Maoism and national liberation

[black magick hustla]

did anyone know mim originated in harvard :lol:

so much for thirdworldism, anti-amerikkan lumpen peoples war

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:50 pm
did anyone know mim originated in harvard :lol:

so much for thirdworldism, anti-amerikkan lumpen peoples war
The point is not that this, or that particular Maoist group comes from one of the centres of bourgeois academia. Though I must admit it is amusing.

The problem is that all of them are anti-working class organisations that advocate workers dying to defend bourgeois interests.

It doesn't matter if they are individually workers, or millionaires. Their political organisations are anti-working class.

The fact that they are middle class intellectuals though doesn't surprise me at all. It is probabely not unconnected to their hatred of the working class.

Devrim

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:49 pm
It is a clear call for workers to give up their own interests, and die in wars of national defence on behalf of the bourgeoisie.
The problem is not which Maoist party has the most correct version of this line. The problem is that the line itself is anti-working class.
Mao referred to all classes as the oppressed and lower classes- peasant, proletariat, and petty bourgeoisie. The "some traitors" he speaks of are generally applied to the main bourgeoisie, who put profit before their community when exploited by foreign dominance. It is still class warfare, but it takes place between two nations when noting the principal contradictions between the nations people- one a colony, and the other, an empire.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pe5fIY52CU4

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:11 pm
Mao referred to all classes as the oppressed and lower classes- peasant, proletariat, and petty bourgeoisie. The "some traitors" he speaks of are generally applied to the main bourgeoisie, who put profit before their community when exploited by foreign dominance. It is still class warfare, but it takes place between two nations when noting the principal contradictions between the nations people- one a colony, and the other, an empire.

Well it seems to me that what all classes means is all classes. Of course there are different factions within the bourgeoisie basically based around what they consider to be the best way to exploit the proletariat. That will mean that in national liberation wars, different factions of the bourgoise can, and will take different sides.

The point is that neither of the sides is the side of the working class.

The community of capital in itself is anti-working class, and the very idea that class warfare takes place between two nations is not a million miles away from the concept of proletarian nations, and bourgeois nations...and we all know where that came from.

The fact is that those who are accused of being traitors are more often than not workers who refuse to sacrifice either their living standards, or even their very lives for the profits of their own bourgeoisie.

Workers know this line very well. It was for example thrown at striking Türk Telekom workers during the recent crisis in Turkey.

All political factions that try to pull the working class into shedding its blood on behalf of the nation are profoundly anti-working class.

And that includes all Maoists.

Devrim

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:22 pm
Well it seems to me that what all classes means is all classes. Of course there are different factions within the bourgeoisie basically based around what they consider to be the best way to exploit the proletariat. That will mean that in national liberation wars, different factions of the bourgoise can, and will take different sides.

The point is that neither of the sides is the side of the working class.

The community of capital in itself is anti-working class, and the very idea that class warfare takes place between two nations is not a million miles away from the concept of proletarian nations, and bourgeois nations...and we all know where that came from.

The fact is that those who are accused of being traitors are more often than not workers who refuse to sacrifice either their living standards, or even their very lives for the profits of their own bourgeoisie.

Workers know this line very well. It was for example thrown at striking Türk Telekom workers during the recent crisis in Turkey.

All political factions that try to pull the working class into shedding its blood on behalf of the nation are profoundly anti-working class.

And that includes all Maoists.

Devrim
You need to keep in mind that when Mao wrote of classes, he was observing a feudal society in which the proletariat was not unified but divided- this is what he refers to in his alliance of classes- workers uniting with other workers who were not a part of a unified class.

As for your second comment, there are just wars, and unjust wars. If a colonial power invades your country- trying to reduce its people to slaves, it is in the common interest of the proletariat (in both nations) to resist the aggressor- it is a just war. Unjust wars are imperialist or nationalist aims in conflict- Japan fought an unjust war, but China's resistance to an unjust war of imperialism made theirs a just war- regardless of class.

No, actually- everyone continues bringing up the point of "we all know where that came from," but I don't seem to. Please elaborate- who came up with this concept- and if they're right, does it matter if they were communist or not?

I'm not arguing the rest of this because it is all based off of the earlier part of the post- so doing so would be redundant.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:18 pm
The MIM are the most stupid thing i have ever seen since spartan!

