Anarchists and National Liberation Struggles

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by The Anarchist tension
Most anarchists don't support National liberation struggles. The AF are specifically opposed to it


I was wondering if TAT, or any other Anarcho-comrade would like to elaborate/defend this position.

It seems to me that supporting the right of oppressed national groups to fight their oppressors would be a basic principle for revolutionaries.

Perhaps not?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Apr 26 2006, 04:01 PM--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Apr 26 2006, 04:01 PM)
The Anarchist tension
Most anarchists don't support National liberation struggles. The AF are specifically opposed to it


I was wondering if TAT, or any other Anarcho-comrade would like to elaborate/defend this position.

It seems to me that supporting the right of oppressed national groups to fight their oppressors would be a basic principle for revolutionaries.

Perhaps not? [/b]
Point 4: We are opposed to the ideology of national liberation movements which claims that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in face of foreign domination. We do support working class struggles against racism, genocide, ethnocide and political and economic colonialism. We oppose the creation of any new ruling class. We reject all forms of nationalism, as this only serves to redefine divisions in the international working class. The working class has no country and national boundaries must be eliminated. We seek to build an anarchist international to work with other libertarian revolutionaries throughout the world.

Anarchist Federation Aims and Principles (http://www.libcom.org/hosted/af/aims.html)

[LoneRed]

The anarchists fail to see how before one can be free from their national bourgeoisie they must be free from the foreign bourgeoisie

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 05:44 PM
The anarchists fail to see how before one can be free from their national bourgeoisie they must be free from the foreign bourgeoisie
The bourgeoisie are bourgeoisie. There's no distinction between them because of their nationality. Their goals are the same.

It makes no difference wether you fight foreign bourgeoisie to create a communist society or you fight your own bourgeoisie.

[Edelweiss]

"National self determination" my ass! Have a look at Yugoslavia and see where this fatal idea can end. "National liberation" alone, without class struggle, is reactionary bullshit. Communists should never blindly advocate "national liberation" of every given ethnic group.

Read and learn:

Rosa Luxemburg, The National Question: The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/...estion/ch01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/ch01.htm)


The elements of a political program are formulated with definite aims in mind: to provide a direct, practical, and feasible solution to the crucial problems of political and social life, which are in the area of the class struggle of the proletariat; to serve as a guideline for everyday politics and its needs; to initiate the political action of the workers' party and to lead it in the right direction; and finally, to separate the revolutionary politics of the proletariat from the politics of the bourgeois and petit bourgeois parties.

The formula, "the right of nations to self-determination," of course doesn't have such a character at all. It gives no practical guidelines for the day to day politics of the proletariat, nor any practical solution of nationality problems. For example, this formula does not indicate to the Russian proletariat in what way it should demand a solution of the Polish national problem, the Finnish question, the Caucasian question, the Jewish, etc. It offers instead only an unlimited authorization to all interested "nations" to settle their national problems in any way they like. The only practical conclusion for the day to day politics of the working class which can be drawn from the above formula is the guideline that it is the duty of that class to struggle against all manifestations of national oppression. If we recognize the right of each nation to self-determination, it is obviously a logical conclusion that we must condemn every attempt to place one nation over another, or for one nation to force upon another any form of national existence. However, the duty of the class party of the proletariat to protest and resist national oppression arises not from any special "right of nations," just as, for example, its striving for the social and political equality of sexes does not at all result from any special "rights of women" which the movement of bourgeois emancipationists refers to. This duty arises solely from the general opposition to the class regime and to every form of social inequality and social domination, in a word, from the basic position of socialism. But leaving this point aside, the only guideline given for practical politics is of a purely negative character. The duty to resist all forms of national oppression does not include any explanation of what conditions and political forms the class-conscious proletariat in Russia at the present time should recommen d as a solution for the nationality problems of Poland, Latvia, the Jews, etc., or what program it should present to match the various programs of the bourgeois, nationalist, and pseudo-socialist parties in the present class struggle. In a word, the formula, "the right of nations to self-determination," is essentially not a political and problematic guideline in the nationality question, but only a means of avoiding that question.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:01 PM
It seems to me that supporting the right of oppressed national groups to fight their oppressors would be a basic principle for revolutionaries.
"National groups"? The only reason I can see that any anarchist would define it as such is because society has decided to draw imaginary lines around and box people in. Otherwise I don't see what difference it makes, we're all human and the struggle of someone in Mexico, or someone in the Congo is no less worthy of my support than the struggle in the country I reside in (the imaginary lines I'm boxed into).

[Andy Bowden]

Socialism is, by definition the expansion of real democracy to all fields, social, political and economic.

Therefore to try and build socialism in a country without challenging it's enslavement to a foreign power is hopeless IMO.

There wouldn't be free trade unions in Ireland, India, Africa etc if the British Empire still existed. Getting rid of imperial masters is neccessary if you want to build Socialism - though it definitely doesn't mean you throw away your political independence for a nationalist goal, if you work with people who aren't Socialists.

[LoneRed]

Obviously we should hope and support the ones that have a revolutionary bent, but yes a bourg is a bourg, but all foreign bourgeois need to be thrown off, with imperialists in their country they cant be possibly be able to create socialism. only when there problems are within their own country is it possible

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:44 PM
The anarchists fail to see how before one can be free from their national bourgeoisie they must be free from the foreign bourgeoisie
The problem with national liberation movements is that they stop with throwing out the foreign bourgeoisie, and don't go further. If a NL movement did want to go further, then it wouldn't be a NL movement, it'd be a communist or anarchist or some other kind of movement.

[black magick hustla]

Socialisst should support national liberation struggles.

Why?

The overthrow of the imperialist bourgeosie weakens the economical hegemony of the imperialist powers. Capitalism is heavily aided by such powers, and it is in our interest to weaken them. The first world relies heavily in imperialism, and therefore its destruction would hurt global capitalism heavily.

Instead of comfronting a united imperialist bourgeosie in later history, we would comfront a divided nationalist bourgeosie.



Besides, a national bourgeoisie has proven more effective in developing infrastructure, which will be very useful in any future socialist revolution.

