National Liberation

[Fawkes]

I was wondering what are some peoples views on National Liberation struggles such as those in Northern Ireland and those fighting for a Palestinian state. I'm somewhat split on the issue so I'll read others arguments first and than decide for myself which side has the better argument.

[Pirate Utopian]

well these movements are not always (rarely) communist, socialist or anarchist they do usually have good goals.
the palestines fight against the zionists of israel who took their land and most of us are against zionism, the movements are good in the sense that they have a goal wich quite often meets with what marxists and anarchists want but they do not per se have good alternatives for the current system, often they are patriots or worse nationalists.

you should first look at what the goals are, what their political ideas are, then what alternatives they have.
the palestian goal is a good one, but they are usally arab nationalists and anti-semites and they dont have good alternatives.

[Fawkes]

^^ Yeah, if you look at my previous posts you can see that I am very anti-Zionist and I do, as of now, lean more towards pro-National Liberation movements. The main reason I formed this thread is for people opposed to it, like Love Underground, to defend their position(s).

[Connolly]

I agree with national liberation.

People and nations want liberation when oppression and injustice exits. Basque national liberation for example became a demand under Francoist cultural oppression. Kurdish national liberation under Turkish cultural oppresion. Ireland under British cultural oppression etc etc.

Any fight against oppression should be supported. Only when national liberation is achieved (in the case of those nations who demand it), will the workers of that nation realise the problem is domestic economic circumstances rather than foreign oppression (which also might play a significant role in curbing progression).

The idea of a simultaneous world wide revolution is just ridiculous.

The struggle for socialism will, in my view, take a national character.

[Fawkes]

^^^ That's exactly how I've always felt, first, the foreign opressors must be removed. Second, the domestic ones must be removed.

[Rawthentic]

I see nothing wrong with national liberation movements. I see their support as real internationalism, even if they are confined to borders. Plus, its not as if all the workers of the world could rise simultaneously. By supporting national liberation movements, you are helping solidify the international one, even the national ones aren't decidedly socialist.

[Dimentio]

Yukio Mishima then? ;)

[razboz]

I am ambivolent when it comes to struggles for national liberation. Firstly what constitutes "National Liberation"? Would me fighting for the liberation of my house from the oppression of the state i live be considered national liberation? In many cases small groups of angry people have declared that they wish to liberate their country from the oppression of sucha nd such another state. this is fair enough as all people should be allowed to chose which state they wish to live in (within reason obviously). However sometimes these nationalistic elements rely on often teneous grasps of what cinstitutes "nationality". Some people say its is language, others say that it is religion or some vague notion of "ethnicity". In these cases we can see the perpetrators of this "national liberation" as nothing more than opurtunistic profiteers bent on gain absolute control over the land which needs "national liberation". This is the case of Israel and the Zionists who set it up. They beleived in the national liberation of israel from the arab oppression. However this oppression was entirely made up and thus the movement of national liberation is invalidated. Another qualm i have with "national liberation" is that often this can lead to very strong nationalistc feelings arising in the population as a result. For example in eastern europe the various movements of "national liberation" went hand in hand with some kind of neo.fascist ideology and occasionally ethnic cleansings. However National Liberation is not all bad, as the EZLN proves to us. It can be used as a vector for spreading progressive ideology. I would have to nuance this, by pointing the obvious cultural factors unique to Mexico, where rabid nationalism often goes hand in hand with socialism. The Zapatistas of 1910 wher hughly nationalistic as are the Zapatistas of 1994. Heck Mexico must be the only non-dictatorial(ish) to have a "monument to the race" (anyone who's been to mexico city can probably confirm this).

[Jazzratt]

As Rzboz touched on it's not an all or nothing support for all national liberation. A lot of the nationalist struggles can be facist led affairs, whereas others can be based in, as rb mentioned, religion or the like. For the most part, though, national liberation is something to support - even if it does seem at odds with our internationalism we must be pragmatic and realise that opressed nations must be taken from below the heal of oppressor nations as soon as possible and realistically this will most likley be before any communist revolution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Oh brother.. nothing more depressing than seeing this tired old nonsense coming up over and over again here. This is one question that's been settled for YEARS among everyone who's serious about revolution.

* * * * *

"A certain understanding has emerged between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often, even perhaps in most cases, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, although they also support national movements, nevertheless fight against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes with a certain degree of agreement with the imperialist bourgeoisie, that is to say together with it.... The point about this is that as communists we will only support the bourgeois freedom movements in the colonial countries if these movements are really revolutionary and if their representatives are not opposed to us training and organising the peasantry in a revolutionary way. If that is no good, then the communists there also have a duty to fight against the reformist bourgeoisie." - Lenin

"When Africa becomes economically free and politically united, the monopolists will come face to face with their own working class in their own countries, and a new struggle will arise within which the liquidation and collapse of imperialism will be complete." - Kwame Nkrumah

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." - Paulo Freire

"It is particularly important to bear in mind ... the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc." - Lenin

"Each time a country is freed, we say, it is a defeat for the world imperialist system, but we must agree that real liberation or breaking away from the imperialist system is not achieved by the mere act of proclaiming independence or winning an armed victory in a revolution. Freedom is achieved when imperialist economic domination over a people is brought to an end." - Che Guevara

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 02, 2007 10:16 am
well these movements are not always (rarely) communist, socialist or anarchist they do usually have good goals.

Actually a considerable amount of national liberation movements were and are lead by communist/socialist parties. If they are not leading the movement, they are always present. This is often ignored, maybe because what we know about anti colonial movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America comes from the capitalist press.

[Andy Bowden]

Socialists support for genuine Natl Liberation movements (even if they are lead by Bourgeois Nationalists) isn't, or shouldn't be based on an extra seat in the UN, a new flag, or because of patriotism - it's because they open some democratic space for workers to organise and to agitate which in turn helps the struggle for Socialism.

Often the space is limited, or cut off later on under a tinpot dictatorship - usually with the backing of the previous coloniser - but in general, independence usually does provide some breathing space for the labour movement.

[Phalanx]

as communists we will only support the bourgeois freedom movements in the colonial countries if these movements are really revolutionary and if their representatives are not opposed to us training and organising the peasantry in a revolutionary way.

This is very true. That's why support for groups like Hizbullah and Hamas are competely unjustified on a leftist board.

[Fawkes]

^^ In that particular case they are unjustified, you're right. But that's because others are also doing something as well. An example: I support most of what the IRA does simply because they are the only ones really doing anything to free Ireland from British control. The IRA acts in a manner no better than Hamas or Hezbollah, yet I support them because they are the only ones doing anything. I don't support Hamas and Hezbollah because they are not the only ones doing anything to free Palestine from the control of Israel. There are other groups in Israel/Palestine that fight the IDF using methods that I agree with more than Hamas's/Hezbollah's methods which is why I don't support Hamas or Hezbollah.

[Leo]

I am dead against national "liberation". In the capitalist world which we live in, the only real liberation can be the liberation of the international proletariat.

[Brownfist]

I am in favor of national liberation because I do think that these movements play an integral in a larger attack on capitalism and imperialism. Furthermore, it recognizes that imperialism and capitalism is unevenly spread around the world, and needs to deal with the concrete experiences and issues of the proletariat in x, y, z countries. I think that it is silly to see national liberation movements as being distinct from proletarian internationalism. I think that what needs to be clarified in our discussion is the difference between nationalism and national liberation. Although, there are common tendencies in both, there are some large differences as well which I think that people are grossing over. Often, I find anti-national liberation rhetoric is predicated on racist impulses within the white proletariat (in this case several white nations that continue to be oppressed like the Irish, Scottish, Basque etc are obvious exceptions) that is unable to resolve the race and gender questions. Rather, it continues the racialized discourse of the universal white male proletarian experience. This is something that needs to be opposed within our movements.

