Intersection of class and ethnicity

[Spike]

What do you think of the concept of revolutionary socialism based on ethnicity? This phenomenon was rife throughout the Russian Empire: Latvian and Estonian peasants against German nobles; Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Lithuanian peasants against Polish landlords and Jewish merchants; Finns against the Swedish bourgeois, and Georgians against the Armenian bourgeois. In some circumstances like these the lines between class and ethnicity are blurred.

[la-troy]

From my personal experience it is the class antagonism that may cause the ethnicity issue. At a point in my life I had very racist thoughts, you see the bourgeois, or the upper class in my country where mainly white and Asian persons. I thought that it was this class that cause my people to be suffering, it was only natural that the issue of their ethnicity would stand out more to me seeing that I had know real understanding of the class struggles.

What I am trying to say is this. The revolts were caused by the oppressed and exploited
persons rising up. They associated their frustration with what was obvious (race, ethnicity) and what they were used to.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Revolutionary action has be class based, as in the intelligencia/workingclass/peasantry/(maybe even the middle class) attacking the bourgeoise.

However, one should not ignore that ethnicity is a big player when it comes to personal and cultural identification. For example look at football matches, people are not coming together because they are all workers or landlords, but because they are all English or German or whereever they are from. Ethnicity is something people identify themselves with more often than class.

[Rawthentic]

What do you think of the concept of revolutionary socialism based on ethnicity?
As not being revolutionary socialism.

[Ol' Dirty]

Workers of the world, unite! Except For New Jersey people... anyone who is from New Jersy is a pettit-bourgoisie sodomite-trotskyite pig!

Wow, that was way off topic.

Anyway, even though "race" and gender affect class, a front shouldn't base its ideas on ethnic groupings in and of themselves.

[Naxal]

It helps divide people and weakens the weakens the overall movement because it is no longer a mass and inclusive movement, it is a elite and exclusive movement. Now, this elite and exclusive movement may contain millions of people, but if it specifically only represents a section of society then it is not a mass movement and it is not inclusive.

I think the most dramatic and horrible example of a elite and exclusive movement in modern history would be the Indian National Congress, which began life as a mass, inclusive party and movement, but quickly became (basically) a Hindu movement that alienated the Muslim and Sikh populations, as well as repressing Bengali rights. This culminated in the partition of India, where hundreds of thousands of people died and over a million women were raped. Then later hundreds of thousands people were killed when Bangladesh declared independence from Pakistan, another horrible war.

India is an extreme example, but I think the point is still valid. Egalitarianism cannot exclude any section of society, no matter how big or small.

[BobKKKindle$]

The working class may sometimes be composed of an ethnicity that differs from the ethnicity of the bourgeoisie, but we must never support struggles simply on the basis of ethnicity - we should always emphasise the importance of class.

This is especially true in the case of national liberation struggles. In these cases the scenario you describe is very common, as a country is subject to the occupation and control of a foreign power, the inhabitants and soldiers of which are of a different ethnicity for example the Algerian fight for independence. Replacing one set of rulers with another set that differs in certain arbitrary physical characteristics such as skin colour or has a different language is not liberation and can actually impede the worker's struggle, as rhetoric based on the concept of 'national unity' in a turbulent post-colonial era is used to discourage challenges to the new rulers. Communist parties fighting with bourgeois nationalists in such conditions must always try and maintain and independent position.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Naxal
I think the most dramatic and horrible example of a elite and exclusive movement in modern history would be the Indian National Congress, which began life as a mass, inclusive party and movement, but quickly became (basically) a Hindu movement that alienated the Muslim and Sikh populations, as well as repressing Bengali rights. This culminated in the partition of India, where hundreds of thousands of people died and over a million women were raped. Then later hundreds of thousands people were killed when Bangladesh declared independence from Pakistan, another horrible war.

What on the world are you talking about ?


First of all the INC was never an mass movement all the times. During its initial stages in from 1885 when it is formed it represented the interests of an amalgamation of Indian Landlords, Learned elites and nascent developing Industrialist class.

It became a mass movement only after 1920 did it became a mass movement under the leadership of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi drawing in its ranks people from all strata of the Indian Society. It remained as such till 1947 afterwards it became the political toll of Bourgeoisie.

There are hell a lot of valid criticisms made against it but being an Hindu movement is really Bullshit. The fanatical Hindu interest was always expressed by HMS and RSS who have evolved in to Sangh Parivar today.

I think you are also very well informed about Partition. The leadership elite of Congress has a part of Blame for it but not for the reasons you have given.

As for the Sikhs issue it didn't start to discriminate them until 1980's when Indira Gandhi was killed by her own Sikh Bodygaurds.

And Sikhs still live in India and are not as discriminated as Dalits.

***********************************************


As for the original post I think Socialism if at all based on one ethnicity then it is nothing socialist except as a Label.