I mean look at this shit!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgZ5k2n8k4s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgZ5k2n8k4s)
Once again, don't confuse these people with MIM- they're IRTR, far more radical. They've often criticized MIM for being soft on imperialism.
That's not even the worst video.
They've proposed a plan of genocide openly in this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u68hvTGyYvY

But this is precisely why I noted that I didn't agree with everything they said- they just brought up some good points that Maoists might wish to note.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 15, 2007 09:35 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 15, 2007 09:35 pm) You need to keep in mind that when Mao wrote of classes, he was observing a feudal society in which the proletariat was not unified but divided- this is what he refers to in his alliance of classes- workers uniting with other workers who were not a part of a unified class.
[/b]
So what you are saying is that when Mao wrote that all classes should unite. He meant that the working class should unite. I think Mao expressed very clearly in that quote exactly what he wanted to say, and to try to pretend that it is an argument for anything less than class collaboration is disingenuous, and more than a little pathetic.


[i]Originally posted by [email protected]
As for your second comment, there are just wars, and unjust wars. If a colonial power invades your country- trying to reduce its people to slaves, it is in the common interest of the proletariat (in both nations) to resist the aggressor- it is a just war. Unjust wars are imperialist or nationalist aims in conflict- Japan fought an unjust war, but China's resistance to an unjust war of imperialism made theirs a just war- regardless of class.

We take a very different view on this. You talk of 'f a colonial power invades your country...'. I would take Marx's view on this. The working man has no country. You can not take away from him what he has never had. The language of 'just wars' is absolutely the language of the ruling class throughout all ages when it is trying to get the working class to die for their profits.

You talk about one side 'trying to reduce its people to slaves'. And to stop this we should shed our blood for, and let 'our own' side treat us like slaves. I can't see the logic of that.


PigmerikanMao
No, actually- everyone continues bringing up the point of "we all know where that came from," but I don't seem to. Please elaborate- who came up with this concept- and if they're right, does it matter if they were communist or not?

Of course it is not right. There are no 'proletarian nations'. The concept emerged from those in the socialist movement who advocated class collaboration in the defence of the nation. The most prominent of these would be Heinrich Laufenberg and Friedrich Wolfheim, the 'National Bolsheviks', and Benito Mussolini. To put it very simply this idea of national defence was the basis of fascism.

Devrim

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 15, 2007 09:50 pm--> (devrimankara @ November 15, 2007 09:50 pm)
[i]Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 15, 2007 09:35 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 15, 2007 09:35 pm) You need to keep in mind that when Mao wrote of classes, he was observing a feudal society in which the proletariat was not unified but divided- this is what he refers to in his alliance of classes- workers uniting with other workers who were not a part of a unified class.
[/b]
So what you are saying is that when Mao wrote that all classes should unite. He meant that the working class should unite. I think Mao expressed very clearly in that quote exactly what he wanted to say, and to try to pretend that it is an argument for anything less than class collaboration is disingenuous, and more than a little pathetic.


[email protected]
As for your second comment, there are just wars, and unjust wars. If a colonial power invades your country- trying to reduce its people to slaves, it is in the common interest of the proletariat (in both nations) to resist the aggressor- it is a just war. Unjust wars are imperialist or nationalist aims in conflict- Japan fought an unjust war, but China's resistance to an unjust war of imperialism made theirs a just war- regardless of class.

We take a very different view on this. You talk of 'f a colonial power invades your country...'. I would take Marx's view on this. The working man has no country. You can not take away from him what he has never had. The language of 'just wars' is absolutely the language of the ruling class throughout all ages when it is trying to get the working class to die for their profits.

You talk about one side 'trying to reduce its people to slaves'. And to stop this we should shed our blood for, and let 'our own' side treat us like slaves. I can't see the logic of that.


PigmerikanMao
No, actually- everyone continues bringing up the point of "we all know where that came from," but I don't seem to. Please elaborate- who came up with this concept- and if they're right, does it matter if they were communist or not?

Of course it is not right. There are no 'proletarian nations'. The concept emerged from those in the socialist movement who advocated class collaboration in the defence of the nation. The most prominent of these would be Heinrich Laufenberg and Friedrich Wolfheim, the 'National Bolsheviks', and Benito Mussolini. To put it very simply this idea of national defence was the basis of fascism.

Devrim [/b]
Well it looks like I'm just going to settle with disagreeing with you. You have your opinions and I have mine. :D

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 15, 2007 09:53 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 15, 2007 09:53 pm)
[i]Originally posted by devrimankara+November 15, 2007 09:50 pm--> (devrimankara @ November 15, 2007 09:50 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:35 pm
You need to keep in mind that when Mao wrote of classes, he was observing a feudal society in which the proletariat was not unified but divided- this is what he refers to in his alliance of classes- workers uniting with other workers who were not a part of a unified class.