[LoneRed]

surprisingly, i agree with Marmot.

not only will it weaken their strength, i would also then say if you dont support national liberation struggles, then it is correct to state that you support the coalition forces being in iraq, either that or are indifferent.

the majoritiy of the resistance fighters in Iraq, are not socialist or anarchist, yet mixed between secular, religious,nationalists, and combinations of them.

So i take it that you do not support the ousting of the imperialist nations from iraq, from usurping their resources and livelehood, that is fine. how are we comrades again? That also means that you dont support the Palestinian cause against the Israeli Occupying forces? no, so you support the state of israel,and think that the palestinians just get whats coming to them or what?

i could go on, but your failure to ally with oppressed groups, shows your true nature

as to marmot, im glad we agree :)

[Edelweiss]

You are right, LoneRed, I neither support the current Iraqi resistance, nor do i support the current Palestinian (armed) resistance. Horrors! And no, i don't support the occupation troops either, but unfortunately this is something that many "leftists" here are not able to comprehend.

Read The “Iraqi Resistance” and Worker-communists (http://www.che-lives.com/home/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=194).

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Apr 26 2006, 03:01 PM--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Apr 26 2006, 03:01 PM)
The Anarchist tension
Most anarchists don't support National liberation struggles. The AF are specifically opposed to it


I was wondering if TAT, or any other Anarcho-comrade would like to elaborate/defend this position.

It seems to me that supporting the right of oppressed national groups to fight their oppressors would be a basic principle for revolutionaries.

Perhaps not? [/b]
Yeah, that ain't a loaded question. When did you stop beating your wife?

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:19 PM
not only will it weaken their strength, i would also then say if you dont support national liberation struggles, then it is correct to state that you support the coalition forces being in iraq, either that or are indifferent.

Not quite. It's not as simple as either "supporting" the resistance, or "supporting" imperialists. Just because someone does not support the Iraqi resistance for example, does not mean that they support the coalition troops. There is a "third option".

The problem with supporting national liberation struggles is the fact that these struggles are for, well, national liberation. That is to say, these struggles are inherently nationalist in nature. The goal of any national liberation struggle is first and foremost to rid the oppressed region of foreign bourgeois control, and instead implement an "imperialist-free" capitalism in which the local bourgeois is free to develop itself.

Sometimes these struggles may be draped in socialist or "red" rhetoric, but the very nature of these struggles dictates the eventual outcome, modern capitalism!

Thus I think it's quite possible, and actually prudent for communists in the "first-world" (that is, imperialist states) to vigorously denounce their own bourgeois, with having to lend their explicit support to any foreign resistance struggle. After all, we know what will happen after these struggles succeed, and we don't exactly "like" modern capitalism, progressive or not.

[LoneRed]

Ok you dont have to support the resistance struggles against oppression. but while your not caring, we will be, as communism is the struggle for the support of all oppressed people!

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 09:01 PM
Ok you dont have to support the resistance struggles against oppression. but while your not caring, we will be, as communism is the struggle for the support of all oppressed people!
No, communists struggle for communism. A communist in the "third-world" is either overly optimistic or ignorant of how "history works".

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:01 AM
Ok you dont have to support the resistance struggles against oppression. but while your not caring, we will be, as communism is the struggle for the support of all oppressed people!
By reading a couple of your posts it's quiet clear that you have no clue what communism is about...

Maybe you should start reading the publications of your own organisation (http://www.che-lives.com/home/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=210&mode=&order=0&thold=0)!

[PRC-UTE]

There seem to be three lines I've encountered on the issue of national liberation.

The apolotical / gas and water works socialists tend to say it's a non issue. Such as the AF, William Walker, the CWI and so on.

Some of the old official communists said imperialism was actually beneficial as it developed the third world.

And the the third line, in support of NL, goes that imperialism usually keeps colonies underdeveloped, and retains them in a state of backwardness. Pannekoek described how imperialism freezes and even retards economic and social development. Marx, Connolly and Lenin also agreed with this. Some anarchists do as well, like the WSM and some in NEFAC. Supposedly Bakunin took this position, too.

A clear cut case of this is Ireland. In the 26 counties, no one cares what your religion is, it's far more mutlicultural now, and the orange even march peacefully in Donegal. In the occupied six counties, there is a lot more sectarianism, everyone cares what your religion is, racism and homophobia are rampant, in many cases Irish speaking areas aren't even allowed their own signs, Catholic areas have far less economic resources with even such things as places to eat or shops, random attacks on minorities are more common, Catholics are way more likely to be unemployed and so on.

It obviously as to be judged case by case - as Malte said, Yugoslavian national liberation movements were reactionary.

[LoneRed]

it doesnt say anything in there about the third world or national liberation movements, each comrade has his or her own view of things. There can be communists in the third world, but thats only if they have support from first world communists, this is more relevant to building socialism. but ill finish off with the Debs Quote

“When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other's throats, when we have stopped enslaving each other, we will stand together, hands clasped, and be friends. we will be comrades, we will be brothers, and we will begin the march to the grandest civilization the human race has ever known.”


And a Connolly quote


the prevention of colonial expansion and the loss of markets to countries capitalistically developed, such as England, precipitates economic crises there, and so gives an impulse to revolutionary thought and helps to shorten the period required to develop backward countries and thus prepare the economic conditions needed for our triumph.


Also its quite obvious of your stance, Lenin and his ilk were known for advocating self-determination of oppressed peoples.

you guys cant have that now can you...:P

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 26 2006, 09:46 PM
Socialism is, by definition the expansion of real democracy to all fields, social, political and economic.

Therefore to try and build socialism in a country without challenging it's enslavement to a foreign power is hopeless IMO.

There wouldn't be free trade unions in Ireland, India, Africa etc if the British Empire still existed. Getting rid of imperial masters is neccessary if you want to build Socialism - though it definitely doesn't mean you throw away your political independence for a nationalist goal, if you work with people who aren't Socialists.
Of course if you want to establish a Socialist state you would need to get rid of your foreign invaders.