[The Grey Blur]

yet I support them because they are the only ones doing anything
There were in fact many Socialists/Communists in the North of Ireland who opposed British Imperialism and were active in the Civil Rights movement. Unfortunately this movement lacked militancy and was smashed by the forces of the British state. In it's stead thousands of young working-class people ended up in groups like the Provisional IRA. Groups like the PIRA were ready to "hit back" and do immediate damage to the British military system which had laid Catholic areas to siege. The Republican political strategy was incorrect though and ended up dragging on into a long war of attrition between the British state and Republican paramilitaries which saw hundreds of innocents lose their lives.

Our principal should be always to support the working class in it's struggle towards Socialism, in whatever form this may take. But this also requires that Socialists retain an independent outlook and learn from the mistakes of the past.

On an another note - do you believe that British Imperialism as a force exists today in Ireland?

26 of the 32 counties are "free" and the British military remains in the North due to political pressure from the conservative old boys rather than imperialist economic factors.

[The Grey Blur]

Irish, Scottish, Basque
Can anyone explain to me how these countries are Imperialistically (my new word) exploited?

[Fawkes]

do you believe that British Imperialism as a force exists today in Ireland

I do not believe that the British are there for economic reasons, in fact, I don't even think the British like being there. I highly doubt that they actually think that it is worth all the damage that is done to them just so they can reap the very small rewards of controlling the 6 Northern counties. I think that it is every Irishman's/woman's right to fight those who keep the British in power there and try to persuade Northerners to agree with them. Bono once said that the IRA is fighting a revolution that the majority of Irish people don't even want. Well, if he were to use that same logic for everything, than why would he deem it acceptable for politicians to spend millions of dollars on campaigns? (I mean, we all know how much he loves those American and British politicians). The IRA's main purpose is not only to fight those who are fighting to keep the British in power, but also to fight for popular support among the people. There enemy is not in fact Westminster, it is people like Ian Paisley who fight for the British to retain their power in N. Ireland just so that the Protestants can have advantages in nearly everything. It is a very odd form of imperialism because it is not one that the occupying nation necesarily wants.


Unfortunately this movement lacked militancy

A suicidal mistake for any liberation movement to make.

[Brownfist]

Well the relationship to these countries is not a simple exploitation of resources that is normally the mark of an imperialist relationship. In these countries, the subjected nations play the role of nation-building for the English and Spanish, who are able to articulate a sense of nationhood through unity with these regions. So for the English, the Irish, Scottish and Wales colonies allow them to identify as British. This allows for the sense of something larger than oneself. As for the Basque, the same can be similarly said. I think that the economic reasons for these colonies has long been exhausted.

[coda]

-------------------

[Fawkes]

^^ I hope to one day when I am older move to Ireland and do the same.

[Andy Bowden]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 03, 2007 02:34 am

Irish, Scottish, Basque
Can anyone explain to me how these countries are Imperialistically (my new word) exploited?
I think a National Question exists in Ireland because there is still sectarianism there, which is a result of the partition. Your living standards are still going to be worse if your a Catholic in the O6C than if your a Protestant, GFA or no GFA.
In terms of "exploited", it's true that the North has been a major drain on British resources - but post GFA with the IRA disarmed, it could possibly become a haven for cheap labour.

A National Question exists in Scotland for various reasons, one of the ones that comes off of the top of my head is that Scots make up a fifth of the British Army despite only making a tenth of the UK population, and along with Iraq is one of the only countries in the world to find oil and see it's living standards decrease. And of course, now 80% of Scots want a referendum on whether or not Scotland should stay in the Union - something the Westminster Government has flatly denied. In terms of exploitation, Scotland has 80% of the oil in the EU which I think should speak for itself in terms of Britains motives for keeping the Union.

As for the Basque country, I'd say it's the most repressed of all 3. Basque Nationalists have recently died in Spanish jails, Basque language newspapers have been shut down, and political parties banned. For exploitation, I think that the Basque and Catalan regions form important economic areas for Spain and they would lose a substantial amount of their GDP if they were to become independent.

[Vargha Poralli]

An infant must learn to crawl before it can start to walk,run,ride a bike,car,aeroplane etc. National liberation for an oppressed nation or ethnic group is like crawling for an Infant which must be supported without much compromise on the ideals, unlike Ultraleft's(like Leo Uilleann) stance.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad
This is one question that's been settled for YEARS among everyone who's serious about revolution.

A strange assertion to make, given that in the same post you quote to contradictory positions on the question -- Lenin's and Nkrumah's. The difference isn't all that slight, yet it seems just a touch too subtle for our resident Z-lister.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:51 pm
An infant must learn to crawl before it can start to walk,run,ride a bike,car,aeroplane etc. National liberation for an oppressed nation or ethnic group is like crawling for an Infant which must be supported without much compromise on the ideals, unlike Ultraleft's(like Leo Uilleann) stance.
I agree with g.ram , though i cannot entirely understand the metaphore he uses.

The fight for national liberation should only become relevant if it coincides, aides or increases to success of the fight aginst capitalism and the oppression and exploitation of the people by the aforementioned force. Thus i think that the division of a country is not always benefecial for the owrkers. A certain amount of economic security can be gained of rht epople of a nation if it is fairly large and organised in a reltively centric way, as wiht most countries nowadays. The splitting off of Basque and Catalonia completely from Spain would be bad both for Spain and basque and Catalonia. Even if Spains decision to keep these areas is economically motivated, this is not necessarily the callous cold calcuatin thinking you might think it is. What is good fr Spain ight also be good forBsqueand Cataluni. I think a similar argument might be used to defend the UK's decison not to et Scotland out of the Union. However if National Liberation coincides with an increase in living standards, freedom and general dignity of those nationally liberated, then it is acceptable for liberation to occur. I am by no means an economist and i dont know masses about Catalunia Basque Scotland or Ireland.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Brownfist+--> (Brownfist)So for the English, the Irish, Scottish and Wales colonies allow them to identify as British.[/b]

The Welsh "colony"!? :lol:

Whilst the Irish question is a very complex one -- one where, due to historical issues, the advocacy of some kind of Republican Socialism is acceptable. The advocacy of Republican based Socialism with regards the Scottish and Welsh questions, is nothing more than a shame faced concession to the various nationalist forces involved.

In other words, a concession to the forces of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois. The SNP and Plaid spring to mind, for instance.

The Weekly Worker has actually run a series of very good articles addressing the leftist shite so often espoused on this issue. You can find the articles here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/theory/ssp.htm) -- try the first three articles in the "Nationalism and the SSP" series, for starters.

As present day political theorists go, Jack Conrad is one of the better ones. He's probably the most lucid and principled political writer one the British left today ... and I don't say that lightly.

Their series on Wales (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/theory/wales.htm), from what I can see, lacks the same kind of punch. That's probably partly due to Conrad's absence from the writers list; but also because the issue receives a lot less attention in CPGB circles when compared to the coverage of the Scottish question.

But a basically correct position is outlined:


Weekly Worker 434; Thursday May 30 2002
Tim Richards of Cymru Goch, however, was bothered neither about opinion polls nor Lenin. For comrade Richards, the Welsh ‘nation’ has been oppressed ever since the ‘English’ invasion of ‘Wales’ in 1282. That nations were the creation of the capitalist mode of production was clearly for comrade Richards something that was not going to get in the way of his ‘Marxist’ analysis.

He went on to argue that Wales to this day remains a colony of English capital and this manifests itself most obviously in the dominance of the English language in the principality. It therefore followed that it was the duty of Welsh socialists to advocate independence for Wales. Not to do so, argued comrade Richards, leads one into the camp of British nationalism.

Mark Fischer for the CPGB took issue with the positions of the three previous speakers. He argued that the politics of Cymru Goch were pernicious politics that were characterised by a paucity of real thought. Undeniably, terrible outrages had been committed against the Welsh in previous centuries. Nevertheless, to advocate the break-up of the historic unity of the British working class was to cross over into the camp of nationalism.

Comrade Fischer noted that nationalism has filled a gap in Welsh politics brought about by the defeats of the Welsh working class over the last 20 years. The job of socialists, however, is not to bow to this anti-working class ideology, but to develop a strategy for combating its influence. He took issue with the SWP and the SP for failing to do likewise. Instead in practice they both seem to want to tail the nationalist agenda, rather than fight it.