So what you are saying is that when Mao wrote that all classes should unite. He meant that the working class should unite. I think Mao expressed very clearly in that quote exactly what he wanted to say, and to try to pretend that it is an argument for anything less than class collaboration is disingenuous, and more than a little pathetic.


[email protected]
As for your second comment, there are just wars, and unjust wars. If a colonial power invades your country- trying to reduce its people to slaves, it is in the common interest of the proletariat (in both nations) to resist the aggressor- it is a just war. Unjust wars are imperialist or nationalist aims in conflict- Japan fought an unjust war, but China's resistance to an unjust war of imperialism made theirs a just war- regardless of class.

We take a very different view on this. You talk of 'f a colonial power invades your country...'. I would take Marx's view on this. The working man has no country. You can not take away from him what he has never had. The language of 'just wars' is absolutely the language of the ruling class throughout all ages when it is trying to get the working class to die for their profits.

You talk about one side 'trying to reduce its people to slaves'. And to stop this we should shed our blood for, and let 'our own' side treat us like slaves. I can't see the logic of that.


PigmerikanMao
No, actually- everyone continues bringing up the point of "we all know where that came from," but I don't seem to. Please elaborate- who came up with this concept- and if they're right, does it matter if they were communist or not?

Of course it is not right. There are no 'proletarian nations'. The concept emerged from those in the socialist movement who advocated class collaboration in the defence of the nation. The most prominent of these would be Heinrich Laufenberg and Friedrich Wolfheim, the 'National Bolsheviks', and Benito Mussolini. To put it very simply this idea of national defence was the basis of fascism.

Devrim [/b]
Well it looks like I'm just going to settle with disagreeing with you. You have your opinions and I have mine. :D [/b]
Congratulations, you have felt to the trap of liberalism.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:55 pm
Congratulations, you have felt to the trap of liberalism.
Oh no, tolerance- what am I going to do now? Respect people? :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 15, 2007 09:56 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 15, 2007 09:56 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 09:55 pm
Congratulations, you have felt to the trap of liberalism.
Oh no, tolerance- what am I going to do now? Respect people? :rolleyes: [/b]
Saying "I have my own opinion" and implying that is at the same level as other "opinions" is nothing more than spineless liberalism.

Its also another way of admitting defeat without being overtly explicit about it.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Marmot+November 15, 2007 09:58 pm--> (Marmot @ November 15, 2007 09:58 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:56 pm

[email protected] 15, 2007 09:55 pm
Congratulations, you have felt to the trap of liberalism.
Oh no, tolerance- what am I going to do now? Respect people? :rolleyes:
Saying "I have my own opinion" and implying that is at the same level as other "opinions" is nothing more than spineless liberalism.

Its also another way of admitting defeat without being overtly explicit about it. [/b]
I'm not admitting defeat- I just have to go to work soon.
I really don't care if people think I take others equally- I don't mind their opinions, I'm not going to brainwash them... The socialist revolution and inevitable Maoist supremacy is proof enough I'm right.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 15, 2007 10:02 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 15, 2007 10:02 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:58 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:56 pm

[email protected] 15, 2007 09:55 pm
Congratulations, you have felt to the trap of liberalism.
Oh no, tolerance- what am I going to do now? Respect people? :rolleyes:
Saying "I have my own opinion" and implying that is at the same level as other "opinions" is nothing more than spineless liberalism.

Its also another way of admitting defeat without being overtly explicit about it.
I'm not admitting defeat- I just have to go to work soon.
I really don't care if people think I take others equally- I don't mind their opinions, I'm not going to brainwash them... The socialist revolution and inevitable Maoist supremacy is proof enough I'm right. [/b]
Open debate has nothing to do with brainwashing.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:01 pm
Oh and Devrim, why does advocating proletarian revolution (which yes will involve violence) mean that I "hate the working class"?
Because in the current state of affairs- an attempt at revolution would be crushed and do nothing but hurt other communists and the working class. You should always look into WHEN a revolution can actually work.

As for your long post of improper capitalization- I'd like to argue with you over PMs or something- but I'm not going to make page long posts on a public forum.

Good day to you :D


Open debate has nothing to do with brainwashing.
Yes, but when it's clear the debate is going NOWHERE, what else is there to do but brainwash or stop wasting my time?

[Rawthentic]

Well it seems to me that what all classes means is all classes. Of course there are different factions within the bourgeoisie basically based around what they consider to be the best way to exploit the proletariat. That will mean that in national liberation wars, different factions of the bourgoise can, and will take different sides.
So, it was wrong for the CCP to advocate a unified front of the proletariat, peasantry, petty-bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie to defeat Japanese imperialism (keeping in mind that Japan had sliced of a large chunk already).