In the context of the Anarchist Federation however, we want to smash the bourgeoisie of every nation, destroy the state and create a Communist society.

Now whether you overthrow the state controlled by foreign bourgoisie or national bourgeoisie is of little consequence.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:01 AM
Ok you dont have to support the resistance struggles against oppression.
I do support working class people agaisnt their oppression by capitalism and exploitation but I do not support the overthrow of a foreign bourgeoisie to be replaced by a national one. So in that context I do not support national resistance struggles and neither should you.


communism is the struggle for the support of all oppressed people!

No it isn't. Communism is a theory for societal structuring based on class struggle in which society is classless and stateless.

I would consider the oppression of religion and fascism to be particular necessities in this struggle. Or would they get your support also?

[LSD]

I think this question really comes down to what one means by "support".

Anarchist and communist workers should not consider national liberation to be an aim in and of itself, nor should it be considered a remotely revolutionary objective.

National liberation in a bourgeois context is just that; the removal of foreign occupation and the economic empowerment of the local bourgeoisie.

The nature of class struggle, however, is that class dynamics do not occur in a vacuum. A local bourgeoisie can never have the resources that a foreign empire did and so full class transferance cannot occur. This mean that the emergent ruling class is nowhere near as poweful as the old one; accordingly there is greater room for the proletariat to act.

So while, no, national liberation is not "revolutionary", it is progressive, in the sense that it bennefits the workers in class struggle.

There is an unfortunate tendency in much of the so-called "ultra-left" to see proletarian revolution as some sort of etherial intangible that must be "pure" and "perfect". The reality, however, is that revolutioanry is not only very real and very "dirty", but the predicate class consciousness is itself entirely materialistic.

Revolutioanry consciousness only develops in the context of an economically powerful and socially aware proletariat. Now, the latter does require arguments and conversations and leaflets and websites and all the hallmarks of the modern leftist organization. But being socially progressive is not sufficient for revolutionary conditions.

The workers must also be organized and economically powerful and that can only happen through the empowerment of workers' organizations relative to bourgeois institutions.

That's why realy communists stand by the workers in all of their struggles, whether they are immediately revolutionary or not.

When workers strike for fair wages or for gender equality, we know that it will not lead to revolution. Just like we knew that the recent French strikes were not going to lead to revolution. Regardless though, if a struggle leads towards greater power in the hands of the proletariat, it matters in terms of the living class struggle.

Ultimately, national liberation is the same as a general strike. It is not "communist" or "revolutionary" in and of itself, but it still has an important role to play.

In the end, how we get there is nearly as important as where we're going.

[LoneRed]

to say oppressing religion and fascists, you know what im talking about you dont have to go argue on what "ifs", the people oppressed today, are not religionists, or fascists, but hard working people who get shit on by the capitalists.

[Nicky Scarfo]

For the Leninists here, let's clarify that even Lenin made distinctions about which national liberation struggles should be critically supported and which should not. Many here are treating all national liberation struggles the same.

In my opinion, there is no good reason to support, for example, a patently right-wing national liberation struggle, like that which is occuring in Iraq right now or like the mujahadeen in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. If the national liberation movement displays some left-wing orientation, then it should be critically and tactically supported.

But it should be remembered by socialists of all stripes, that the nation-state system is oppressive and must be abolished as soon as possible. It should furthermore be noted that in almost every national liberation struggle, the national liberators turn into domestic oppressors very soon after the foreign oppressors have been defeated. We should never forget that even the most socialist of nationalist movements (like in Vietnam for example) are nationalist first and socialist second.

Any support lent to left-leaning national liberation struggles should be HIGHLY critical and given for tactical purposes only.

[redflag32]

Its correct to say that to support a right-wing led national liberation struggle is wrong and counter productive for socialism in that country,thats obvious and needs no debate.But however if you look at imperialism from a global point of view,if there had been no national liberation struggle we would still have maybe on or two big imperialist powers that dominate the power and economics of the world rather than disected imperialism/capitalism which we have today,for instance,if the southern american people did not struggle for national liberation do you really think there would be the push towards the left that there is there today if the imperialists still had there powerfull united hands on it?Thats guess work but my guess is no.

You also cannot have a sweepign statement regarding this issue,as each state and country has its own history,and anyone who says that you should either allways support national liberation movements or you should allways never support them isnt being realistic,every situation has to be taken into context.speaking from a personal point of view,my country Ireland is inextricably linked to this theory,we had a national liberation struggle against the most powerfull imperialists at that time,the British.This struggle was comprised of nationalists who just wanted rid of british inequality,genocide and suppression that plaqued Ireland for centuries,it was also comprised of international socialists who seen a wider picture,they wanted to set up a 32county socialist republic,the easter rising was a strike against the imperialists from the IRB and the ICA,the IRB were mainly nationalist and the ICA were-from the words of another-"possibly the first red european army" led by connolly,he famously told his men before entering the GPO,"hold onto your guns men,for some will not want to go the whole way to socialism when this is done".So we can take it as fact that the Irish national liberation struggle was basically half and half,half socialists and half anti-imperialists.Now if connolly had not been executed,and if Eamonn De Valera was,would we have a different scenario today?would connolly have led the men to socialism instead of dev leading them to nationalist capitalism?If so would the people who say we should not support national liberation still have the same views?It was only through the struggle for national freedom could the ordinary men and women of the country even consider an alternative political system,the imperialists had brainwashed the workers and that link needed to be broken,sadly that brainwashing stil holds firm in Ireland today,we call these people who have been brainwashed "west brits".

So today in Ireland we have a partitioned state,this partition is not only a partition of land,its a partition of people-north and south-There is also the partition of the two communities in the 6 counties,catholic and protestant,this division has been used as a tactic to paint the struggle as a bunch of opposing sectarian youths throwing rocks at each other every saturday night.Republican socialists oppose this,and actively pursue a 32 county socialist republic,you cannot get away from the fact that this partitioning of people is the cause of dis-unity amongst the people,this is one reasonw hy the foriegn imperialist law of partition has to be confronted.