Instead he advocated that socialists should fight for the right of self-determination for Wales and Scotland and, at the same time, for the strongest political unity between the working classes of Great Britain. Concretely, this means fighting for a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales.

Welsh Socialist Alliance; What kind of nationalism? (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/434/nationalism.html)

Or maybe, just maybe, a victory for Plaid Cymru would lead to the "training and organising [of] the peasantry in a revolutionary way"! :lol:

Rhyl, don't you know it's a hotbed for revolution...

<_<

[Brownfist]

I actually do disagree about Scottish and to a lesser extent Welsh Republican Socialism. Rather, I think that these two internal colonies of Great Britain have recognized and adopted some of the more progressive models of national liberation that is available in the region, and have re-articulated a politics of nationhood for Wales and Scotland within progressive terms. However, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of people in both of these movements. I know that the Irish question has always been the more pertinent one, but that does not mean that Scottish or Welsh questions should be ignored, especially the Scottish. I think that we need to recognize that there have been numerous intersections between the Scottish and Irish republican movements, in which many of the Scottish republicans are fervent Irish republicans and also help organize pro-Irish republican activities in Scotland.

[Fawkes]

I would just like to point out that Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland, and England are not colonies, they are constituent countries.

[Star]

I support all national liberation fronts which struggle against imperialism including the PFLP, IRA, Repulika Srpska, PKK and ETA. These groups have fought for genuine self-determination

But at the same time, I unconditionally oppose secessionist movements which are essentially proxies for world imperialism. They function for the sake of trying to fragment workers into ethnic sectarian warfare. The KLA, SPLA, and "liberation" agitators in Tibet, Ethiopia, Iraqi Kurdistan and elsewhere are to be denounced.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 03, 2007 09:14 pm
I would just like to point out that Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland, and England are not colonies, they are constituent countries.
The six counties of Ireland are not technically a colony, no, but they&#39;ve always been run like one, even allowed a devolved government based on sectarian headcounts.

The difference between nationalism and national liberation are to be found in their class content, from which the policies arise.

Nationalist movements are typically bourgeois and don&#39;t actually threaten imperialism and colonialism- they just ask for a better deal within it.

National liberation is anti-imperialist, because it is led by the working class and/or peasantry who are exploited. The nationalist bourgeoisie are &#39;tied by a thousand strings&#39; to the imperialist nations and so are incapable of challenging them. For example, the leading nationalists in Ireland opposed the Easter Rising, did all they could to prevent it. Murphy, a leading nationalist and capitalist of his day, even criticised the British for not punishing the rebels mroe harshly&#33;

The issue isn&#39;t love for one&#39;s country so much as it is sweeping away centuries of reaction, oppression and anti-democratic privelages. The film The Wind that Shakes the Barley shows illustrates this well.

To take the position that many on the left have, that all the issues of colonialism can be dealt with after the revolution and not until then may sound more left wing than the anti-imperialists, but the reality is that they are abandoning the most oppressed sections of the working class to their misery.

This is of course a simplified version of things, I could go into more detail but I wont bore yis. ;)

[Severian]

Originally posted by PRC&#045;[email protected] 03, 2007 05:00 pm
Nationalist movements are typically bourgeois and don&#39;t actually threaten imperialism and colonialism- they just ask for a better deal within it.

National liberation is anti-imperialist, because it is led by the working class and/or peasantry who are exploited. The nationalist bourgeoisie are &#39;tied by a thousand strings&#39; to the imperialist nations and so are incapable of challenging them. For example, the leading nationalists in Ireland opposed the Easter Rising, did all they could to prevent it. Murphy, a leading nationalist and capitalist of his day, even criticised the British for not punishing the rebels mroe harshly&#33;
I think this an important distinction. Most people on this board - on both sides of the usual argument - fail to make it. Probably out of a desire to oversimplify things.

Instead you get one of two errors: pretending the problem can be put off until the Second Coming of communism (after which they&#39;ll probably pretend all demands for national liberation are a counterrevolutionary conspiracy) - or - singing the praises of every bourgeois nationalist movement that comes down the pike.

[beltov]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 02, 2007 02:07 pm
Oh brother.. nothing more depressing than seeing this tired old nonsense coming up over and over again here. This is one question that&#39;s been settled for YEARS among everyone who&#39;s serious about revolution.
Well, maybe the fact that people constantly call into question support for national liberation shows that the question isn&#39;t closed. I&#39;d say those who are questioning the leftist dogma on the national question are expressing a much more serious approach than those who accept it&#33;

Luxemburg was much clearer on the national question than Lenin:



Luxemburg’s critique of national liberation struggles in general and the Bolsheviks’ nationalities policy in particular was the most penetrating of any at the time because it was based on an analysis of world imperialism which went far deeper than the one developed by Lenin. In texts such as The Accumulation of Capital (1913) and The Junius Pamphlet (1915) she showed that imperialism was not merely a form of thievery perpetrated by the advanced capitals on the backward nations but was an expression of a totality of world capitalist relations:

“Imperialism is not the creation of one or any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will.” (Rosa Luxemburg, The Junius Pamphlet, 1915)
From the ICC&#39;s pamphlet Nation or Class?
http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/nationorclass



In the imperialist epoch (since early 1900s) no small bourgeoisie can remain independent of the larger imperialisms and had to fall under the protection of one of the major powers. &#39;Anti-imperialism&#39; is nothing of the sort: it ends up justifying support for one fraction of the bourgeoisie against the other. Paolo Friere&#39;s quote missed out the &#39;third camp&#39; - internationalism - class solidarity across borders. Support for national liberation and defence of internationalism are completely at odds, fundamentally opposed.

Beltov.

[Leo]

An infant must learn to crawl before it can start to walk,run,ride a bike,car,aeroplane etc. National liberation for an oppressed nation or ethnic group is like crawling for an Infant which must be supported without much compromise on the ideals, unlike Ultraleft&#39;s(like Leo Uilleann) stance.

So you refer to some nations as "infants who must learn to crawl" and some as "adults who are allowed to ride on airplanes"? I&#39;m guessing that you are saying this as an adult who is allowed to ride on an airplane. As a person who you define as an "infant who must learn to crawl" because of my irrelevant nationality, I oppose your "mature" argument with all my "infancy"&#33;

National liberation of "oppressed nations" are always lead by the bourgeoisie and you are binding proletarians to the lead of bourgeoisies whom you define "progressive". There is nothing "settled for YEARS among everyone" expect the murder of thousands of workers and communists in the hands of "progressive" national bourgeoisies. The people who "settled" this dogma has blood of those workers and communists in their hands, and supporting national liberation means supporting butchering of communists and workers.

[Vargha Poralli]

Leo Uillean:

I think you missed what i said later "without much compromise on the ideals,".



National liberation of "oppressed nations" are always lead by the bourgeoisie and you are binding proletarians to the lead of bourgeoisies whom you define "progressive". There is nothing "settled for YEARS among everyone" expect the murder of thousands of workers and communists in the hands of "progressive" national bourgeoisies. The people who "settled" this dogma has blood of those workers and communists in their hands, and supporting national liberation means supporting butchering of communists and workers.

One thing you must really understand is the borders that divide the Nations are nothing when compared to mental borders that people built themselves based on Race,Religion,Language and (in the country where i live) Caste. So a world wide simultaneous revolution is totally unachievable at the current situation. To make it Communists must take different methods and tactics in differnt countries/regions whichever tactics is adoptable.


More over opposing National Liberation just because they are lead by Bourgeoisie will just lead to strengthening of Imperialists.

[beltov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:42 am
More over opposing National Liberation just because they are lead by Bourgeoisie will just lead to strengthening of Imperialists.
Care to give any examples? Could you explain what makes an &#39;oppressed&#39; bourgeoisie &#39;non-imperialist&#39;? Surely they have their OWN imperialist interests which conflict with those of the workers who you are calling on to follow them?

