the different racial groups learn live harmoniously together and people are not judged by the colour if their skin,then racism would not be a problem


- Since Capitalism/Imperialism requires war, this would make it easier for large nations to take in the smaller ones.

- This could extend the duration of capitalism in general and spark wars, inwhich the working class will participate more fanatically, since they feel that they are "closer" to their leaders.



Sorry,i don&#39;t understand.Please elaborate :(

I support the struggle of the Palestinians,Irish,Chechen and their likes.I believe these are struggles of liberation against oppression

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 05:52 PM

Personally I feel a Scottish Workers&#39; Republic (for instance) would be nothing but a positive development for the English and Welsh working class.

and how about a welsh republic? i used to hate the nationalists, but now ive grown to appreciate that we have our own culture, and language. if anyone deserves independence, id say its wales.

i think nationalism, when it comes to national struggle, is ok. once you have won your independence, and are still nationalistic, then problems of racism, etc could grow.

[RagsToRevolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:37 AM

- Nationalism feeds racism and chauvanism

Nationalism doesn&#39;t necessarily lead to this.If the different racial groups learn live harmoniously together and people are not judged by the colour if their skin,then racism would not be a problem
Racism is not just skin color, its ethinicity. This can be pointed to Serbian nationalism, also, anti-semitism, to those who consider being Jewish a race. Sometimes nationalism is ethnic, and that creates great friction between cultures.

[RedAnarchist]

Ethnic nationalism is useless, as it divides the people up with one of the most superficial of social divisions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Depends what kind of world you&#39;re looking for. Personally I have no problem with the creation of federations of free peoples, but Britain is based on the subjugation of the Scottish and Welsh (and part of Ireland, as regard the UK) people, the yoking of them to the imperialist will of the English bourgeoisie. The Acts of Union with Scotland (1707) and Ireland (1801) saw the national bourgeoisie of these countries surrender their national sovereignty in exchange for gold, and token representation in Westminister.

I was referring to britain as a geographical area, of course. I&#39;m not denying that socialist nations are &#39;more humane&#39; than capitalist nations, but they are of course totally useless if your goal is classless society without divisions along superficial national/religious lines, which it is... right?


As I&#39;ve said before on these boards, the most genuine internationalists I&#39;ve ever met have been Basque Nationalists - definitely moreso than the phony internationalism of many of the ultra-left.

Of course, attempted bombing of civilians who have no control over the actions of their government is true internationalism:


On December 12, 2004, the Madrid Santiago Bernabéu football Stadium was evacuated due to a phoned-in bomb threat in name of ETA. The bomb—expected to blow up at 9:00 p.m.—didn&#39;t explode, and the 69,000 spectators of the match under way at the time of the call were safely evacuated by the Spanish Police at 8:45 p.m.

:rolleyes:


&#39;Internationalism&#39; means &#39;between nations&#39;. And imperialism isn&#39;t internationalism. Do you see Iraqi workers and American workers holding hands right now?

Indoctrination from birth to death of imperial superiority is difficult, but far from impossible, to win over. It is our job to break this mental conditioning. I fail to see how a new system of indoctrination of national superority will make the situation better.


The problem with your position is that you&#39;re actually denying reality. The truth is that British soldiers, along with a section of the working class, ie Loyalists, are actively oppressing another section of the workers because of their national identity (or percieved identity), the Catholic / nationalist community. No ideology you embrace will change that reality.

I&#39;m not denying it, I&#39;m just saying that reinforcing national rather than class identity is counterproductive. How is saying &#39;we Irish workers&#39; better than simply &#39;we workers&#39;?
This malarky has been going on for so long that most workers in England couldn&#39;t give a fig. They have class problems and issues of their own to deal with. (IE ID Cards and &#39;anti-terrorism&#39; laws)


I don&#39;t see why the left is actively ignoring this -- is it because as James Connolly said, it&#39;s safer to ignore it while blathering on about a socialism that isn&#39;t around the corner?

I don&#39;t exactly see an socialist northern Ireland around the corner either...