In Ireland there is no use trying to tiptoe around british imperialism and its slave ideology loyalism and try to find a socialist feeling amongst that ideology,it doesnt exsist,Republican socialists oppose loyalism/imperialism because it is the opposite of socialism and they also oppose nationalist capitalism as it also is the opposite of socialism,republican socialists do reach out to the ulster-scot community and have members from that community but they do not reach out to loyalism/imperialism because it gives it credibility it doesnt deserve.

The national and class struggles in ireland today are un-detachable,you can not struggle for socialism in the 6 counties while not confronting imperialism/loyalism as you dont push people from that community to question there own beliefs and they will never change,loyalism is a right wing ideology and socialism will nver materialize if they continue to sway power in the 6 counties,nomatter if a revolution takes place in British mainland,the loyalists will be the last one fighting against the "reds" as they are far right-wing with links to nazism.

If socialism is to achieve in Ireland or in Britian you will eventually have to confront loyalism,I personally would like to see a commonwealth socialist system where ireland wales scotland and england where united through socialism but i fear britian is a long way off from socialism and Ireland needs to rid itself of imperialist capitalism before it even thinks about struggling for socialism.

To answer the question,take two examples,one-the feminist struggle and two,the national liberation struggle,these are both not overtly socialist, so does that mean we should not have support for them?Is the reason people have a problem with national liberation struggles because it involves peoples lives being lost or is it because there not overtly socialist led?if its the latter then you should not support the struggles for travelors rights,blacks rights,womens rights homeless peoples rights.Why ignore the right for the workers to national liberation from a foriegn people?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:59 AM
Socialisst should support national liberation struggles.
So you support the Taliban? 'Cause that's what they're fighting for in Afghanistan - national liberation. I think the US should withdraw from Afghanistan, and I think people have the right to defend themselves from imperialists even when I don't agree with their politics, but that doesn't mean I support the Taliban or their "national liberation".

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:43 PM
to say oppressing religion and fascists, you know what im talking about
Actually I very rarely know what you're talking about.


you dont have to go argue on what "ifs", the people oppressed today, are not religionists, or fascists, but hard working people who get shit on by the capitalists.

I never claimed that they were. I was pointing out that your definition of communism was no what communism is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:23 PM
Anarchist and communist workers should not consider national liberation to be an aim in and of itself, nor should it be considered a remotely revolutionary objective.
I don't think any one is doing that, or suggesting that one should but national liberation struggles are distinctly anti-revolutionary rather than simply not being a revolutionary aim.


National liberation in a bourgeois context is just that; the removal of foreign occupation and the economic empowerment of the local bourgeoisie.

Which is unsupportable from a class perpsective.


Ultimately, national liberation is the same as a general strike. It is not "communist" or "revolutionary" in and of itself, but it still has an important role to play.

It's nothing like a general strike. General strikes are in and of themselves specifically class related. National liberation struggles are specifically anti-proletariate. They don't empower working class people, in fact they legitimase the system of bourgeois control and exploitation over them.

[LSD]

but national liberation struggles are distinctly anti-revolutionary rather than simply not being a revolutionary aim

In and of themselves, yes, but they nonetheless have a progressive role to play.

One cannot simply "wait" for "revolutionary conditions". Nor are "traditional" leftist tactics -- leaflets, protests, marches -- sufficient. In order for the working-class to mobilized into revolutionary conditions, the proper material conditions must be there.

One of those conditions appears to be a functional and advanced capitalist economy. Something that cannot emerged when a nation is locked in colonial status. Modern neo-colonies are simply too economically backwards to develop a strong enough active proletariat.

Only by progressing development, can true revolutioanry consciousness ever develop.

And that means kicking the empires out!


General strikes are in and of themselves specifically class related.

Yes, but they are not in and of themselves revolutionary.

Indeed, one could possibly argue that they are even anti-revolutionary in that they channel class antagonism into "acceptable" areas.

Redstar, in fact, has often contended that any legal strike in modern bourgeois capitalism is "reformist" because it maintains current class hegemony.

Personally, I disagree with this position and propose that any mass class acttion is ultimately beneficial towards class unity and instigating revolutionary conditions, even if the act itself is not revolutionary.

Similarly, the removal of a foreign occupier, even while it is not a revolutionary act, is nonetheless helpful as it both advances the socioeconomic development of the country in question and introduces the masses to the power of popular action.


National liberation struggles are specifically anti-proletariate.

Nonsense.

National liberation struggles are specifically anti-foreign. Local class struggle is actually subsumed such that the more powerful foreign bourgeoisie can be opposed.

Now, sometimes, the details are more complex than that. Sometimes enough of the bourgeoisie has been bribed such that its a mainly proletarian liberation movement; and sometimes (albeit rarely), the reverse is true.

Either way though, we agree that the result of a national liberation struggle will not be "communist" or "anarchist" in any meaning of the words.

What it will be, however, is different.

That is, different from the former order of colonization. Different such that the new dominant class (the local bourgeoisie) is no longer as powerful as the one it replaced (the deposed imperial bourgeoisie).

So, does the replacing of a strong master with a weak master help the proletariat? Of course.

It doesn't rid us of exploitation and there is still an enemy to be fought, but anything thaat makes our jobs easier is to our advantage.

Fighting a revolutionary struggle is hard enough on its own; fighting one against a distant colonial power is nearly impossible.

Why not save ourselves some time later, and use the greed of the local bourgeoisie against them? By siding with them in deposing their imperial masters, we, in one act, weaken our oppressors and remove "nationalism" as a potentially potent counter-revolutionary rallying cry.

All in all, it's definitely in our interest!