Beltov.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by beltov+January 13, 2007 05:15 am--> (beltov @ January 13, 2007 05:15 am)
[email protected] 12, 2007 05:42 am
More over opposing National Liberation just because they are lead by Bourgeoisie will just lead to strengthening of Imperialists.
Care to give any examples? Could you explain what makes an &#39;oppressed&#39; bourgeoisie &#39;non-imperialist&#39;? Surely they have their OWN imperialist interests which conflict with those of the workers who you are calling on to follow them?

Beltov. [/b]


Care to give any examples?

Why don&#39;t you use your Brains ?


Could you explain what makes an &#39;oppressed&#39; bourgeoisie &#39;non-imperialist&#39;?

Where did I say that ? But surely opressed workers cannot be imperialists &#33;&#33;&#33;


Surely they have their OWN imperialist interests which conflict with those of the workers who you are calling on to follow them?

So the workers better serve the intrests of the Imperialists. Great logic.Go Ultra Left Communism.

[beltov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:38 am
But surely opressed workers cannot be imperialists &#33;&#33;&#33;
Come on. Are &#39;oppressed&#39; lesser powers any less imperialist? Do you think that some fractions of the bourgeoisie are more progressive than others, that there are some &#39;lesser evils&#39; that deserve the support of the working class, such as the Palestinian bourgeoisie?

B.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by beltov+January 15, 2007 05:02 am--> (beltov @ January 15, 2007 05:02 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 06:38 am
But surely opressed workers cannot be imperialists &#33;&#33;&#33;
Come on. Are &#39;oppressed&#39; lesser powers any less imperialist? Do you think that some fractions of the bourgeoisie are more progressive than others, that there are some &#39;lesser evils&#39; that deserve the support of the working class, such as the Palestinian bourgeoisie?

B. [/b]
Look there will not be a world wide class struggle any where within the turn of 3-4 centuries. Use your Brains. Any way what stance we take on the Liberation struggles doesn&#39;t matter it will carry on. So better you sit on Ivory tower and do class analysation in the struggles and the oppressed nationalities will carry on their fight against their Imperialist Oppressors.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:40 pm
Support for national liberation and defence of internationalism are completely at odds, fundamentally opposed.
:blink:

Are you serious? How did you work that one out?

[beltov]

Originally posted by Conghaileach+January 16, 2007 06:49 pm--> (Conghaileach &#064; January 16, 2007 06:49 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 11:40 pm
Support for national liberation and defence of internationalism are completely at odds, fundamentally opposed.
:blink:

Are you serious? How did you work that one out?[/b]
OK. The way I see it, as a left-communist, is that in the current period (since WW1 - the epoch of &#39;imperialism&#39; or the decadence of capitalism) the ENTIRE bourgeoisie have ceased to play a progressive role. There aren&#39;t any fractions of the ruling class that are more progressive than others, because they are just local expressions of a global economic system that has not only ceased to develop the material conditions for communism but is actively undermining them.

As Rosa Luxemburg said, "Imperialism is not the creation of one or any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will." So, ALL states are imperialist in that they have to defend themselves against rival states. This goes for big and small. Yes, a small power may be oppressed by a big power, but they are BOTH oppressing the working class. The interests of the ruling class and the proletariat are totally opposed. There can be no &#39;common ground&#39;, and history has shown what happens when workers are dragged off their own terrain to die for &#39;their&#39; country.

I asked G.ram to explain what makes an &#39;oppressed&#39; bourgeoisie &#39;non-imperialist&#39;? He dodged the question by replying,

But surely opressed workers cannot be imperialists &#33;&#33;&#33; So the workers better serve the intrests of the Imperialists.
Yes, workers can&#39;t be imperialists, but taking an internationalist position and rejecting support for ANY fraction of the bourgeoisie, big or small, serves to weaken the ENTIRE bourgeoisie by strengthening the international solidarity of the working class, not strengthening &#39;the Imperialists&#39;. Supporting national liberation weakens the working class by strengthening one imperialism or another.

Beltov.

[cumbia]

Ethnic National Liberation is a more viable and atttractive motive for arm struggle then say a "ideological" national liberation like in the case of many movements of the past 50 years. Thats my view, Im for it. Also depending on how the struggles is carried at.

[Vargha Poralli]

I asked G.ram to explain what makes an &#39;oppressed&#39; bourgeoisie &#39;non-imperialist&#39;? He dodged the question by replying,
QUOTE
But surely opressed workers cannot be imperialists &#33;&#33;&#33; So the workers better serve the intrests of the Imperialists.


You are totally misrepresenting me .

You asked


Could you explain what makes an &#39;oppressed&#39; bourgeoisie &#39;non-imperialist&#39;?

For which I answered


Where did I say that ? But surely opressed workers cannot be imperialists &#33;&#33;&#33;

and your next question is


Surely they have their OWN imperialist interests which conflict with those of the workers who you are calling on to follow them?

For which I replied


So the workers better serve the intrests of the Imperialists. Great logic.Go Ultra Left Communism.


That was meant to be a sarcastic question but unfortunately I have failed in English Grammar



Yes, workers can&#39;t be imperialists, but taking an internationalist position and rejecting support for ANY fraction of the bourgeoisie, big or small, serves to weaken the ENTIRE bourgeoisie by strengthening the international solidarity of the working class, not strengthening &#39;the Imperialists&#39;. Supporting national liberation weakens the working class by strengthening one imperialism or another.

In other words building a fortress in the sky. Total disconnection from Reality.

I in turn ask you some simple questions

1) What did the British workers do during the time their country had the world largest empire exploiting nearly some 300 million of workers and peasants in the colonies ?

2)

a. Did Luxemburg&#39;s theories worked out in Germany after the defeat in WW1 ?

b.Why did it fail in a country with ample material conditions for a workers revolution while Bolsheviks managed to be successful in a backward country with more number of national minorities than Germany ?

Analyse the History and come to your own conclusion.

[beltov]

So g.ram, do you accept that an &#39;oppressed nationality&#39; can still be imperialist? Also, I take it that your nationality is a united front of all classes against a bigger imperialism?

B.

[More Fire for the People]

I support national liberation movements under two conditions:
(1) The largest wing of the movement is for both national liberation and workers’ power.
or (2) Imperialist capital only focuses on one economic sector leaving the working class as a whole impoverished.

Under the first condition it flows logically that the movement is against both foreign and indigenous capital and is therefore no different from a workers’ movement in an actually existing country. Under the second condition national liberation could lead to the development of productive forces through an indigenous accumulation of capital throughout the cities and rural countryside. If both conditions are met than reorganization of property could lead to collective ownership of resources and the development of productive forces [permanent revolution].

[Leo]

Did Luxemburg&#39;s theories worked out in Germany after the defeat in WW1?

Well, they had a revolution, right?

[manic expression]

In general, all things being equal:

National government > Foreign ruling authority

Another thing is that in a lot of cases, national liberation allows a people to be more economically independent. If a country depends upon another country for industry and trade, their chances of doing away with capitalism are weaker (I may be wrong on this, but I do think that a self-sufficient economy can establish socialism better than a country that is dependent on a foreign power).

[Leo]

National government > Foreign ruling authority

Considering that "nation" is a concept created along with the rise of the bourgeoisie, that "nation" is not actually real and merely refers to the borders of the area of capitalist influence and that society is divided into classes with one ruling class and one exploited class, it is common (class conscious) sense to regard no bourgeois, either "local" or "foreign" any better. All of them are always enemies of our class to the core.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 17, 2007 11:12 pm

National government > Foreign ruling authority

Considering that "nation" is a concept created along with the rise of the bourgeoisie, that "nation" is not actually real and merely refers to the borders of the area of capitalist influence and that society is divided into classes with one ruling class and one exploited class, it is common (class conscious) sense to regard no bourgeois, either "local" or "foreign" any better. All of them are always enemies of our class to the core.
I would agree, but I used the term because it applies to what we&#39;re talking about. I&#39;ll try not to use it further.

The concept of a "nation" is, obviously, relatively recent and a creation of the bourgeoisie. However, that does not mean that being economically dependent upon another bourgeois nation is not an additional negative condition.