You think worker's militias could have done it lol?

And I find it interesting that people call Maoists as part of the 'bourgeois academia' when the Black Panther Party was Maoist communist party with vast support from the black proletariat.

It all comes down to economism, anyway. Lenin was no worker, so he must have been wrong lol.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 15, 2007 11:28 pm

Well it seems to me that what all classes means is all classes. Of course there are different factions within the bourgeoisie basically based around what they consider to be the best way to exploit the proletariat. That will mean that in national liberation wars, different factions of the bourgoise can, and will take different sides.
So, it was wrong for the CCP to advocate a unified front of the proletariat, peasantry, petty-bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie to defeat Japanese imperialism (keeping in mind that Japan had sliced of a large chunk already).

And I find it interesting that people call Maoists as part of the 'bourgeois academia' when the Black Panther Party was Maoist communist party with vast support from the black proletariat.


I was reading about that RCP speaker touring in campuses, and apparently he just have toured in "elite coilleges" like Columbia and Berkeley. What about the big state colleges and community colleges?

It says a lot about the "class character" of the RCP.

I am not a "workerist" in the whole sense of the word, but it does say a lot of the RCP if it doesn't takes seriously other individuals except the ones in elite colleges.

About your question of "anti-imperialism"....

The national bourgeoisie doesn't fights wars ever. They are not the ones leading armies...they are the ones funding them however. Communists try to reach to the workers and peasants that make up such armies.

But you would never understand, after all, maoists are more interested in radical liberal "anti-imperialism" than old fashioned communist politics.

[Rawthentic]

The Set the Record Straight Project should be in community colleges and state colleges a lot more (keep in mind that this project will go wherever it is requested) , and it has been, so you are either misinformed or purposely lying, I assume its the former. The point of the Project is to combat bourgeois lies about the international communist movement and its history in a crucial place of critical thinking: the universities. Students and youth have a history of being crucial to a seizure of power, and this is no different.

About the 'class character' of the RCP: the vast majority of political work is done amongst the proletariat, but there are other strata that must be won over (such as professors, scientists, doctors, etc.) if there can ever be a revolution.


The national bourgeoisie doesn't fights wars ever. They are not the ones leading armies...they are the ones funding them however. Communists try to reach to the workers and peasants that make up such armies.

But you would never understand, after all, maoists are more interested in radical liberal "anti-imperialism" than old fashioned communist politics.
So the Chinese national bourgeoisie ( the one being exploited by imperialism) was funding the Japanese army or what lol? During the actual revolution, the Red Army was of course composed of workers and peasants, but the era of Japanese imperialism, new strategies had to be brought into being.

But why bother? I would never understand.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 15, 2007 11:53 pm

So the Chinese national bourgeoisie ( the one being exploited by imperialism)
Here you have thrown every important communist principle down the trashcan.

A national bourgeosie "exploited", lol.

What is next, black capitalists are exploited too???



The Set the Record Straight Project should be in community colleges and state colleges a lot more (keep in mind that this project will go wherever it is requested) , and it has been, so you are either misinformed or purposely lying, I assume its the former. The point of the Project is to combat bourgeois lies about the international communist movement and its history in a crucial place of critical thinking: the universities. Students and youth have a history of being crucial to a seizure of power, and this is no different.


I have no problem with reaching to students in the universities. I have a problem however, with a party that claims to be "communist" focusing the great majority of their campaigns in "elite colleges".

I saw that they went to some mexican state colleges and I applaud that.

[Rawthentic]

Here you have thrown every important communist principle down the trashcan.

A national bourgeosie "exploited", lol.

What is next, black capitalists are exploited too???
Yes, the part of the bourgeoisie that has a direct interest in seeing imperialism fall, as the Chinese one did during the era of Japanese imperialism.

Maybe its that you define imperialism using the left-communist definition.

This is, after all, the strategy that Mao employed while defeating first Japanese and then American imperialism. He characterized the national bourgeoisie in China at the time as a small, weak, and vacillating class. Yet it had its contradictions with imperialism and, unlike the "comprador bourgeoisie," saw its interests in national economic development that would principally be based in China, rather than having an economy geared toward trade and international finance. So it was possible to unite with it to a degree, and proceeding from the standpoint of "uniting all who could be united," Mao's strategy was that it should be part of the united front against imperialism, *under the leadership of the proletariat.* True enough, many other parties, including nominally 'Maoist' parties, have gotten this wrong, and have entered united fronts that were led by the national bourgeoisie, leading to disastrous results, particularly in Indonesia in 1965 (the pro-U.S. coup).