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Morpheus+Apr 28 2006, 03:43 AM--> (Morpheus @ Apr 28 2006, 03:43 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 02:59 AM
Socialisst should support national liberation struggles.
So you support the Taliban? 'Cause that's what they're fighting for in Afghanistan - national liberation. I think the US should withdraw from Afghanistan, and I think people have the right to defend themselves from imperialists even when I don't agree with their politics, but that doesn't mean I support the Taliban or their "national liberation". [/b]

You think that by supporting "national liberation" i mean dancing around in underwear and chanting "patria o muerte"?

of course there will always be an exception, generally the national bourgeois is more progressive than the imperialist one, but not always-

and besides, i am not exactly the best informed person regarding "talibans", but people in places like iran are perfectly fine with their reactionary government. you cannot shove down their throat "revolutionary theory" and hope that they will embrace it cheerfully, it doesn't works like that.

and besides, my approach is merely a pragmatic one, i am not a fan of nationalism.

[kurt]

You think that by supporting "national liberation" i mean dancing around in underwear and chanting "patria o muerte"?
You said that socialists(and communists/anarchists too, presumably) should support national liberation struggle. The taliban is involved in a national liberation struggle. Support them.



of course there will always be an exception, generally the national bourgeois is more progressive than the imperialist one, but not always-
They're still bourgeois. I don't contend that national liberation struggle isn't a "good" thing, progressively speaking, but it does not mean I'm required to lend my support to it. Communists want communism.


and besides, i am not exactly the best informed person regarding "talibans", but people in places like iran are perfectly fine with their reactionary government.
Many people aren't "fine" with the government in Iran; just because they haven't attempted to overthrow them does not mean they're "ok" with it.


you cannot shove down their throat "revolutionary theory" and hope that they will embrace it cheerfully, it doesn't works like that.
You're right, we can't. So why would you lend your support to something you know will turn out to be simply bourgeois? It's going to happen regardless of how many 1st-world "cheerleaders" are present.

[Janus]

Ok, so I understand that national liberation shouldn't be an end in itself and that one should be careful on what struggles to support as well.

However, I think that for a communist organization to try to achieve its goals while there's foreign oppression in their area will make things much more complicated.

By the way, who says that there would be a replacement of the bourgeois? The struggle would continue after the expulsion of the foreigners.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 01:51 PM
By the way, who says that there would be a replacement of the bourgeois? The struggle would continue after the expulsion of the foreigners.
Well, usually imperialist neo-colonies are fairly backwards, with a low level of infrastructure. The "struggle" for socialism in a country where the material conditions weren't present would be useless; you can't speed up or force objective conditions. Foreign bourgeois just don't seem to develop third world economies to a state that seems capable of sustaining a true proletarian revolution.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Kurt
Well, usually imperialist neo-colonies are fairly backwards

...compared to the imperialist nations, yes.


with a low level of infrastructure.

The "struggle" for socialism in a country where the material conditions weren't present would be useless; you can't speed up or force objective conditions. Foreign bourgeois just don't seem to develop third world economies to a state that seems capable of sustaining a true proletarian revolution.

Again, compared to the imperialist nations they do indeed have low levels of infrastructure. If they didn't have lower levels of material conditions, they wouldn't have been neo-colonies.

Anyway, point is, the readiness of a nation to become socialist has got nothing to do with the level of development compared to the most advanced nations, i.e., the advanced nations are not the "trend-setters" of revolution.

The only thing that a nation requires to become socialist is capitalism, if a nation is capitalist it can become socialist, it's that simple. And it just so happens to be that the vast majority of nations today (probably around 90%) are capitalist.

Of course some people would then start to argue about Russia, and why they "skipped an historical stage", or rather, tried to skip an historical stage...my response to that would be; who cares?

The past is gone, let's focus on the present and future, the fact of the matter is that most nations are capitalist today, so let's not whine about "skipping historical stages" anymore, we did enough of that 100 years ago. Although for the sake of historical accuracy I do sometimes indulge myself in such debates, they can be mighty fun as a brain-teaser.

[kurt]

Again, compared to the imperialist nations they do indeed have low levels of infrastructure. If they didn't have lower levels of material conditions, they wouldn't have been neo-colonies.
Agreed.


Anyway, point is, the readiness of a nation to become socialist has got nothing to do with the level of development compared to the most advanced nations, i.e., the advanced nations are not the "trend-setters" of revolution.
I disagree. Unless of course by "socialism" you mean USSR circa 1930, but that's another debate...


The only thing that a nation requires to become socialist is capitalism, if a nation is capitalist it can become socialist, it's that simple. And it just so happens to be that the vast majority of nations today (probably around 90%) are capitalist.
If this were so then what is holding us back?


the fact of the matter is that most nations are capitalist today
But being capitalist alone isn't a necessary prequisite for proletarian revolution, it needs to "run its course" first. According to your idea that "The only thing that a nation requires to become socialist is capitalism" then it would indeed be possible to "skip stages". We could simply overthrow feudalism, install capitalism, and then head straight to socialism, allowing no time for capitalism to "run its course".

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Kurt
I disagree. Unless of course by "socialism" you mean USSR circa 1930, but that's another debate...


What do you mean by "USSR circa 1930"? Do you mean in terms of material conditions? If so, I would say more like circa 1936.

In terms of the political structure, the USSR was never able to become socialist.


If this were so then what is holding us back?

The bourgeoisie.

Just because the material conditions for revolution are present, it doesn't mean revolution is going to happen. More is needed than just material conditions, for example; economic crisis, substantial rise in class-consciousness, involvement of the masses in the political movement of the workers etc.

As Lenin once said, revolution is governed by mysterious laws.

This isn't really strange though, the material conditions for feudalism were present long before feudalism became the next historical stage of development in human society...same for capitalism in some cases.


But being capitalist alone isn't a necessary prequisite for proletarian revolution

I know, but a nation being capitalist means that it will inevitable experience economic crisis and the other factors I mentioned above, that is why a nation has to be capitalist to eventually become socialist, to eventually experience proletarian uprising.


it needs to "run its course" first.

But it is running its course as we speak. No one knows when the revolution is going to happen, no one knows when capitalism has really "reached its limit", so it's rather pointless to say that "capitalism still has to develop more for revolution to happen". Instead we say that a nation has to be capitalist, i.e., divided into two main classes, to experience proletarian revolution.

Sure, it doesn't really predict revolution and doesn't set a time-table for it, but it's also not mere utopian nonsense.