When you look at imperialist relations, the bourgeoisie are mostly of the imperialist nation, as they usually control the means of production. Also, economic dependency and cultural hegemony are inherent parts of the imperialist nation&#39;s policy, both of which hurt the workers. Therefore, breaking from the imperialist bourgeoisie means the workers are not under the thumb of foreign bosses, but (if the "independence" movement is not socialist) bosses that live in the same country; of the two, which boss is most easily toppled? IMO, the transition from capitalism to socialism is remarkably easier if you don&#39;t have foreign soldiers in your streets and a ruling class thousands of miles away.

In other words, the removal of the imperialist bourgeois influence is a step toward workers&#39; control.

[Leo]

The concept of a "nation" is, obviously, relatively recent and a creation of the bourgeoisie. However, that does not mean that being economically dependent upon another bourgeois nation is not an additional negative condition.

That&#39;s exactly what it means - economical independence is the (in most cases partial) independence of the national bourgeoisie to exploit the working class, nothing changes for the proletariat.


When you look at imperialist relations, the bourgeoisie are mostly of the imperialist nation

All nation-states are imperialist in their nature. To us, the fact that a bourgeois who happens to be American to exploit the working class in America should not be any different than a bourgeois who happens to be American to exploit the working class in the middle east. We deny the reality of "nation" in the way bourgeoisie understands it, we can&#39;t say that it&#39;s better when workers are exploited by someone who belongs to their "nation". If the workers in Iraq overthrew the American invasion, what will change when a national bourgeoisie like the old one comes? We want to overthrow capitalism completely, any support given to any faction of the bourgeoisie completely neglects class struggle.


Therefore, breaking from the imperialist bourgeoisie means the workers are not under the thumb of foreign bosses, but (if the "independence" movement is not socialist) bosses that live in the same country; of the two, which boss is most easily toppled?

Both are completely bourgeois, both are completely anti-working class, and none should be supported in any case.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18, 2007 12:12 am

The concept of a "nation" is, obviously, relatively recent and a creation of the bourgeoisie. However, that does not mean that being economically dependent upon another bourgeois nation is not an additional negative condition.

That&#39;s exactly what it means - economical independence is the (in most cases partial) independence of the national bourgeoisie to exploit the working class, nothing changes for the proletariat.


When you look at imperialist relations, the bourgeoisie are mostly of the imperialist nation

All nation-states are imperialist in their nature. To us, the fact that a bourgeois who happens to be American to exploit the working class in America should not be any different than a bourgeois who happens to be American to exploit the working class in the middle east. We deny the reality of "nation" in the way bourgeoisie understands it, we can&#39;t say that it&#39;s better when workers are exploited by someone who belongs to their "nation". If the workers in Iraq overthrew the American invasion, what will change when a national bourgeoisie like the old one comes? We want to overthrow capitalism completely, any support given to any faction of the bourgeoisie completely neglects class struggle.


Therefore, breaking from the imperialist bourgeoisie means the workers are not under the thumb of foreign bosses, but (if the "independence" movement is not socialist) bosses that live in the same country; of the two, which boss is most easily toppled?

Both are completely bourgeois, both are completely anti-working class, and none should be supported in any case.
Conditions often do change for the proletariat. If a country is economically dependent, it can scarcely hope to establish socialism.

Some countries are more imperialist than others, and some succeed where others do not. In this way, America is far more imperialist than, say, El Salvador.

Iraq would change because weddings wouldn&#39;t be bombed by US planes, entire families wouldn&#39;t get mowed down in their cars by US weapons, people wouldn&#39;t be living in fear, to name a few things. The presence of the imperialist forces in Iraq have been a terrible factor, something that undeniably has an impact on the lives of countless workers.

Furthermore, capitalist rulers of far away countries and hostile armies are harder to topple than capitalist rulers in the nearby capital with armies that are (hopefully) made up of working class people whose class interest is to overthrow capitalism. Imperialist bourgeois is a hurdle that must be overcome, and worker control may then come simultaneously (as part of the "independence" effort) or afterwards. Nevertheless, it is something that must be faced.

Recognizing the overthrow of imperialist bourgeois rule as necessary in order to bring the overthrow of socialism is not supporting any faction of the bourgeoisie at all. You must remove the imperialist bourgeois authority before anything else is possible, and that is what "independence" can do for the revolutionary cause.

Again, it is far more feasible to topple your bosses when they don&#39;t have imperial armies behind them and thousands of miles in between.

[Leo]

You did not get the main point I made about imperialism - we can&#39;t distinguish national bourgeois factions between non-imperialist (good) bourgeoisie and imperialist (bad) bourgeoisie. That eventually comes to following the line good nation and bad nation and workers in different countries hating each other because of this distinction. Our motto is "workers of the world, unite", not "workers and capitalists of the oppressed nation, unite".


Some countries are more imperialist than others, and some succeed where others do not. In this way, America is far more imperialist than, say, El Salvador.

America is stronger than El Salvador, it is higher in the imperialist hierarchy but this doesn&#39;t mean that we are going to support capitalists from El Salvador.


Iraq would change because weddings wouldn&#39;t be bombed by US planes, entire families wouldn&#39;t get mowed down in their cars by US weapons, people wouldn&#39;t be living in fear, to name a few things. The presence of the imperialist forces in Iraq have been a terrible factor, something that undeniably has an impact on the lives of countless workers.

Oh yeah, because no one was bombed, especially no chemicals were used on peasants, no one lived in hear, no one was killed. The rule of the national bourgeoisie was just fine&#33; Everything was so much better even for the working class&#33; <_<

No, it was a bourgeois rule back then and it&#39;s a bourgeois rule now. It has been a horrible place for the working class, trust me I know this very well - Iraq is not far away from where I live. Neither the "national" bourgeoisie, nor the "foreign" bourgeoisie can provide anything better, they are all our enemies.


Furthermore, capitalist rulers of far away countries and hostile armies are harder to topple than capitalist rulers in the nearby capital

This is a non-issue. It is not "revolutionary armies" that overthrow the bourgeoisie; it is the working class and class struggle. Besides, the capitalist rulers of far away countries have to establish local authority centers so what&#39;s the big deal about being away? After all, all capitalists are connected internationally, capitalism is a world system.


Recognizing the overthrow of imperialist bourgeois rule as necessary in order to bring the overthrow of socialism is not supporting any faction of the bourgeoisie at all.

It is support for the emerging national bourgeoisie, it denies class struggle to the workers in place where you see as "backwards" place and in the end nationalists butcher the workers where leftists who supported the nationalists end up cheering for that. For example the British SWP was condemning the striking workers in Iran during the beginning of 80s because those workers "acted against the national interests and the Khomeini&#39;s anti-imperialist (islamic bourgeois) regime". Trust me, if you go supporting nationalists, that&#39;s how you&#39;ll end up.


You must remove the imperialist bourgeois authority

You must remove the existing bourgeois authority, whatever that authority might be, and not replace it with another bourgeois authority. It&#39;s as simple as that. Our class must be internationalist and must struggle against all forms of nationalism, otherwise we will be defeated.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18, 2007 12:54 am
You did not get the main point I made about imperialism - we can&#39;t distinguish national bourgeois factions between non-imperialist (good) bourgeoisie and imperialist (bad) bourgeoisie. That eventually comes to following the line good nation and bad nation and workers in different countries hating each other because of this distinction. Our motto is "workers of the world, unite", not "workers and capitalists of the oppressed nation, unite".


Some countries are more imperialist than others, and some succeed where others do not. In this way, America is far more imperialist than, say, El Salvador.

America is stronger than El Salvador, it is higher in the imperialist hierarchy but this doesn&#39;t mean that we are going to support capitalists from El Salvador.


Iraq would change because weddings wouldn&#39;t be bombed by US planes, entire families wouldn&#39;t get mowed down in their cars by US weapons, people wouldn&#39;t be living in fear, to name a few things. The presence of the imperialist forces in Iraq have been a terrible factor, something that undeniably has an impact on the lives of countless workers.