The thing is, I don&#39;t think there should be any double-standard when it comes to nationalism. If I suddenly turned around and started saying &#39;Onward and upward for English socialism&#33; Freedom for the English&#33;&#39; You&#39;d (Quite rightly) think I was a nutball. You might even question my true intentions, with good cause.
I don&#39;t see why it should be different because one bourgeouis nation is suffering imperialism from another.
Irish and English socialism would simply be a change of masters.

[bolshevik butcher]

Fighting for independance isn&#39;t necesseraly nationalist, it maybe merely that say for instnace your country is being opressed or for instance a socialist way of thinking may have deveoped in your country.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 06:17 PM
Nationalism is bad, whether it comes from the oppressor or the oppressed. It is in effect saying that &#39;the atrocities you committed against us in the past will excuse the atrocity we&#39;re about to commit now&#33;&#39;
wouldn&#39;t a socialist Britain be better than a socialist Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England seperately? Or come to think of it, a socialist world? As an anarchist I see no utility in socialism, but isn&#39;t internationalism rather than nationalism considered more progressive? History has repeatedly shown that socialism leads to outright patriotism in any case. NI may break away and become independant (And maybe nicer, for the time being)
but to the proletariat it&#39;s just another nation-state, with all that that entails.
yes it would be, but what if this isn&#39;t achieveable, I see a socialist scotland being much more achieveable than a socialist britain.

[PRC-UTE]

Clenched Fist:

yes it would be, but what if this isn&#39;t achieveable, I see a socialist scotland being much more achieveable than a socialist britain.

Fighting for independance isn&#39;t necesseraly nationalist, it maybe merely that say for instnace your country is being opressed or for instance a socialist way of thinking may have deveoped in your country.

I agree strongly with both statements.

NoXion:

I&#39;m not denying it, I&#39;m just saying that reinforcing national rather than class identity is counterproductive. How is saying &#39;we Irish workers&#39; better than simply &#39;we workers&#39;?


We&#39;ve already said that the Irish workers need English, Scottish and Welsh workers.

You&#39;re stereotyping republicans as being chuavanists, and that&#39;s not the case. National independence doens&#39;t mean that classes can&#39;t cooperate; surely an anarchist would understand that it&#39;s class (economic) issues that bring people together not political (being under the same &#39;national&#39; gov&#39;t).

The governement of the UK has historically divided the working class, ending partition will solve that. It&#39;s actually very basic Marxist theory, comrade.


and how about a welsh republic? i used to hate the nationalists, but now ive grown to appreciate that we have our own culture, and language. if anyone deserves independence, id say its wales.


Do you support Cymru Goch? They&#39;re the closest to the IRSP politically, in that they&#39;re both republican and socialist.

[PRC-UTE]

I don&#39;t see why it should be different because one bourgeouis nation is suffering imperialism from another.

Actually, Ireland was not bourgeoisie when the English (originally Normans) came. The native system of Ireland was communistic. The English brought fuedelism, capitalism and exploitation where it previously did not exist.

The Brehon laws were not destroyed until after the Battle of the Boyne, which saw the complete and systematic destruction of Ireland&#39;s native intellegentsia.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Could you provide some links on this?

[PRC-UTE]

Could you provide some links on this?

The best source is the book &#39;A History of the Irish Working Class&#39; by Peter Ellis. It&#39;s a scholarly work, yet readable. The author relied on a lot of the writings of Connolly and he has a fluent knowledge of Irish.

Here&#39;s a very good pamphlet, Labour in Irish History (http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1910/lih/index.htm) by James Connolly.

&#39;The Story of Irish Labour&#39;, which was published by the Cork Workers Club is perhaps the best. I can&#39;t find SoIL online, but you can order it from my organisation if you&#39;re interested.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

An interesting piece in a recent Revolutionary Worker issue that speaks to this thing:

Bob Avakian: On Internationalism
Revolutionary Worker #1263, December 26, 2004, posted at rwor.org