According to your idea that "The only thing that a nation requires to become socialist is capitalism" then it would indeed be possible to "skip stages". We could simply overthrow feudalism, install capitalism, and then head straight to socialism, allowing no time for capitalism to "run its course".

Feudalism has already been overthrown in most parts of the world...by the bourgeois. So that discussion is kinda pointless today.

But, in Russia that is indeed what the Bolsheviks tried to do, not to "install capitalism", but to move from feudalism to socialism with the use of a centralized means of production in the hands of the proletarian state.

The centralized means of production industrialized the nation and raised its development level to the same height as the advanced capitalist (imperialist) nations.

I don't see why the USSR couldn't have been socialist if the vanguard party didn't degenerate into a bureaucratic clique, Lenin actually warned against this shortly before his death.

[black magick hustla]

You said that socialists(and communists/anarchists too, presumably) should support national liberation struggle. The taliban is involved in a national liberation struggle. Support them.

By support i mean the way you support a left-center party over a conservative party.

i don't intend to vote for any party, but i atleast think it would be more decent to not have a conservative party in power!


They're still bourgeois. I don't contend that national liberation struggle isn't a "good" thing, progressively speaking, but it does not mean I'm required to lend my support to it. Communists want communism.

so then what, you''ll be indifferent about it?

most of the time, national liberation struggles do bring progressive reforms that in the long run can help the development of communism.

obviously bourgeosie are bourgeosie, but is in the national bourgeosie's financial interest to build national infrastructure, while the imperialist bourgeosie doesn't cares about it.


Many people aren't "fine" with the government in Iran; just because they haven't attempted to overthrow them does not mean they're "ok" with it.


they are "fine" with it in the sense an american patriot is "fine" with their government.

believe me, islam in this days is not something as "lite" as christianity is in most of the world. while you may think that at the depths of their consciousness, iranians may not support the current system, a revolution without popular support is meaningless.


You're right, we can't. So why would you lend your support to something you know will turn out to be simply bourgeois? It's going to happen regardless of how many 1st-world "cheerleaders" are present.

Becuase with the national bourgeois capitalism and infrastructure develops more rapidly? while i dont necessarily think that the "communist mindset" is forcefully in the proletarian and not in the peasant, a more advance infrastructure can help alot.

[redflag32]

It seems to me that people are automatically presuming that all national liberation struggles will lead to capitalism by default.Its true that many struggles for national liberation are short sighted and fail to go the full way to social and economic liberation but so too do struggles for socialism fail to go the whole way and fall short of the main goal,so why are we saying we should support a struggle for socialism if the facts also state that not ALL of them have worked or taken the right path.

[chimx]

"The anarchist project concerning the national liberation struggle is very clear: it must not go towards constituting an 'intermediate stage' towards the social revolution through the formation of new national States. Anarchists refuse to participate in national liberation fronts, they participate in class fronts which may or may not be involved in national liberation struggles. The struggle must spread to establish economic, political and social structures in the liberated territories, based on federalist and libertarian forms of organization." -Alfredo M. Bonanno Anarchism and the National Liberation Struggle

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:55 PM
One cannot simply "wait" for "revolutionary conditions".
Well it would appear that this is precisely what you are suggesting.


In order for the working-class to mobilized into revolutionary conditions, the proper material conditions must be there.

Such as what?

Surely when working class people or "peasants" are being exploited and oppressed within a system of profit and have no power over the means of their own subsistence the material conditions exist to overthrow such a system.

Whether or not their exploiter and oppresser is a foreign bourgeoisie or their national bourgeoisie is of little consequence.

I would hasten to add that in a time of massive social upheaval the national bourgeoisie would have no concern with siding with their colonial masters.


One of those conditions appears to be a functional and advanced capitalist economy.

Revolutionary consciousness exists within a society in which capitalism exploits working people and alienates them from the means of production. History has clearly shown that to be the case.

Waiting for each country in the world to become a "power-house" economy makes little sense.


Only by progressing development, can true revolutioanry consciousness ever develop.

True? I'm not sure what this "true" revolutionary consciousness is, can you elaborate?

There is always a need to destroy capitalism and the state, no matter what point of development this is at.


any mass class acttion is ultimately beneficial towards class unity and instigating revolutionary conditions, even if the act itself is not revolutionary.

The act of calling for concessions has always only ever achieved one thing: Concessions.

It also puts faith in the "system" to correct any problems the "masses" might have. Capitalism adapts to the needs of the workers because it is far more productive to do so.

Any unity that is created is done so for a split second and what ultimately happens is a return to normality, often accompanied by sudden memory loss.

If these "mass class actions" were ever going to "instigate revolutionary conditions" they would have done so by now. It's not like the left hasn't been trying.


Similarly, the removal of a foreign occupier, even while it is not a revolutionary act, is nonetheless helpful as it both advances the socioeconomic development of the country in question and introduces the masses to the power of popular action.

The idea that mass action somehow gives lasting confidence to the working class is bogus.

What is most likely to happen, as history shows is a return to "normality" and an inertia and scepticism towards change.

When working class people fight something and achieve concessions they will eventually realise that: nothing has changed. How does that create confidence?



National liberation struggles are specifically anti-proletariate.

Nonsense.

National liberation struggles are specifically anti-foreign. Local class struggle is actually subsumed such that the more powerful foreign bourgeoisie can be opposed.

Anything which actively secures the power of the bourgeoisie is anti-proletariat and this is precisely what national liberations seek to do.

You seem to focus largely on "nationality" and "foreign" aspect of these struggles. Where you are born and what country you belong to is of absolutely no relevance. Nations are a superficial boundary and play no part in reality.

Class struggle is about class and stirring up "anti-foreign" sentiment in an effort to secure the power of the ruling class, of what ever nationality, is specifically anti-proletariat: It's wholly reactionary.


Now, sometimes, the details are more complex than that. Sometimes enough of the bourgeoisie has been bribed such that its a mainly proletarian liberation movement;

This has never been the consequence of any national liberation struggle.


So, does the replacing of a strong master with a weak master help the proletariat? Of course.

