National Determinition

[razboz]

I am not a big Theorist, but i was wondering what everyone thought of the issue of National Determination and the necissity for different nationalities to have a "homeland" or definite territory which can be called "home" and group of people with whom this sentiment can be shared.

On the one hand It has lead to dangerously Fascistic tendencies that have generally worked against the best interests of the people and has been used as a means of dividing other wise indivisble classes.

On the other hand it has proven virtually impossible to repress the sentiment of national belogning in people. If we look at the USSR where various nationalities were mixed together, on its fall we saw a violent wiplash from fanatically nationalistic groups. Some historians beleive that the Roman emprie collapsed because it attempted to incorporate too many nationalities into its realm and treat them all the same (not saying this is my own analysis).

[PRC-UTE]

national independence isn't an inherently progressive or reactionary demand. More often than not, it can be reactionary.

If it's a legitimate fight against imperialism (one nation invading, occupying another and denying their right to self-determination and economic development) and is led by the working class and/or exploited peasantry, I would support it.

I think it needs to be looked at case by case.

[Ander]

One example I have talked about endlessly is the Basque struggle. While there are many reactionary forces, such as my grandfather who is a conservative nationalist, there are also many leftists involved in this fight for national liberation. I personally believe that the Basques need to free themselves from the oppression of the Spanish state before they can institute a socialist society.

[Pawn Power]

Similiar ideas were/are being discussed here (National Liberation thread) (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60580&hl=)

The important distinction being made by PRC-UTE between nationalist movements and national liberation.

[loveme4whoiam]

Its an interesting one. No one can doubt that tapping nationalistic feelings can certainly get people going, but I agree that on the whole such tendancies towards the nationalist have generally been for a reactionary cause.

Are nationalism and internationalism incompatible? I just ask as that could be a way to avoid becoming bogged down in nationalist, reactionary policy by being too inwardly-focused and exclusionary. By this I mean, get people believing that, as a nation, they are being oppressed, just like every other nation - so help yourselves, then help the other oppressed people.

Or am I just talking crap here? :unsure:

[razboz]

I understand the need for an end to imperialistic or otherwise repressive domination of one set of people over another. Thus i referr not to struggles of National Liberation against imperialistic or repressive forces. These are justified, regardless of the National Liberation basis.

However my question was more in relation to the need for individual states and to what extent a people can expect to have their individual state. Does a language minority have the right to have its own state? This would justify the Basque struggle. But would it not also justify the Nahua, the Olmec, the Tzlotl, the Mexica struggles (all in mexico). However this would lead to a exploded countries and a myriad of tiny states... Is this desrieablée or even moral? WOuld this not weaken all of these states? Furthermore the drive to create new states for the benfit of minority groups, does it not increase the sense of indivduality within a country, thus weakening it overall? Here i come to the question of whether it is better to increase national wealth, at the expense of af a minority of rich regions, or to increase the Individual rights of minorities by granting these minorities sovreignty. For example in the National Liberation Thread somone evoked the Scottish national Liberaiton movement. They justified it on the grounds that Scotland is Oil Rich and that that's why the Union does not let them out. But question: is this a bad thing? Why should the rest of the UK not benefit from the natural resources in Scotland?WOuld this not raise the living standards of the average citizen? Even if the Scotts want it, if it harms the rest of the population is not immoral to want National Liberation in this case?

Then comes the question (no i dont ever stop) of how to protect minorities. In some countries minorities want National Determination bacuse they are being repressed. This what pushed the Jews to Palestine. They wished to have their rights guarranteed. I dont think they are evil in themselves, just fanatics who wished to gain sovreignty to avoid persecution. However we see how this has led to brutal, unnecessary destruction of another country (Palestine.) We see here how to ensure the rights of one minority, a majority was sacrificed. How else then can we ensure the rights of a mminority? By guarrenteeing their rights within the country. National Determination is not needed to ensure the rights of certain citizens. Be ensureing everyone has the same rights, we ensure that minorities are recognised as equal, which is the only thing that they should be recognised as. Not the same but equal. So if we accept this to what extent should we go. Can we not imagine one global country in which all have equal rights?