[Rawthentic]

The Black Panthers fought for national liberation, in their own words. They saw how they were basically colonized by the pigs who patrolled their communities, similar to how they Vietnamese revolutionaries were being brutalized in their lands.

The Panthers were revolutionary nationalists and proletarian internationalists, they opposed cultural nationalism, or "pork chop nationalism."

Very hard subject to debate about, my position on national liberation is not clear.

[Naxal]

<<First of all the INC was never an mass movement all the times. During its initial stages in from 1885 when it is formed it represented the interests of an amalgamation of Indian Landlords, Learned elites and nascent developing Industrialist class.>>

No, it wasn&#39;t a mass movement at all times; however it was the first organised mass movement that was nation-wide. However, like Indian Nationalism in general, it was a product of the eduated Middle Classes and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the peasants had any knowledge of or interest in lofty ideas of &#39;nationalism&#39; and so on- they wanted the British out as the British made their life hard. But regardless, the INC was the first true, nation-wide, Indian Nationalist movement. Other things came before, like the Cow Protection Riots (which, I believe, were the first nation-wide protests)- but these were not Nationalist (Proto-Nationalist at best) or organised.

<<It became a mass movement only after 1920 did it became a mass movement under the leadership of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi drawing in its ranks people from all strata of the Indian Society. It remained as such till 1947 afterwards it became the political toll of Bourgeoisie.>>

Mass peasant involvement doesn&#39;t mean that it wasn&#39;t a Bourgeoise movement. I dislike the grand myth that has been built around Gandhi, his contribution to Independence was that he could integrate the peasants into the struggle and appeal to them in terms that they understood- Hindu terms. His Jani inspired Pacifism had little to do with Independence, violent riots began the very day that the Quit India movement started and they quickly spread across the country, despite Gandhi offically ending the movement (as he always did when he heard of any violent action- he did not want to be associated with violence). This made the British realise that they could not govern India anymore and worse still, if all those rioting peasants were given guns and were lead by British trained soldiers (who, ironically, were putting down the Nationalists in Indonesia at the time) then the British would be expelled. The Labour government was far more open to a paper withdraw that will save face on the British side and be acceptable to the Indian side. Sadly, Gandhi was crap at real politics and dealt with the Muslims poorly.

<<There are hell a lot of valid criticisms made against it but being an Hindu movement is really Bullshit. The fanatical Hindu interest was always expressed by HMS and RSS who have evolved in to Sangh Parivar today.>>

It was made up primarially of Hindus, it&#39;s main leader expressed himself in explicitly Hindu terms and they widely used Bharat Mata (the Hindu personification of Inida) on posters etc (alienating Muslims in two ways- it was a Hindu Goddess and Islam forbids any depiction of God, Prophets etc).

<<I think you are also very well informed about Partition. The leadership elite of Congress has a part of Blame for it but not for the reasons you have given.>>

I didn&#39;t really give a reason, but I think that both sides are equally to blame. I think the INC alienated the Muslims, though probably not intentionally, while the Muslim League stirred up unnecessary fears and I think their calls for partition were too soon- you can&#39;t say with certainty that something is going to happen without seeing it in action. Both the INC and ML made equally unreasonable demands and I don&#39;t think you can point the finger at either one.

<<As for the Sikhs issue it didn&#39;t start to discriminate them until 1980&#39;s when Indira Gandhi was killed by her own Sikh Bodygaurds>>

Why was she killed? The storming the the Golden Temple. And the hostility and alienation between the Sikh&#39;s and the ruling INC began in the &#39;70s. I never understood why the Muslims managed to get special rights, plus the (stupidity of) partition while the Sikh&#39;s didn&#39;t get anything like that, to my knowledge.

<<And Sikhs still live in India and are not as discriminated as Dalits.>>

No, they&#39;re not. But that&#39;s another issue I have with Gandhi- the upholding of the Castes. And then being "No, we&#39;ll call them Harijans&#33; Then the Dalits won&#39;t feel so shitted upon&#33;"

From the Indian political figures of that &#39;generation&#39; (Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru etc) I think Ambedkar has the greatest integrity.

[Anarchovampire]

I don&#39;t believe race or ethnicity has anything to do with the revolution... the problem is the inherant cooruption of capitalism. If one group can get in charge through funds, they can begin to exclude other groups. But in general, the poor are poor for no reason whether of the majority or of the minority.

I forget who said it (I am bad with names and faces), but I read once that the poor from all countries have more in common with the fellow proletariates than the rich ever will with their foreign counter-parts. And this is totally true. Cultures are definded today by the things the rich can afford... art work, pottery, things that are above the proletariate. The whole concept of Nationalism, race and Imperialism is to keep the proletariate divided between and within countries... because they realize that if we were to unite as one coherant group... we&#39;d have them out and in prison cells in a day&#33; Instead, they keep us bickering instead of uniting... and in places like the US... people are taught in school that communism is evil, so the uneducated lower classes never try to even think along those lines... Sad...