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 16, 2007 12:10 am

Yes, the part of the bourgeoisie that has a direct interest in seeing imperialism fall, as the Chinese one did during the era of Japanese imperialism.

Maybe its that you define imperialism using the left-communist definition.


First, I am not a left communist.

That I agree with some of their standpoints and that I sympathisize with them to a certain degree with them doesn't makes me a left communist.

Second, you are already pointing out the flaw of maoism in your argument. You are more interested in "anti-imperialism" than the working class turning against BOTH the national bourgeosie and the imperialist bourgeosie.

Workers have no country, workers have no interests tied to their nation. Workers have no interest tied to the national bourgeosie.

By the same token, maoists are always the first ones running behind the sectarian nationalist gangs that make up the so called "iraqi resistance", while they do nothing more than slaughtering each other because of irrelevant religious differences.

Why don't I ever see maoists calling for the iraqi to seize the means of production. They are always concerned with killing more americans than anything else.

[Rawthentic]

Second, you are already pointing out the flaw of maoism in your argument. You are more interested in "anti-imperialism" than the working class turning against BOTH the national bourgeosie and the imperialist bourgeosie.
That's a bullshit strawman, comrade.

In underdeveloped countries, like China back in the day, it this unified front under the leadership of the proletariat was absolutely essential to defeat Japanese imperialism and continue the revolution. Not only was Japan defeated, but both the comprador and national bourgeoisie were expropriated in the socialist process.


Workers have no country, workers have no interests tied to their nation. Workers have no interest tied to the national bourgeosie.
I already explained how such contradictions come to being here:


This is, after all, the strategy that Mao employed while defeating first Japanese and then American imperialism. He characterized the national bourgeoisie in China at the time as a small, weak, and vacillating class. Yet it had its contradictions with imperialism and, unlike the "comprador bourgeoisie," saw its interests in national economic development that would principally be based in China, rather than having an economy geared toward trade and international finance. So it was possible to unite with it to a degree, and proceeding from the standpoint of "uniting all who could be united," Mao's strategy was that it should be part of the united front against imperialism, *under the leadership of the proletariat.* True enough, many other parties, including nominally 'Maoist' parties, have gotten this wrong, and have entered united fronts that were led by the national bourgeoisie, leading to disastrous results, particularly in Indonesia in 1965 (the pro-U.S. coup).


By the same token, maoists are always the first ones running behind the sectarian nationalist gangs that make up the so called "iraqi resistance", while they do nothing more than slaughtering each other because of irrelevant religious differences.
Maybe you're referring to the MIM-ite scum shits. I support the RCP. If you can find one document that proves this, I will sever all ties with this party.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Live for the People
This is, after all, the strategy that Mao employed while defeating first Japanese and then American imperialism. He characterized the national bourgeoisie in China at the time as a small, weak, and vacillating class. Yet it had its contradictions with imperialism and, unlike the "comprador bourgeoisie," saw its interests in national economic development that would principally be based in China, rather than having an economy geared toward trade and international finance. So it was possible to unite with it to a degree, and proceeding from the standpoint of "uniting all who could be united," Mao's strategy was that it should be part of the united front against imperialism, *under the leadership of the proletariat.* True enough, many other parties, including nominally 'Maoist' parties, have gotten this wrong, and have entered united fronts that were led by the national bourgeoisie, leading to disastrous results, particularly in Indonesia in 1965 (the pro-U.S. coup).

Sure, if you play one feudal warlord against the other, let them play you; rag on about the corruption of the stale old Nationalist Party and follow the common gangster practice of hiring peasants to be troops; aswell as hiring dissatisfied army officers (who kept their ranks in the Red Army) -- you could have the support of the majority.

The uniting of all fronts is precisely what I just described-- opportunism!

Lets not forget before the Korean War the Kuomintang was getting funding from the USSR, but when Mao came to Stalins aid in Korea, this helped finance the chairmans ambitions.

Speaking of the Kuomintang, the official (Russian) line was that the Communists were to back the Kuomintang-- thats why the CCP looked the other way when the bourgeoisie slaughtered the revolting working-class in Shanghai!


Mao's strategy was that it should be part of the united front against imperialism, *under the leadership of the proletariat.* True enough, many other parties, including nominally 'Maoist' parties, have gotten this wrong, and have entered united fronts that were led by the national bourgeoisie, leading to disastrous results, particularly in Indonesia in 1965 (the pro-U.S. coup).

How can Maoists "unite under the leadership of the proletariat" when they view themselves as this leadership?