Oh yeah, because no one was bombed, especially no chemicals were used on peasants, no one lived in hear, no one was killed. The rule of the national bourgeoisie was just fine&#33; Everything was so much better even for the working class&#33; <_<

No, it was a bourgeois rule back then and it&#39;s a bourgeois rule now. It has been a horrible place for the working class, trust me I know this very well - Iraq is not far away from where I live. Neither the "national" bourgeoisie, nor the "foreign" bourgeoisie can provide anything better, they are all our enemies.


Furthermore, capitalist rulers of far away countries and hostile armies are harder to topple than capitalist rulers in the nearby capital

This is a non-issue. It is not "revolutionary armies" that overthrow the bourgeoisie; it is the working class and class struggle. Besides, the capitalist rulers of far away countries have to establish local authority centers so what&#39;s the big deal about being away? After all, all capitalists are connected internationally, capitalism is a world system.


Recognizing the overthrow of imperialist bourgeois rule as necessary in order to bring the overthrow of socialism is not supporting any faction of the bourgeoisie at all.

It is support for the emerging national bourgeoisie, it denies class struggle to the workers in place where you see as "backwards" place and in the end nationalists butcher the workers where leftists who supported the nationalists end up cheering for that. For example the British SWP was condemning the striking workers in Iran during the beginning of 80s because those workers "acted against the national interests and the Khomeini&#39;s anti-imperialist (islamic bourgeois) regime". Trust me, if you go supporting nationalists, that&#39;s how you&#39;ll end up.


You must remove the imperialist bourgeois authority

You must remove the existing bourgeois authority, whatever that authority might be, and not replace it with another bourgeois authority. It&#39;s as simple as that. Our class must be internationalist and must struggle against all forms of nationalism, otherwise we will be defeated.
The distinguishment I&#39;m making is that the imperialist bourgeoisie is harder to topple. The imperialist bourgeoisie makes a country dependent economically, which means that socialism is more difficult to establish. The imperialist bourgeoisie is more removed and can employ powerful forces that are unabashedly hostile to the workers.

The non-imperialist bourgeoisie are easier to topple.

Did I EVER say one was "good"? No, I didn&#39;t. Don&#39;t put words in my mouth.

Would you agree that imperialist bourgeois authority is something that must be overthrown? Would you agree that it should be recognized and opposed? Would you agree that it has a negative influence on the workers? Would you agree that it is a barrier against worker control?

If you agree on those points, that is basically what I am saying.

I don&#39;t support capitalists in El Salvador in any way. However, I oppose US influence in El Salvador.

Would you agree that violence has gone up since the US invasion of Iraq? I thought so.

A great boon to revolutionary movements is the armed forces&#39; refusal to obey the bourgeoisie. This can be seen in the Paris Commune, when soldiers put generals against walls and shot them. That is FAR less likely to happen if the soldiers are of imperialist forces.

To deny the fact that it is a step in the right direction to remove imperialist bourgeois authority is to miss the nature of capitalism. It is precisely its international nature that makes imperialism a hurdle to worker control. To ignore the importance of destroying imperialism is to ignore a change in the material conditions.

It is not support for the bourgeoisie. Were the Partisans in Yugoslavia pro-bourgeoisie? What about the Irish Republicans? They fought foreign bourgeois influence, as is necessary for the struggle against capitalism.

Again, you&#39;re putting words in my mouth. Don&#39;t equate opposing imperialism to nationalism, because then you&#39;ll be putting quite a few socialist movements in a catagory they have nothing to do with.

The existing bourgeois authority IS the imperialist bourgeoisie. Removing this authority is not irrelevant. I agree that internationalism is extremely important, but saying that toppling imperialism is not the same as saying that workers should isolate themselves. In fact, it is quite the opposite IMO.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18, 2007 12:54 am
You did not get the main point I made about imperialism - we can&#39;t distinguish national bourgeois factions between non-imperialist (good) bourgeoisie and imperialist (bad) bourgeoisie. That eventually comes to following the line good nation and bad nation and workers in different countries hating each other because of this distinction. Our motto is "workers of the world, unite", not "workers and capitalists of the oppressed nation, unite".

You&#39;ve either ignored or not understood the point that was made earlier- national liberation can&#39;t be led the majority of the time by the bourgeoisie of oppressed nations. They&#39;re incapable of doing so and in most colonial or neocolonial countries actively lead the forces of counterinsurgency.

What you&#39;ve done here is constructed a strawman that working class anti-imperialist movements are somehow lackies to &#39;their own&#39; ruling class and you pick the comments from these discussions that &#39;prove&#39; your point.

There&#39;s a night and day difference between a nationalist cause and a socialist anti-imperialist force that fights for national liberation as part of the class struggle, not an end in itself.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by PRC&#045;UTE+January 18, 2007 11:16 am--> (PRC&#045;UTE &#064; January 18, 2007 11:16 am)
Leo [email protected] 18, 2007 12:54 am
You did not get the main point I made about imperialism - we can&#39;t distinguish national bourgeois factions between non-imperialist (good) bourgeoisie and imperialist (bad) bourgeoisie. That eventually comes to following the line good nation and bad nation and workers in different countries hating each other because of this distinction. Our motto is "workers of the world, unite", not "workers and capitalists of the oppressed nation, unite".

You&#39;ve either ignored or not understood the point that was made earlier- national liberation can&#39;t be led the majority of the time by the bourgeoisie of oppressed nations. They&#39;re incapable of doing so and in most colonial or neocolonial countries actively lead the forces of counterinsurgency.

What you&#39;ve done here is constructed a strawman that working class anti-imperialist movements are somehow lackies to &#39;their own&#39; ruling class and you pick the comments from these discussions that &#39;prove&#39; your point.

There&#39;s a night and day difference between a nationalist cause and a socialist anti-imperialist force that fights for national liberation as part of the class struggle, not an end in itself.[/b]
Good point comrade.Couldn&#39;t have said better.

Leo Uilleann


QUOTE
Did Luxemburg&#39;s theories worked out in Germany after the defeat in WW1?


Well, they had a revolution, right?

You missed my second question. Why did it fail while Bolsheviks were successful with more unfavorable conditions than the latter ?


Beltov


So g.ram, do you accept that an &#39;oppressed nationality&#39; can still be imperialist? Also, I take it that your nationality is a united front of all classes against a bigger imperialism?


So you are still playing on words. Majority in the "Oppressed Nationality" is the workers of that nationality. Bourgeoisie in a "ON" cannot be a progressive force and will not lead a liberation struggle. They are better with the imperialist presence and will usually ally with the imperialists.

[Leo]

The distinguishment I&#39;m making is that the imperialist bourgeoisie is harder to topple. The imperialist bourgeoisie makes a country dependent economically

You are still repeating the same thing... I said "Besides, the capitalist rulers of far away countries have to establish local authority centers (which can be overthrown) so what&#39;s the big deal about being away? After all, all capitalists are connected internationally, capitalism is a world system."


Did I EVER say one was "good"? No, I didn&#39;t. Don&#39;t put words in my mouth.

Well you didn&#39;t but that&#39;s the place where you are heading.


Would you agree that imperialist bourgeois authority is something that must be overthrown?

Obviously, especially considering that all bourgeois authority is imperialist. Imperialism is in the nature of the bourgeoisie.


Would you agree that it should be recognized and opposed? Would you agree that it has a negative influence on the workers? Would you agree that it is a barrier against worker control?

Again, all bourgeois authority should be recognized and opposed, all bourgeois authority has a negative influence on the workers, all bourgeois authority is a barrier against worker control.


Would you agree that violence has gone up since the US invasion of Iraq?

Of course I wouldn&#39;t agree, as I clearly stated. Yet this doesn&#39;t mean I am going to support any bourgeois, nationalist or Islamic resistance.


A great boon to revolutionary movements is the armed forces&#39; refusal to obey the bourgeoisie. This can be seen in the Paris Commune, when soldiers put generals against walls and shot them. That is FAR less likely to happen if the soldiers are of imperialist forces.

Well, a great boon to revolutionary movements is class struggle.

But anyway, I would imagine that invading soldiers are not really very happy about their situation. In fact soldiers in war do tend to get revolutionary; remember the soldiers during the end of WW1. Soldiers in Germany turned their guns to their generals when their generals ordered them to attack the British Navy. I don&#39;t see it being more or less likely than any other situation.