Editors’ Note: The following are excerpts from a recent talk by Bob Avakian. They have been edited for publication and footnotes have been added here.
In going back over some previous remarks I made concerning the international struggle and the international movement, it struck me that, while these remarks focused on the question of principal contradiction in the world, and although this question—and in particular our party’s basic approach to this1 —very much relates to crucial principles for the international movement, and specifically to the concept and practice of internationalism, still there is the whole question of internationalism itself that needs to be gone into much more directly and explicitly and struggled out in the international communist movement. In the epistemology notes,2 I made the observation that from the time of Conquer the World 3 there has been a certain epistemological break or rupture that I have been pursuing. But, in going back to and re-reading CTW and also "Advancing the World Revolutionary Movement: Questions of Strategic Orientation,"4 another talk I gave in the first part of the 1980s, I was struck that there has been not just an epistemological rupture but also a rupture with regard to proletarian internationalism. Again, this is not just in CTW but also in "Advancing the World Revolutionary Movement"—which, even more than CTW, has not been made the focus of discussion and struggle to the extent that it should.

There is, for example, in both those works, but actually developed more in "Advancing," a new synthesis brought forward of what internationalism is and means. There is a discussion about the Connolly model of internationalism — the viewpoint of that Irish revolutionary, a contemporary of Lenin’s, who basically proceeded "from the nation out" and saw internationalism in that light, essentially a nationalist view of internationalism—vs. the more Leninist view of internationalism. In "Advancing" in particular there is, on the one hand, a somewhat elaborated discussion about Lenin’s definition of internationalism—striving for revolution in one’s own country and supporting this line and program in other countries. And there is Lenin’s argument (for example, in "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky")5 that the fundamental orientation should not be "my country" but my contribution to the world revolutionary struggle . But what is in "Advancing" that is new and very important is not only opposition to and criticism of what has become the prevailing view of internationalism within the international communist movement—which is more in line with the Connolly view, even though Connolly wasn’t a communist, more in line with the notion that internationalism is something extended from one country to another, and in practice it is more "my country" than my contribution to the world revolution that has been the basic point of orientation and point of departure. First of all, there is, in "Advancing," a rupture with and a critique of that. But, beyond that, there is a call to combine Lenin’s stance on and definition of internationalism with an approach of proceeding first and above all from the world level, and looking at the world as a whole at any given time to determine where it is that, through a combination of objective and subjective factors, the most important breakthroughs for the whole international struggle can be made—and for parties in particular countries to act accordingly, to give political support in relation to those "breakthroughs," even at the cost of some sacrifice on the part of particular parties and in terms of the struggle in "their" countries.

This call for a synthesis of those two things is new in the international movement. But this has been not sufficiently engaged and struggled over... continue here: http://rwor.org/a/1263/avakian-internationalism.htm

[PRC-UTE]

even though Connolly wasn’t a communist, more in line with the notion that internationalism is something extended from one country to another, and in practice it is more "my country" than my contribution to the world revolution that has been the basic point of orientation and point of departure.

Connolly was a communist. As a syndicalist it would have been hard for him to be otherwise. According to Peader Baile, his ideas were similar to what would later be called Council Communism and similar to Libertarian Communism as well.

However the rest of this piece seems accurate to me. Connolly wanted the world to be comprised of a &#39;free federation of free nations,&#39; sort of like a proletarian UN. :lol: I&#39;m inclined to support that idea since different nations are at different stages of development. I always assumed Lenin took a similar position, actually.

Thanks for that post, interesting.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:38 PM



and how about a welsh republic? i used to hate the nationalists, but now ive grown to appreciate that we have our own culture, and language. if anyone deserves independence, id say its wales.


Do you support Cymru Goch? They&#39;re the closest to the IRSP politically, in that they&#39;re both republican and socialist.
cant say ive ever heard of them unfortunately, which is rather surprising. but after a quick search i see theyve joined with cymru ymlaen/forward wales, led by ron davies. i cant say my estimation has gone up after hearing that. however, if cymru goch joined up with them, then they must be rather socialist.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Conghaileach+Dec 14 2004, 08:11 PM--> (Conghaileach &#064; Dec 14 2004, 08:11 PM)
[email protected] 14 2004, 07:17 PM
wouldn&#39;t a socialist Britain be better than a socialist Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England seperately? Or come to think of it, a socialist world?
Depends what kind of world you&#39;re looking for. Personally I have no problem with the creation of federations of free peoples, but Britain is based on the subjugation of the Scottish and Welsh (and part of Ireland, as regard the UK) people, the yoking of them to the imperialist will of the English bourgeoisie. The Acts of Union with Scotland (1707) and Ireland (1801) saw the national bourgeoisie of these countries surrender their national sovereignty in exchange for gold, and token representation in Westminister.