Another thing, aside from such unions what are the specific characteristics of forming a united front that will lead to a peoples war?

If there is such a formula howcome theres only been one success?

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 16, 2007 01:06 am
If there is such a formula howcome theres only been one success?
There have been many successes of People's War- just because it was not headed by Maoism does not mean that the ideology of People's War itself has failed.

Nicaragua, Cambodia, South Vietnam, Afghanistan, all used the tactics of People's War to cast out invaders and colonizers, even if they were not Maoist. Not to mention the growing successes in Naxal India, the Philippines, and Iraq.

There were many successes beyond that of China during and after WW2.



The uniting of all fronts is precisely what I just described-- opportunism!
I'd preffer to call it tactics...


Speaking of the Kuomintang, the official (Russian) line was that the Communists were to back the Kuomintang-- thats why the CCP looked the other way when the bourgeoisie slaughtered the revolting working-class in Shanghai!
Umm, I believe this was during the time the CCP and KMT were fighting before full scale war with Japan- in which they created a National United Front. In no way did the CCP "look the other way."

EDIT:

just as a side not, something I've noticed, the MIM and the CPUSA, get almost more hate on this forum than Capitalist parties, the MIM for good reason I think
I have noticed that too, but that's basically because people are seeking conflict here- and they're not going to find any argument when they post a message saying "Capitalism Sucks," or "You know what's bad? Fascism."

As for the CPUSA, they've actively pushed for members to vote in bourgeois elections- something that goes against the communist line of armed revolution over trust in the bourgeois representatives and bureaucracy- though they probably get more criticism for that than they should.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
There have been many successes of People's War- just because it was not headed by Maoism does not mean that the ideology of People's War itself has failed.

Okay, then how come when they are headed by Maoists the successrate is very low? About how many attempts have been made?


Nicaragua, Cambodia, South Vietnam, Afghanistan, all used the tactics of People's War to cast out invaders and colonizers, even if they were not Maoist. Not to mention the growing successes in Naxal India, the Philippines, and Iraq.

Either when headed by Mao-inspired, you always end criticizing such Socialist Regimes as revisionist in the future.


Success in Iraq? Yeah, the proletariat is pretty demoralized, and the Maoists are nowhere to be seen, unless you consider the Red Stars Front-- which may or may not exist. And every Maoist whose not in Iraq are praising the nationalist gangsters who want to turn the revolving door around and have their own block of finance capital.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:16 am
I'd preffer to call it tactics...
Tactics! :lol:
The recruitment of officers, former KMT members and the pette-bourgeoisie, this changed the class-character of the CCP. Not to mention peasants joining so as to stop other peasants from stealing their land, and the promises of a good career!


Umm, I believe this was during the time the CCP and KMT were fighting before full scale war with Japan- in which they created a National United Front. In no way did the CCP "look the other way."

Actually, in 1922 Cominterms Chinese representative, Sneevliet laid down the groundwork with Sun-Yat Sen for a "United Anti-Imperialist Front". Later, at the 4th congress of the Cominterm, Radek expanded that the idea was to create a Bourgeois Revolution.

As for Shanghai and Canton in 1925-27, true, there were some CCP members in the cities organizing members. First the proletariat battled foreign capital, then national-- and Kai Shek didn't like that so he repressed them. The Cominterm denied any repression was going on, and they told the workers to welcome Chang as a liberator. Then the CCP followed the policy of Cominterm. The Comunist lead unions were denounced, and the workers crushed as KMT called on the aid of the imperialists and war-lords.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:01 pm
Oh and Devrim, why does advocating proletarian revolution (which yes will involve violence) mean that I "hate the working class"?
I didn't say that you personally hated the working class. I just stated that most middle class intellectuals do, and in my opinion the Maoist ones are no exception.

As for the nonsense you talk about 'advocating proletarian revolution', that is not what you advocate today. What you advocate today is class collaboration, and workers fighting in the name of national defence. Leave your talk of proletarian revolution in some far off future for fairy tales. Let's look at what you do today.

Also, I don't understand why you mention violence. Of course a proletarian revolution will involve violence.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 16, 2007 07:04 am--> (devrimankara @ November 16, 2007 07:04 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 10:01 pm
Oh and Devrim, why does advocating proletarian revolution (which yes will involve violence) mean that I "hate the working class"?
I didn't say that you personally hated the working class. I just stated that most middle class intellectuals do, and in my opinion the Maoist ones are no exception.

As for the nonsense you talk about 'advocating proletarian revolution', that is not what you advocate today. What you advocate today is class collaboration, and workers fighting in the name of national defence. Leave your talk of proletarian revolution in some far off future for fairy tales. Let's look at what you do today.