To deny the fact that it is a step in the right direction to remove imperialist bourgeois authority is to miss the nature of capitalism. It is precisely its international nature that makes imperialism a hurdle to worker control. To ignore the importance of destroying imperialism is to ignore a change in the material conditions.

The fact is, you don&#39;t remove or destroy imperialist if you replace their authority with a nationalist bourgeois faction, which is always what happens when you support "national liberation".


It is not support for the bourgeoisie. Were the Partisans in Yugoslavia pro-bourgeoisie? What about the Irish Republicans?

Of course they were&#33;


They fought foreign bourgeois influence,

In order to replace it with their own bourgeois influence&#33;


Don&#39;t equate opposing imperialism to nationalism

I don&#39;t equate opposing imperialism to nationalism. I equate national liberation to imperialism.


You&#39;ve either ignored or not understood the point that was made earlier- national liberation can&#39;t be led the majority of the time by the bourgeoisie of oppressed nations.

Oh, yah, I saw this - it&#39;s bullshit. National liberation is always lead by the radical faction of the bourgeoisie of the "oppressed nations". They are the ones who benefit it, they are the ones who pay for it, they are the ones who control it and ultimately, if they are successful, they are the ones who establish their authority.


What you&#39;ve done here is constructed a strawman that working class anti-imperialist movements are somehow lackies to &#39;their own&#39; ruling class and you pick the comments from these discussions that &#39;prove&#39; your point.


No, I have said that national liberation is not anti-imperialist and it is not a working class movement and in order to be anti-imperialist all kinds of nationalism, ever single national bourgeoisie on earth must be completely opposed. That&#39;s anti-imperialism for you; hating foreigners is not anti-imperialism.


There&#39;s a night and day difference between a nationalist cause and a socialist anti-imperialist force that fights for national liberation as part of the class struggle

National liberation is not a part of class struggle and no one who is actually pro-working class fights for national liberation. Only the bourgeoisie fights for national liberation, whether they call themselves "socialist" or "populist" or whatever.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18, 2007 12:13 pm

The distinguishment I&#39;m making is that the imperialist bourgeoisie is harder to topple. The imperialist bourgeoisie makes a country dependent economically

You are still repeating the same thing... I said "Besides, the capitalist rulers of far away countries have to establish local authority centers (which can be overthrown) so what&#39;s the big deal about being away? After all, all capitalists are connected internationally, capitalism is a world system."


Did I EVER say one was "good"? No, I didn&#39;t. Don&#39;t put words in my mouth.

Well you didn&#39;t but that&#39;s the place where you are heading.


Would you agree that imperialist bourgeois authority is something that must be overthrown?

Obviously, especially considering that all bourgeois authority is imperialist. Imperialism is in the nature of the bourgeoisie.


Would you agree that it should be recognized and opposed? Would you agree that it has a negative influence on the workers? Would you agree that it is a barrier against worker control?

Again, all bourgeois authority should be recognized and opposed, all bourgeois authority has a negative influence on the workers, all bourgeois authority is a barrier against worker control.


Would you agree that violence has gone up since the US invasion of Iraq?

Of course I wouldn&#39;t agree, as I clearly stated. Yet this doesn&#39;t mean I am going to support any bourgeois, nationalist or Islamic resistance.


A great boon to revolutionary movements is the armed forces&#39; refusal to obey the bourgeoisie. This can be seen in the Paris Commune, when soldiers put generals against walls and shot them. That is FAR less likely to happen if the soldiers are of imperialist forces.

Well, a great boon to revolutionary movements is class struggle.

But anyway, I would imagine that invading soldiers are not really very happy about their situation. In fact soldiers in war do tend to get revolutionary; remember the soldiers during the end of WW1. Soldiers in Germany turned their guns to their generals when their generals ordered them to attack the British Navy. I don&#39;t see it being more or less likely than any other situation.


To deny the fact that it is a step in the right direction to remove imperialist bourgeois authority is to miss the nature of capitalism. It is precisely its international nature that makes imperialism a hurdle to worker control. To ignore the importance of destroying imperialism is to ignore a change in the material conditions.

The fact is, you don&#39;t remove or destroy imperialist if you replace their authority with a nationalist bourgeois faction, which is always what happens when you support "national liberation".


It is not support for the bourgeoisie. Were the Partisans in Yugoslavia pro-bourgeoisie? What about the Irish Republicans?

Of course they were&#33;


They fought foreign bourgeois influence,

In order to replace it with their own bourgeois influence&#33;


Don&#39;t equate opposing imperialism to nationalism

I don&#39;t equate opposing imperialism to nationalism. I equate national liberation to imperialism.


You&#39;ve either ignored or not understood the point that was made earlier- national liberation can&#39;t be led the majority of the time by the bourgeoisie of oppressed nations.

Oh, yah, I saw this - it&#39;s bullshit. National liberation is always lead by the radical faction of the bourgeoisie of the "oppressed nations". They are the ones who benefit it, they are the ones who pay for it, they are the ones who control it and ultimately, if they are successful, they are the ones who establish their authority.


What you&#39;ve done here is constructed a strawman that working class anti-imperialist movements are somehow lackies to &#39;their own&#39; ruling class and you pick the comments from these discussions that &#39;prove&#39; your point.


No, I have said that national liberation is not anti-imperialist and it is not a working class movement and in order to be anti-imperialist all kinds of nationalism, ever single national bourgeoisie on earth must be completely opposed. That&#39;s anti-imperialism for you; hating foreigners is not anti-imperialism.


There&#39;s a night and day difference between a nationalist cause and a socialist anti-imperialist force that fights for national liberation as part of the class struggle

National liberation is not a part of class struggle and no one who is actually pro-working class fights for national liberation. Only the bourgeoisie fights for national liberation, whether they call themselves "socialist" or "populist" or whatever.
And those local authority centers are the first things to go, which helps the cause of the workers. Capitalism is a world system, and so we must recognize the importance of fighting imperialism.

No, I&#39;m not heading there at all.

Imperialism is in the nature of the bourgeoisie, which means it is a step in the right direction to deny them the ability to unabashedly exploit workers through imperialism. It gives us the opportunity to establish worker control.

I agree. Due to the fact that all bourgeois authority is a barrier, the imperialist bourgeois influence must be fought at all costs.

That violence has increased since the US invasion is an undeniable fact.

Class consciousness, to be more precise.

Invading soldiers are probably not happy about the situation, but it is nearly impossible for them to have solidarity with the workers they are oppressing (although I do believe that it has happened). The German soldiers refused to fight and started to attack the government, but have any British, French, Belgian or other imperialist soldiers actively opposed the bourgeoisie while serving in imperialist endeavors? Hardly, which tells us that soldiers are far more likely to turn against their own government than anyone else, and removing imperialist influence allows this to happen.

You remove imperialist influence, which gives the workers a chance to smash all bourgeois influence. If another bourgeois authority is set up, that is a step backward, but that does not mean that removing imperialist authority is not at least one or two steps forward.

Yeah, James Connolly was a real supporter of the bourgeoisie. :rolleyes: No, they weren&#39;t pro-bourgeoisie AT ALL. Review history before making such comments.

BS. How was James Connolly trying to replace British influence with another bourgeois influence? He wasn&#39;t.

First, you were equating opposing imperialism to nationalism. Secondly, that point makes no sense whatsoever. Destroying imperialist influence is not, in itself, nationalist in nature, and it is certainly not a negative.

The American Revolution was led by the bourgeoisie. The Yugoslavian struggle against the German occupation was not. There is a difference; don&#39;t ignore it.

Movements that oppose imperialism can easily be working class movements. Some are pro-bourgeois, many are not. I recognize the difference and support the latter. Further, a bourgeoisie in one&#39;s own country are easier to topple, making it a step closer to worker control.

Tell James Connolly that he and his comrades gave their lives to a movement that wasn&#39;t working class. Tell the communists of the French resistance that they had no part in class struggle. Tell them that they were "only the bourgeoisie". Tell them those things and they would rightfully laugh in your face.