[/b]
Totally leaving out any referance to Ireland, and just sticking to Wales, Wales was only conquered after Llywelyn ap Gruffydd started several wars with the English king, he won one during the rebellion of Simon De Montfort, and forced the English king to sign a treaty which stated several things very favourable to Llywelyn and the principality. However Llywelyn stated that the principality would pay tribute the the English king (stupidly, he had the English by the balls), which he then refused to pay. When the English recovered they were rather pissed off that the welsh weren&#39;t sticking to their promises, and demanded that Llywelyn cough up. Even Welsh historians and the leading voice on the subject RR Davies agree that the ensuing war was of LLywelyns making. He lost and basically had to sign a rather unpleasant peace treaty stripping him and his aires of their right to rule Wales, however England never actually annexed Wales until his brother Dafydd descided to break the treaty and attack one of the Welsh lords who had supported the English. (BTW Dafydd was no patriot, he was a little bastard who had actually betrayed Llywelyn to the English earlier in his life, and fought against him when the sons of Gruffydd were fighting for control of Gywnedd).

As for actually unification that happened under a Welsh king of England, who&#39;s ancestors had helped Owain Glyndwr capture Gwynedd in particular during his rebellion. Sinse unification the Welsh people firmly supported the monarchy, even with the rise of religious non-conformity the welsh people stayed irresolutly in support of the monarchy, even during the Myther rising and Rebecca. Only in more modern times and the beginning of the decline of the Welsh language (on that score things are improving, just for the record).

As for Scotland the English only could unify with scotland because of the scottish falling into self induced financial difficulties, and financial pressure (IE blackmail) from the English exploiting the situation. So your dead wrong, they didn&#39;t do it for gold they did it because they were being blackmailed, the Scottish parlaiment actually rejected unification out of hand, until they were left with no choise.

So with regard to Wales your increasing Britains guilt factor significantly higher than is actually the case, the conquest and "subjugation" of Wales was more the fault of the lords of Gwynedd than it was the English. As for scotland you have not blamed the English nearly enough, in fact you have totally let them off the hook, and are being excessivly hard on Scotlands rulers, they were being blackmailed by the English, and were left with little choise.



and token representation in Westminister.

Currently that token representation is Tony Blairs biggest element of support, and was responcible for the UK being able to go to war, etc. Token they maybe, powerless they are not.



Do you support Cymru Goch?

I don&#39;t think anyone does really, the majority of Welsh nationalists I know support Plaid Cymru. They want a bigger more powerful assembly, and basically self government, but within the existing system, though I wouldn&#39;t swear to it. I haven&#39;t really looked at their manifesto, when i was at a student rally, a group of them from my Uni were there demanding more money for the teaching of the welsh language. I have to say I agree with them, the welsh language should be taught side by side in Wales along with English, right from the beginning of school, at aged 4. It&#39;s a real shame that one of the oldest languages in the world is now only spoken by 20% of its countries inhabitants.

[PRC-UTE]

I don&#39;t think anyone does really, the majority of Welsh nationalists I know support Plaid Cymru.

I visited PC&#39;s site, I admit it was some time ago, but they&#39;ve always been tepid nationalist reformists rather than republican soclialists. Cymru Goch is still very small but has some of their membership in trade unions and are becoming more active.

Things simply aren&#39;t oppressive enough in Wales for people to really turn to republicanism as happened in Ireland. Just wait though.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 03:00 PM

and token representation in Westminister.
Currently that token representation is Tony Blairs biggest element of support, and was responcible for the UK being able to go to war, etc. Token they maybe, powerless they are not.
I was under the impression that the Labour Party in Wales was considered to be sticking closer to &#39;classic&#39; Labour as opposed to New Labour. Of course, there are some groups around Britain, such as the RCG, who argue that Labour has always been an imperialist party (or at least that it was like that long before Blair took over).