Also, I don't understand why you mention violence. Of course a proletarian revolution will involve violence.

Devrim [/b]
What is your view on imperialism?

Do you think it exists?

Do you believe in the Negrist line of a cogglomeration of global capitalists IE Empire?

this is kinda going off to a tangent but i have always been curious about your view.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 15, 2007 11:28 pm

Well it seems to me that what all classes means is all classes. Of course there are different factions within the bourgeoisie basically based around what they consider to be the best way to exploit the proletariat. That will mean that in national liberation wars, different factions of the bourgoise can, and will take different sides.
So, it was wrong for the CCP to advocate a unified front of the proletariat, peasantry, petty-bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie to defeat Japanese imperialism (keeping in mind that Japan had sliced of a large chunk already).

You think worker's militias could have done it lol?

I think that the poster here is missing the entire point. We are not claiming that 'worker's militias could have defeated Japanese imperialism'. We are rejecting the ideology of national defence. It is not in the interests of the working class to sacrifice itself in the name of national defence. It is not about who is leading the national struggle. We reject the struggle in itself.



So the Chinese national bourgeoisie ( the one being exploited by imperialism) was funding the Japanese army or what lol? During the actual revolution, the Red Army was of course composed of workers and peasants, but the era of Japanese imperialism, new strategies had to be brought into being.

Here the post has one point correct. The red army was of course mainly composed of workers, and peasants, as in fact are all national armies. The fact of it is that the bourgeoisie doesn't fight its wars on its own. Generally workers, and peasants do most of the dying.


Mao's strategy was that it should be part of the united front against imperialism, *under the leadership of the proletariat.*

The problem lies here. When workers join alongside the bourgeoisie to fight for the interests of the bourgeoisie, they do not assert themselves as a class. The idea of a national liberation movement under the leadership of the proletariat is a contradiction in terms.

Also historically in Marxist terminology a united front has referred to an alliance of workers organisations. What you are referring to is called a popular front.


In underdeveloped countries, like China back in the day, it this unified front under the leadership of the proletariat was absolutely essential to defeat Japanese imperialism and continue the revolution. Not only was Japan defeated, but both the comprador and national bourgeoisie were expropriated in the socialist process.

Only the working class can create socialism. It does so through its own organisations. There was nothing socialist at all about the Chinese revolution. Where were the organisations of the working class? Where were the soviets?

Maoism today represent a deeply anti-working class current. Its main function seems to be in calling on the proletariat to die on behalf of one faction of the bourgeoisie, or another.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:11 am
What is your view on imperialism?

Do you think it exists?

Do you believe in the Negrist line of a cogglomeration of global capitalists IE Empire?

this is kinda going off to a tangent but i have always been curious about your view.
Yes, we think that imperialism exists. In is characteristic of this epoch. It is a world system.
I suppose to simplify it, our views could be called Luxemborgian.
Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:16 am
Nicaragua, Cambodia, South Vietnam, Afghanistan, all used the tactics of People's War to cast out invaders and colonizers, even if they were not Maoist. Not to mention the growing successes in Naxal India, the Philippines, and Iraq.


Anyone who sees 'growing successes' in Iraq certainly isn't looking at it from the view of the working class. What is happening in Iraq is a descent into barbarism, and the spread of ethnic/sectarian conflict, and the working class is paying the price.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 16, 2007 07:27 am
As it has been pointed out a billion times, they have nothing to do with MIM.

I don't think I want to wade in to a debate about this again because last time I ended up with a bunch of disgusting hateful diatribes against Islam in my PM inbox. I don't expect left communists to correctly identify who the exploiters and exploited are and what a united front means anyways.

If opposing western chauvinist thinking and supporting anti-imperialism somehow makes me anti-working class, then fuck the working class.
Too bad neither me nor devrim are "westerners".

I lived most of my life in Mexico, being raised by a muslim father, and I believe devrim comes from Turkey.

[Great Helmsman]

Yes 'fuck the working class' seems to be the line of MIM. What makes Maoism anti-working class is not objecting to 'western chauvinist thinking', it is preaching class collaboration, and urging workers to die on behalf of 'their own' bourgeoisie.
That is a mis-characterization of what Maoists think. Would you say workers dieing on behalf of bourgeois governments during WWII fighting Nazi Germany and Japan were class-collaborators? Or were they advancing their interests by fighting fascism? I would say the latter.



The proximity of these two statements seems to imply that 'hateful diatribes against Islam' were being sent to you by members of the communist. I am certain that they weren't, and I would like you to either produce some evidence that they were, or clarify the point.