Well, history shows that it usually means the reinforcement of the state, the creation of dictatorial leaders, massive corruption and suppression of the working class movement.

[Brownfist]

I think it is part of the responsibility of left-wing peoples to be engaged in anti-imperialist struggles in the world, especially in movements of national liberation. Having said that, not being an anarchist myself, I think ideally anarchists would dismiss national liberation struggles due to their emphasis on the decomposition of state structures. Why go through an intermediary stage of the nation-state when one is destroying imperialist structures? Having said that, I do think that national liberation is an important step in the communist movement because colonialism/imperialism is partly caused due to the expansion of capitalism and thus, national liberation is also an attack capitalism. Of course, someone will say what about the Taliban etc., I think we need to recognize and respect peoples mobilization against imperialism in whatever form it takes, and hope/encourage the leftist forces to lead such a struggle. If, this is not the case, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, one must support the desire for national liberation of these countries, however, be critical of these right-wing nature of these movements. In the case of places like Nepal, the Philippines etc, there are left-wing parties leading the national liberation struggle and must be supported. I also think people should distinguish between national liberation and nationalism. They are different political entities although they superficially look like the same thing.

[LSD]

Well it would appear that this is precisely what you are suggesting.

On the contrary, I am specifically insisting that while the technological/developmental conditions are largely independent variables, working class organization is pivotal in exploiting those conditions to the advantage of the working class.

Ingoring the oppotunity of a national liberation struggle to organize and empower the proletariat is not only short-sighted, but ultimately politically suicidal.

If workers want to have a powerful role in shaping a nation's future, they need to be in a leading role. That means fighting progressive causes, not just immediately "revolutionary" ones.


Surely when working class people or "peasants" are being exploited and oppressed within a system of profit and have no power over the means of their own subsistence the material conditions exist to overthrow such a system.

And what will they replace it with?

Societ-style state-capitalism? Cambodian-style peasant autocracy? Hey, maybe they''ll go soft and just "vote in" their "socialist leaders" a la Venezuela.

No matter which road they take, however, it ends up in the same place. As you said, "memory is short"; and history always wins out in the end.

Capitalism cannot simply be "replaced" at any point during it's run, no more than feudalism could have been replaced in 1400. It has a developmental role to play and it's going to play it out no matter what obstacles are placed in its way.

The inevitable nescessity of developing post-colonial states is functional modern bourgeois capitalism. Whether they get there with "national liberation" or "red flags" really doesn't matter.

But avoiding the pretense of "communism" is a good deal more honest. ;)


Whether or not their exploiter and oppresser is a foreign bourgeoisie or their national bourgeoisie is of little consequence.

It's of great importance because it is one of the key elements of class power.

A foreign bourgeoisie is not "worse" than a local one because of cultural or national reasons, and despite your insistance on reading "ethnic" arguments into my point, this has nothing to do with race.

It's about relative strength and the simple reality that fighting a local bourgeoisie is easier than fighting a distant one. Not to mention that a local bourgeoisise can do one very important thing which an imperialist one can't; and that's develop the market.

A potential communist society is not merely dependent on sociological factors to create it, it is also dependent on technological ones to function. Real mass working-class self-governance is simply impossible in the third world, for the same reason that capitalist republican "democracy" was impossible in Feudal England.

Material conditions dictate societal organization, not the other way around. And so as long as the neocolonialized world remains underdeveloped it is still a long way away from any potential revolutionary leftist future.


Revolutionary consciousness exists within a society in which capitalism exploits working people and alienates them from the means of production. History has clearly shown that to be the case.

Actually, what history has shown is that in corrupt highly stratified third-world countries in which the local bourgeoisie is too weak to effect it's own independence, the workers or (more often) the peasants will rise up and do their job for them.

What they end up with though has been capitalism every times.

That marked oppression tends to promote revolutionary fervor is not in doubt, you see, but where that revolution can possibly lead is.


Any unity that is created is done so for a split second and what ultimately happens is a return to normality, often accompanied by sudden memory loss.


That's because capitalism was still resilient enough to accomodate the changes. It was still sufficiently flexible and dynamic that the rulling class was able to compromise.

It is rapidly becoming apparent that, in all likelyhood, that is no longer true.

And really, TAT, are you really proposing that the failure of communism/anarchism over the past century was due to "tactics"? That if only there'd been "better leaders" or "better ideas", things would have "turned out different"?

Well, that sounds mighty idealist to me.

The reason that working class unity didn't persist was because the material conditions were not there to perpetuate it. That doesn't mean that the idea of class organizing is wrong, it just means that the times weren't right.

Abandoning the theory because of misapplication is utter foolishness and, frankly, down that road lies idealism and neoconservatism! :o


When working class people fight something and achieve concessions they will eventually realise that: nothing has changed. How does that create confidence?

Because things often do change.

The reason, after all, that workers continued to struggle was that the bourgeoisiecontinued to give.

What, did you think that the reforms of the 40s and 50s came from the "goodness" of the capitalists' "heart"? :lol:


Anything which actively secures the power of the bourgeoisie is anti-proletariat and this is precisely what national liberations seek to do.

That's oversimplistic rubbish.

The bourgeoisie is already secure in these countries, but it's a distant and infiinitely well-protected one. Replacing it with a local and vulnerable one is not perhaps as "sexy" as a massive proletarian insurrection, but it is much more pragmatic, not to mention materially realistic.

Again, communism and anarchism are just not possibilites in these countries and pretending otherwise can only lead to dissapointment.


Class struggle is about class and stirring up "anti-foreign" sentiment in an effort to secure the power of the ruling class, of what ever nationality, is specifically anti-proletariat: It's wholly reactionary.

Again, this has nothing to do with nationality, it has to do with historical materialism and stages of development.

A country which is trapped in virtual colonial status is unable to develop a distinct economy. As such, it is prevented from developing the technological and infastructural elements nescessary for even modern bourgeois capitalism, let alone communism.