[Invader Zim]

I visited PC&#39;s site, I admit it was some time ago, but they&#39;ve always been tepid nationalist reformists rather than republican soclialists.

I would agree with that assesment. However in theory they are after Welsh independance. I&#39;m sure if they recieved enough support they would push for it, however they currently are pushing for further devolution.

I was under the impression that the Labour Party in Wales was considered to be sticking closer to &#39;classic&#39; Labour as opposed to New Labour.

Thats true (to an extent), but I was refering to the Scottish Labour MP&#39;s who are a big joke to be quite honest.

Just wait though.

I think we will be waiting a long time at this rate, currently things are going well (though too slowly, but definate improvment). Lots of money is being invested in Welsh language and culture. The guy in the room opposite me is a Welsh resident and he gets his tuition fees lowered because of his nationality. We all get free lessons in Welsh should we want them, all from the Welsh assembly, and they have been creating quite a few Welsh speaking schools, especially around Cardiff.

I think it will take major change in order to lead to extreamism. IE a bloody Sunday.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Non-Sectarian Bastard&#33;,

We have not talked politics much in the last year. I really miss it, and I hope we get to do it much more this year.

Nationalism of the oppressed is not a question I have done much study or reflection on. I have seen an apparent intensification of this in the last 15 years or so. I draw the line there because the most visible splintering has been in Eastern Europe, with the demise of the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia no longer exist, having disintegrated into several smaller states.

The Palestinians, of course, have been orphaned since 1945. The other examples you cite are long-standing struggles, but they seem to have become more visible, more widely covered in recent years. I do not really know if the struggles themselves have intensified to a point where they cannot be ignored, or if there are other reasons.

This problem goes back to the nation-state idea itself. I do believe that merging land, peoples, and resources can have great benefits, but the foundation of the nation-states is deeply flawed. This is at least partly due to the condition of how nation-states were merged. These were often not voluntary unions, but rather aggression and coercion.

Take Germany, for example. The German state was comprised of powerful Prussia and a number of states it could readily control and dominate. Switzerland and Austria were excluded from the formation of the German state because they could have preventing Prussia from being the center of German power.

Thus, what became Germany was not formed for the good of the German people. Germany was created to increase the power of the Prussian rulers.

Or take Spain, which was formed when the two most powerful kingdoms combined to dominate the rest of the Spanish kingdoms. The formation of Spain was good for Fernando and Isabella, but was not necessarily good for those of the Basque region.

National identities were forged to justify these expansions, these "mergers" of feudal kingdoms. If we are all "Spaniards", and Fernando and Isabella are the king and queen of "Spain", then we are all their rightful subjects.

Nation-states have a history of oppressing certain minorities. National identity is not sufficient justification for Catholic nation-state treatment of Jews from the sixteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. British identity is not enough to excuse the treatment of Ireland and Scotland.

Perhaps the way to protect and rebuild the cultures and ethnic groups who have suffered as minorities under nation-states not their own is to support their effort to redraw the national borders. Perhaps they really do need their own state to revive their cultures, their peoples. I see no justification to keep the Irish in the United Kingdom if the Irish do not want to be there.

I believe this is far more true in the formerly colonized world. The modern borders were drawn by European conquerers, and it is absurd to preserve these borders. There are blood rivals in Africa and elsewhere that were forced into the same national borders and identity by Europeans who knew little about their cultures and cared even less. The Kurds should have their own state, carved out of Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey.

However, I see significant problems with dividing holy lands claimed by multiple religions. I have problems with the existence of a Jewish state that claims Jerusalem when it is also a holy city to Christians and Muslims. I do not want to see Kashmir assigned to either Hindu India or Muslim Pakistan.

In short, there are some regions of the world where "Balkanization" is the lesser of evils and other regions where it would cause more havoc than it would solve.

That is my general sentiment, and I would just like to comment on some of your tactical assessments.


Pro:

- Instead of "one big capitalist" it divides them and makes them weaker and thus easier to overthrow.

Possibly. Castro and the Fidelistas had enough fighters to overturn the U.S.&#39;s Cuban client state, but would not have been able with their physical forces to overturn and defend a nation the size of say Mexico or Argentina.