[A.J.]

The correct position of Leninism on the National question is as follows......


......support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries come into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement. In such cases support is, of course, entirely out of the question. The question of the rights of nations is not an isolated, self-sufficient question; it is a part of the general problem of the proletarian revolution, subordinate to the whole, and must be considered from the point of view of the whole. In the forties of the last century Marx supported the national movement of the Poles and the Hungarians and was opposed to the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs. Why? Because the Czechs and the South Slavs were then "reactionary nations," "Russian outposts" in Europe, outposts of absolutism; whereas the Poles and the Hungarians were "revolutionary nations," fighting against absolutism. Because support of the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs was at that time equivalent to indirect support for tsarism, the most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe.

"The various demands of democracy," writes Lenin, "including self-determination, are not an absolute, but a small part of the general democratic (now: general socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected." (See Vol. XIX, pp. 257-58.)[1]

This is the position in regard to the question of particular national movements, of the possible reactionary character of these movements -- if, of course, they are appraised not from the formal point of view, not from the point of view of abstract rights, but concretely, from the point of view of the interests of the revolutionary movement.

The same must be said of the revolutionary character of national movements in general. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its result was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" government is waging to preserve Egypt&#39;s dependent position is for the same reasons a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of that government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/FL24.html#c6

:hammer: :cool:

[Hiero]

The people against national liberation are yet to explain how any proletariat could create socialism under occupation.

Also they miss the point that today the national liberation in alot of cases is against the national bourgeois and the imperialist bourgeois. Under neo-colonialism they are allied. It is only in the cases such at Lebanon, Palestine or Kurdistan that a united front is needed.

No one has ever made socialism without being an independent nation, and that is a fact. And everywhere they has been occupation, the proletariat and peasants have fough against it.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18, 2007 12:13 pm

You&#39;ve either ignored or not understood the point that was made earlier- national liberation can&#39;t be led the majority of the time by the bourgeoisie of oppressed nations.

Oh, yah, I saw this - it&#39;s bullshit. National liberation is always lead by the radical faction of the bourgeoisie of the "oppressed nations". They are the ones who benefit it, they are the ones who pay for it, they are the ones who control it and ultimately, if they are successful, they are the ones who establish their authority.

Nah, that&#39;s not historically accurate. Your style of debate must be easy- just call whatever politics you disapprove of bourgeois, facts be damned. :lol:

The Irish (southern) bourgeoisie historically opposed Irish Republicanism... almost to a man. Arguably, the 26c state did more to destroy the early development of the IRSP than the British did, detaining and torturing around 50 party members and framing one for a robbery he didn&#39;t do that took years of international campaigning to free him.



What you&#39;ve done here is constructed a strawman that working class anti-imperialist movements are somehow lackies to &#39;their own&#39; ruling class and you pick the comments from these discussions that &#39;prove&#39; your point.


No, I have said that national liberation is not anti-imperialist and it is not a working class movement and in order to be anti-imperialist all kinds of nationalism, ever single national bourgeoisie on earth must be completely opposed. That&#39;s anti-imperialism for you; hating foreigners is not anti-imperialism.

Reduced to straightforward terms, you&#39;re just playing with semantics.

National Liberation is about anti-imperialism... that&#39;s the distinction I&#39;m trying to make from nationalism. You may not approve of the terminology, but the phrase &#39;national liberation&#39; has been used by communists for some time. ffs. :rolleyes:



There&#39;s a night and day difference between a nationalist cause and a socialist anti-imperialist force that fights for national liberation as part of the class struggle

National liberation is not a part of class struggle and no one who is actually pro-working class fights for national liberation. Only the bourgeoisie fights for national liberation, whether they call themselves "socialist" or "populist" or whatever.

Damn... then I guess Marx, Connolly, Larkin and Lenin were not &#39;pro-working class&#39;. They all actively strove, argued and agitated for Irish independence from England.

Your posts are so stupid and dogmatic that I&#39;m beginning to wonder if you&#39;re just taking the piss here, mocking trendy lefties. :wub:

[Mikhail Frunze]

In this age, I advocate national liberation and self-determination only where it hurts imperialism. Republika Srpska has conducted a genuine national liberation struggle against the NATO protectorate of Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, the KLA in Yugoslavia, Tibetan reactionaries against the People&#39;s Republic, "Justice and Equality Movement" in Sudan, and the various separatist insurrections in People&#39;s Ethiopia have been manifestations of imperialist aims on destroying either a socialist or anti-imperialist order. In such a circumstance, these movements qualify as national chauvinism whose forces betrayed their country when they collaborated with western imperialists.

The national liberation struggles in Turkish Kurdistan, Transnistria, Abkhazia, Ossetia, and Ajaria are to be supported because they are in essence anti-imperialist movements which seek genuine self-determination and emancipation from brutal western imperialism.

The PKK insurrection deserves the support of the proletariat because that movement pressed for genuine national liberation and emancipation from western imperialism. But the fascist Kurdish insurrection against the People&#39;s Democratic Republic Iraq was a western imperialist proxy for the purpose of tearing apart a country of formiddable influence like Iraq. When there are threats to socialist power like in People&#39;s Ethiopia or People&#39;s China, they are to be denounced as fascist, chauvinist secessionists who try spitefully to fragment the proletariat across ethnic lines.

In other words, national liberation and self-determination are to be supported only when they pose a threat to western imperialism.

[Pirate Utopian]

im busy reading Frantz Fanon&#39;s The Wretched Of The Earth i can recommand it to anyone trying to read about national liberation movements

[Labor Shall Rule]

We support the right of self determination of oppressed nations if, and only if, these various national liberation struggles help speed up the world socialist revolution. Lenin figured that the nation-state was a pressure cooker for class antagonisms (as opposed to multi-nation empires) and thus when nations gained independance they would quickly begin to have their own proletarian revolutions. He was very wrong, and we should recognize that this terrible mistake that he made costed the lives of thousands of communists and workers.

The basis of the right of nations to self determination is for socialists to adopt a progressive stance towards the question of oppressed nations and ethnic groups. It is not a method for siding with the aspiring colonial bourgeoisie against the imperialism of the major powers, nor is it a method for ignoring the class struggle in the oppressed nation and simply advocating independence on traditional capitalist grounds. It goes without saying that any Marxist worth his salt, including Lenin, would view the national question in the wider context of socialist revolution, and would adopt a pro-worker stance in the oppressed nations of the world, not a petite bourgeois one.

[sexyguy]

We support the right of self determination of oppressed nations if, and only if, these various national liberation struggles help speed up the world socialist revolution. Lenin figured that the nation-state was a pressure cooker for class antagonisms (as opposed to multi-nation empires) and thus when nations gained independance they would quickly begin to have their own proletarian revolutions. He was very wrong, and we should recognize that this terrible mistake that he made costed the lives of thousands of communists and workers.
Really&#33; So what happened in Europe after German imperialism was smashed?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:51 pm

We support the right of self determination of oppressed nations if, and only if, these various national liberation struggles help speed up the world socialist revolution. Lenin figured that the nation-state was a pressure cooker for class antagonisms (as opposed to multi-nation empires) and thus when nations gained independance they would quickly begin to have their own proletarian revolutions. He was very wrong, and we should recognize that this terrible mistake that he made costed the lives of thousands of communists and workers.
Really&#33; So what happened in Europe after German imperialism was smashed?
What happened to Finland, Estonia, Lativa, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, among many other countries with this policy?

[sexyguy]

RedDali

Lenin figured that the nation-state was a pressure cooker for class antagonisms (as opposed to multi-nation empires) and thus when nations gained independance they would quickly begin to have their own proletarian revolutions. He was very wrong, and we should recognize that this terrible mistake that he made costed the lives of thousands of communists and workers.
sexyguy

Really&#33; So what happened in Europe after German imperialism was smashed?

RedDali

What happened to Finland, Estonia, Lativa, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, among many other countries with this policy?

What is the connection between your allegation that Lenin “was very wrong” and “What happened to Finland, Estonia, Lativa, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, among many other countries with this policy?”