But in the end, what is race? The visibility of certain genetic features? There is no such thing as race... It is all bullshit. You are a humanbeing... nothing more, nothing less... Race is defined by one gene group... but only one specific one... I mean, we don&#39;t group people with brown eyes into a race... or people with attached ear-lobes... what makes skin so damned different? Because they need us divided, because together we are strong.

[Vargha Poralli]

Mass peasant involvement doesn&#39;t mean that it wasn&#39;t a Bourgeoise movement. I dislike the grand myth that has been built around Gandhi, his contribution to Independence was that he could integrate the peasants into the struggle and appeal to them in terms that they understood- Hindu terms. His Jani inspired Pacifism had little to do with Independence, violent riots began the very day that the Quit India movement started and they quickly spread across the country, despite Gandhi offically ending the movement (as he always did when he heard of any violent action- he did not want to be associated with violence). This made the British realise that they could not govern India anymore and worse still, if all those rioting peasants were given guns and were lead by British trained soldiers (who, ironically, were putting down the Nationalists in Indonesia at the time) then the British would be expelled. The Labour government was far more open to a paper withdraw that will save face on the British side and be acceptable to the Indian side. Sadly, Gandhi was crap at real politics and dealt with the Muslims poorly.

For all that things you have said I agree with most.

But a much determined fact was that the latter mass involvement(after the official ending of the Quit India Movement) will not have been happened if not for Gandhi&#39;s campaign before.

It is not a myth it is a fact that Gandhi united the Indians.

Are you aware of the polyagar wars that happened a 80 years before First war of Indian Independence ? or of Vellore mutiny some 50 years before it ? Did the War of 1857 spread beyond Bengal and Northern India ? Did even the Jallian Wallah Bagh Massacare ignite any rebellions in the rest of India ?

Gandhi&#39;s use of Non-Violence did have a positive effetc on the Indian struggle. With the numerous divisions there had been no guarantee the same violence could have been diverted in to to sectarian conflict by the British Raj which they have not new to use it.


It was made up primarially of Hindus, it&#39;s main leader expressed himself in explicitly Hindu terms and they widely used Bharat Mata (the Hindu personification of Inida) on posters etc (alienating Muslims in two ways- it was a Hindu Goddess and Islam forbids any depiction of God, Prophets etc).

I don&#39;t think you are analysing the situation perfectly. The term Bharat Matha was used by ultra Nationalist HMS and RSS and by Extremist leaders like Tilak etc. Not so much by Gandhi.

And it was not made up primarily by Hindus. In North West Frontier Province Congress under Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan was as strong as the Muslim league. And there are many notable Muslim&#39;s in its rank and file.



I didn&#39;t really give a reason, but I think that both sides are equally to blame. I think the INC alienated the Muslims, though probably not intentionally, while the Muslim League stirred up unnecessary fears and I think their calls for partition were too soon- you can&#39;t say with certainty that something is going to happen without seeing it in action. Both the INC and ML made equally unreasonable demands and I don&#39;t think you can point the finger at either one.


No it is a crime of both the Congress Leadership&#39;s and the Muslim league&#39;s whose lust for power resulted in partition.


Why was she killed? The storming the the Golden Temple. And the hostility and alienation between the Sikh&#39;s and the ruling INC began in the &#39;70s. I never understood why the Muslims managed to get special rights, plus the (stupidity of) partition while the Sikh&#39;s didn&#39;t get anything like that, to my knowledge.

Again your analysis is too simplistic.

If you are unware of it Indian Muslim population is third biggest in the world - after Indonesia and Pakistan. Not all Muslims uniformly wanted a seperate nation.

And no Muslims don&#39;t have any special rights as to other communities - except in marriage and divorce affairs.

The Sikh problem was not as awe full as you paint. The Khalistan separatist movement is not as popular among Sikhs as you paint and it failed not only because of Indian Police repression but also because of lack of popular support from the people they claimed to represent - Sikh community.

I don&#39;t deny the or diminish the role of Congress hooligans in the massacre of Sikhs after the murder of Indira Gandhi - but they are not as much as you paint it.


No, they&#39;re not.

Then you have to com up with facts about the systematic oppression of Sikhs.

The Sikh workers and peasants are exploited as much their Hindu,Christian and Muslim counterparts are. And the Sikh capitalists do benefit from this exploitation as much as their Hindu,Christian and Muslim counterparts. It is capitalist system after all.




But that&#39;s another issue I have with Gandhi- the upholding of the Castes. And then being "No, we&#39;ll call them Harijans&#33; Then the Dalits won&#39;t feel so shitted upon&#33;"

I don&#39; t disagree with you. It is just paternalistic attitude nothing more.



From the Indian political figures of that &#39;generation&#39; (Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru etc) I think Ambedkar has the greatest integrity.

I don&#39;t disagree with you if it comes to Dalits and Scheduled tribes.

But Ambedkar didn&#39;t do much to OBC&#39;s some of whom in some cases have been oppressed worser than Dalits at some point.