But a small state under a right-wing government can also be very tightly controlled. And, after all, it is not impossible to overturn the governments of large states. Look at Russia and China.


[Pro:]- It helps with the emancipation of minorities, when they have their own nation.

Yes, I touched on this in my ramblings above. I suppose a counterpoint may be that the creation of a new nation-state will probably create a new ethnic, religious, or cultural minority with potential to be oppressed.


[Pro:] - People in smaller nations have more autonomy and are harder to controll by governmental authority.

I do not know about this. U.S. clients in Latin America, all fairly small nations, were able to keep their populations in strangleholds. A small country can sometimes afford one few places to hide from death squads.


Against:

- It divides the working class further, making their unification harder.

This is a real danger. If the United States became a socialist country, the impact would be significant and difficult to overturn via counter-revolution. If the U.S. "Balkanized" into 50 separate small countries, then there may be a need for 50 separate revolutions to turn the whole area into a pro-worker state/region/federation. Worse yet, if the Republic of Nebraska went socialist, there would be the danger of a "Red Scare"-motivated invasion by Texas, etc.


[Con:] - Nationalism feeds racism and chauvanism

Yes, it usually does. Also a significant danger if associating with nationalism in any form.


[Con:] - Since Capitalism/Imperialism requires war, this would make it easier for large nations to take in the smaller ones.

Indeed. The favored tactic of imperialists has long been divide and conquer. Splinter nationalism may well perform the first half of the strategy for the would-be conquerers.


[Con:] - This could extend the duration of capitalism in general and spark wars, inwhich the working class will participate more fanatically, since they feel that they are "closer" to their leaders.

A very dangerous thought. Imagine what Hitler got Germany to do for him, in his name. Then remember that he was Austrian, and not remotely Aryan ethnically. Perhaps this is an indication, though, that indoctrinated people will do anything for their great leaders. Perhaps this fear is overblown, but maybe human history has yet to hit rock bottom. Who knows.

[kingbee]

"The guy in the room opposite me is a Welsh resident and he gets his tuition fees lowered because of his nationality"

are you sure?&#33; no one who i know does. i certainly don&#39;t&#33;

"It&#39;s a real shame that one of the oldest languages in the world is now only spoken by 20% of its countries inhabitants."

it is. the bigger shame is those who claim they&#39;re welsh, then reprimand me for speaking a &#39;dead&#39; language.

"Only in more modern times and the beginning of the decline of the Welsh language"

it started in victorian times- children who spoke welsh had to wear a sign around their necks with "welsh not" written on it. in my primary school, we had an "english not" every time we spoke english.

"Things simply aren&#39;t oppressive enough in Wales for people to really turn to republicanism as happened in Ireland. Just wait though"

i won&#39;t hold my breath. things won&#39;t get any more oppressive. i think it&#39;s just nationalism and pride of culture that will help plaid cymru help us gain independence.

[comrade_mufasa]

Nationalism is good if it is becouse of culture. The Irish have a diffrent culture then the English so they should be allowed to have thier own land. After the revolution do you think people will just give up thier native culture. No, the American Indians have been trying to keep thier culture alive for hundreds of years after the white man came to the new land, and the revolution would allow them and all other native people to keep thier culture and live freely.

[bolshevik butcher]

I don&#39;t see the palitsinean cause as nationalism so much as fighting oppression. Like for instance would you call the french resistance nationalists?

[Phalanx]

Well, with regarding the Kurds, what gave Churchill the right to carve the Mideast however he felt? He did not take into account the extreme ethnic divides that run throught the Middle East.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

- Instead of "one big capitalist" it divides them and makes them weaker and thus easier to overthrow.


Well, today capitalists largely operate beyond borders. An American capitalist might exploit the chinese working class, just as a Saudi Arabian capitalist might exploit the Argentinian working class.

[bolshevik butcher]

I suppoort ssp because I believe that socialism&#39;s got more chance in scotland than britain as a whole.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 5 2005, 06:48 PM
I suppoort ssp because I believe that socialism&#39;s got more chance in scotland than britain as a whole.
I agree.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 4 2005, 10:23 PM
I don&#39;t see the palitsinean cause as nationalism so much as fighting oppression. Like for instance would you call the french resistance nationalists?
This can be something of an awkward question. If you look at countries where armed struggle has existed in recent times in an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist sense - such as Palestine, Ireland, the Basque country etc. - nationalism and the fight against oppression can be seen to have become wound together.