Throwing out the foreign bourgeoisie and their imperialist model and replacing it with bourgeois capitalism is definitely not "revolutionary", but it is progressive. In the same way that Chavezes or Morales' reforms are "progressive", in fact.

You see, the interests of the working class are unfortunately not quite so simple as we'd like them to be. In a world of different developments and varying economic roles, it is not possible for proletarian revolution to occur everywhere.

The third world is not capable of communism today and any attempt to "force" "communism" upon it can only lead to disaster, as demonstrated by the abysmal failures of the USSR, PRC, DPRK, etc...


This has never been the consequence of any national liberation struggle.

Nonsense.

Are you really denying that proletarians have played leading roles in historical national revolutions?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:46 AM

Surely when working class people or "peasants" are being exploited and oppressed within a system of profit and have no power over the means of their own subsistence the material conditions exist to overthrow such a system.

And what will they replace it with?

Societ-style state-capitalism? Cambodian-style peasant autocracy? Hey, maybe they''ll go soft and just "vote in" their "socialist leaders" a la Venezuela.
Most countries nowadays are in the same industrial level as 1930's Spain.


Capitalism cannot simply be "replaced" at any point during it's run, no more than feudalism could have been replaced in 1400. It has a developmental role to play and it's going to play it out no matter what obstacles are placed in its way.

I don't accept that.


A foreign bourgeoisie is not "worse" than a local one because of cultural or national reasons

That's an original point of mine.


A potential communist society is not merely dependent on sociological factors to create it, it is also dependent on technological ones to function.

Most, if not all third world countries have a technological infrastructure equal to or greater than 1936 Spain.


It is rapidly becoming apparent that, in all likelyhood, that is no longer true.

How is it?


And really, TAT, are you really proposing that the failure of communism/anarchism over the past century was due to "tactics"?

It paid a large part in the downfall of anarchism in Spain certainly.


That if only there'd been "better leaders" or "better ideas", things would have "turned out different"?

No, I don't think that necessarily, but you have not convinced me of this dialectical hoohah that you seem to be spurting up either.

The hypothesis has clearly failed to be proven correct and in fact we no longer live in an age where countries are so underdeveloped a working class does not exist. There are very few countries on the planet where this is the case.


Well, that sounds mighty idealist to me.

Oh well...


The reason that working class unity didn't persist was because the material conditions were not there to perpetuate it.

I don't know what you're referring to but the material conditions exist in this country and there is no working class unity.


That doesn't mean that the idea of class organizing is wrong, it just means that the times weren't right.

When is the time right? And I'm referring to western societies.


Abandoning the theory because of misapplication is utter foolishness and, frankly, down that road lies idealism and neoconservatism! :o

What on earth are you talking about?



When working class people fight something and achieve concessions they will eventually realise that: nothing has changed. How does that create confidence?

Because things often do change.

Over the last 50 years of working class struggle working class people are still exploited, still alienated and in fact infinitely more suspicious of communism than they have ever been.

Achieving such things like the minimum wage certainly make our exploitation more bearable but once you stop jumping for joy that your boss now has to give you a set pittance rather than any old pittance you realise that you still have a boss and you still work in a job you hate and in fact, nothing has really changed.


What, did you think that the reforms of the 40s and 50s came from the "goodness" of the capitalists' "heart"? :lol:

Erm no...



Anything which actively secures the power of the bourgeoisie is anti-proletariat and this is precisely what national liberations seek to do.

That's oversimplistic rubbish.

I'm not convinced that it has to be any more complicated.


The bourgeoisie is already secure in these countries, but it's a distant and infiinitely well-protected one. Replacing it with a local and vulnerable one is not perhaps as "sexy" as a massive proletarian insurrection, but it is much more pragmatic, not to mention materially realistic.

I'm becoming increasingly more irritated by your sly backhanded implications and quite frankly arrogance.

There's nothing sexy about proletarian insurrection or revolution but I understand that those who believe they have such a precise and infallible understanding about the process of working class emancipation feel the need to patronise those who accept the contrary. It's not a new thing. In fact it's incredibly dull.

Capitalism exists in these countries, there is a working class and there is a process of production that should be appropriated and used to reorganise society.

Granted, I accept that the vast majority of these countries, when attempted to apply communism turned into what history has shown, but in order for the hypothesis that the underdeveloped proletariat is incapable of harbouring the means of production and creating a viable communist society to be true the results have to be invariable and that is not the case.


Again, communism and anarchism are just not possibilites in these countries and pretending otherwise can only lead to dissapointment.

It's completely fatuous to assert that in a country where there is a means of production and in which a working class exists in a situation of exploitation that there cannot be a proletarian revolution on the basis that the country is not at an advanced capitalist stage.



Class struggle is about class and stirring up "anti-foreign" sentiment in an effort to secure the power of the ruling class, of what ever nationality, is specifically anti-proletariat: It's wholly reactionary.

Again, this has nothing to do with nationality, it has to do with historical materialism and stages of development.

Historical materialism has given us a guide on how societies have developed. It has allowed us to understand that existence is based on our processes of production, but the idea that countries must be in advanced capitalist stages to reorganise the means of productions has been proven to be untrue.


A country which is trapped in virtual colonial status is unable to develop a distinct economy. As such, it is prevented from developing the technological and infastructural elements nescessary for even modern bourgeois capitalism, let alone communism.

Maybe back when Marx was alive, but this is not the situation we live in now. Communism is about reorganising the means of production, technological development is a process in which societies progress and that will happen regardless of how sophisticated the means of production is.


Throwing out the foreign bourgeoisie and their imperialist model and replacing it with bourgeois capitalism is definitely not "revolutionary", but it is progressive. In the same way that Chavezes or Morales' reforms are "progressive", in fact.

I disagree.


You see, the interests of the working class are unfortunately not quite so simple as we'd like them to be. In a world of different developments and varying economic roles, it is not possible for proletarian revolution to occur everywhere.

I would agree, although I reject the idea that this is based on the development of capitalism in a country.



This has never been the consequence of any national liberation struggle.

Nonsense.

Are you really denying that proletarians have played leading roles in historical national revolutions?

No.