Most groups involved in the Intifada in Palestine believe in a kind of Arab nationalism. But I don&#39;t see this as being in any way reactionary, because it&#39;s not suggested in any kind of jingostic or xenophobic fashion.

[bolshevik butcher]

I suppose I&#39;d agree with that congliach, however aren&#39;t much of the groups eg islamic jihad focused on religon?

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Conghaileach+Feb 6 2005, 03:26 PM--> (Conghaileach @ Feb 6 2005, 03:26 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 4 2005, 10:23 PM
I don&#39;t see the palitsinean cause as nationalism so much as fighting oppression. Like for instance would you call the french resistance nationalists?
This can be something of an awkward question. If you look at countries where armed struggle has existed in recent times in an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist sense - such as Palestine, Ireland, the Basque country etc. - nationalism and the fight against oppression can be seen to have become wound together.

Most groups involved in the Intifada in Palestine believe in a kind of Arab nationalism. But I don&#39;t see this as being in any way reactionary, because it&#39;s not suggested in any kind of jingostic or xenophobic fashion. [/b]
Wait, you mean to say that the militant groups are not xenophobic? That is the biggest load of bullshit i&#39;ve ever heard.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 6 2005, 07:41 PM
I suppose I&#39;d agree with that congliach, however aren&#39;t much of the groups eg islamic jihad focused on religon?
More like using religion as a means of rallying and unifying their movement. Best of luck to em.

[refuse_resist]

When we talk about nationalism it&#39;s always important first and foremost to talk about what kind you are talking about; nationalism of the oppressor or nationalism of the oppressed.

In many countries like the U.S. for example, nationalism can definately lead to racism, xenophobia, etc. However, in countries that are being oppressed by bigger and richer ones, nationalism can serve good purposes, and of course one of these things is national liberation.

When a bunch of other countries are under the hegemony of one main one, it&#39;s always important that it isn&#39;t being controlled, otherwise, as this has shown, that one controlling country will be able to dictate what goes on there. This also includes the placement of puppet regimes that will eliminate any type of revolutionary movement that will try to raise awareness and class conciousness. National liberation of these places is part of the world revolution.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by OglachMcGlinchey+Feb 6 2005, 10:10 PM--> (OglachMcGlinchey &#064; Feb 6 2005, 10:10 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 6 2005, 07:41 PM
I suppose I&#39;d agree with that congliach, however aren&#39;t much of the groups eg islamic jihad focused on religon?
More like using religion as a means of rallying and unifying their movement. Best of luck to em. [/b]
I suppose maybe it&#39;s more Arab unity than nationalism, i mean it&#39;s not like they wouldn&#39;&#39;t accept help from a "non-arab."

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 09:37 AM
When we talk about nationalism it&#39;s always important first and foremost to talk about what kind you are talking about; nationalism of the oppressor or nationalism of the oppressed.

In many countries like the U.S. for example, nationalism can definately lead to racism, xenophobia, etc.
This is a good point, and leads to an issue I&#39;ve been wondering about regards to the U.S.

What&#39;s the position of socialists in the US when it comes to black nationalism, and the issue of the Native American nations?

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 6 2005, 08:41 PM
I suppose I&#39;d agree with that congliach, however aren&#39;t much of the groups eg islamic jihad focused on religon?
That&#39;s true. There are groups like that, but they don&#39;t seem to have any problem with the 33% of the Palestinian population that is Christian.

I think in some ways it may be comparable to Liberation Theology in Latin America. It becomes a means of unifying people towards struggling for better conditions of life, and a better society.

[Phalanx]

Well, they wish to see the Jews pushed out of Israel, not just a better way of life. To me they are just as racist as the minority of Israeli soldiers that kill Palestinian civilians. Both the militants and the racist minority of the Israeli army should be locked away or killed. Besides, i thought only 6 percent of the Palestinian population was Christian.