I was not implying that; I'm not going to make opportunist suppositions about what they were supporting or thinking.



You're not "supporting anti-imperialism"; you're merely supporting one bourgeois faction (the national bourgeoisie) against another (the foreign bourgeoisie). Imperialism isn't simply a form of exploitation whereby one "imperialist" nation dominates another; it is an entire development of capitalism. In other words, one cannot be anti-imperialist without being anti-capitalist, and one cannot be anti-capitalist by supporting any bourgeois "resistance" movements.
Only on the last point do we disagree. Anti-imperialism translates into anti-capitalism because it strikes a blow at the principle exploiters in the first world/colonial powers. Communists don't see the liberation of the third world as the end of all struggle, closer to the beginning.



Too bad neither me nor devrim are "westerners".

I lived most of my life in Mexico, being raised by a muslim father, and I believe devrim comes from Turkey.
What is that supposed to prove? That your identity alone gives you special insights?

Arguments of this sort give me ulcers.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Electronic Light+November 16, 2007 08:32 am--> (Electronic Light @ November 16, 2007 08:32 am) That is a mis-characterization of what Maoists think. Would you say workers dieing on behalf of bourgeois governments during WWII fighting Nazi Germany and Japan were class-collaborators? Or were they advancing their interests by fighting fascism? I would say the latter.
[/b]
It is not a question of damning individual workers as 'class collaborators'. That poses it as a moral question.

The second world war was an imperialist war, and the remnants of the communist movement opposed it in whatever small ways they could. The leftist joined with the bourgeoisie in calling on the working class to fight for the nation under whatever guise, the defence of democracy/the Socialist fatherland/the German fatherland/anti-fascism...

It doesn't particularly matter which lines of bourgeois demagogy appealed to which workers. The fact that the working class was pulled back into an imperialist war a mere twenty years after it had stopped the first one with its strikes, and revolutions shows the depth of the counter revolution.

The war was imperialist, and those so-called socialist organisations who called on the working class to defend the nation should be condemned in the same way as Kautsky, and the like were twenty years earlier, as enemies of the working class.


Originally posted by Electronic [email protected]
Only on the last point do we disagree. Anti-imperialism translates into anti-capitalism because it strikes a blow at the principle exploiters in the first world/colonial powers. Communists don't see the liberation of the third world as the end of all struggle, closer to the beginning.

I accept that your point may have a measure of validity. Yes, it is possible that national liberation struggles strike a blow at some imperialist powers, but only at the expense of strengthening/creating others. The reality today is that national liberation struggles have a tendency to become little more than proxy wars fought out by factions on behalf of different powers.

What you advocate is that the working class should die for this adjustment in the balance of power, and give up its class independence.

National liberation is impossible today. Your first step is not a step towards revolution at all but is a plunge dragging the working class deeper, and deeper into war, and sectarian ethnic/strife.


Electronic Light
What is that supposed to prove? That your identity alone gives you special insights?

It proves nothing. The ideas stand, or fall on their own strength. It is ironic though that it is North America students telling workers in the 'third world' that they have 'western chauvinist thinking'.

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

Revolution has to be waged according to the concrete conditions for revolution in each country. In countries like China, there are center sections of the bourgeoisie (what's called the national-bourgeoisie) that are suppressed by the imperialist bourgeoisie. Classes like these are POTENTIAL allies of the proletariat (and if they are allies, they usually aren't very stable ones!). In other words, it is often possible to win over these classes to the leadership of the proletariat.

Things are similar for the Black bourgeoisie in the United States. A Black millionare can be shot dead in the streets for "driving while Black," and in fact, a Black millionare driving a Mercedes is often a provocation to the pigs.

People from the petty-bourgeoisie are also potential allies to be won to the proletariat's leadership for similar reasons.

But this is always under the leadership, and interests of the proletariat, in struggling with and leading these strata.

There can never be a revolution in a country like the US that does not give a full conscious expression to ending racist chauvinism on all levels.

[RGacky3]

As far as anti Imperialism goes, let me ask this, were the slaves and poor working class in America better off after the American revolution? Did it really make a difference? Not really.


Things are similar for the Black bourgeoisie in the United States. A Black millionare can be shot dead in the streets for "driving while Black," and in fact, a Black millionare driving a Mercedes is often a provocation to the pigs.

Where in the States do you live? Damn.


But this is always under the leadership, and interests of the proletariat, in struggling with and leading these strata.

I'm not saying its a bad thing, but in that sense the national-bourgeoisie are pretty much being lied too right, because the end result is they loose their property?

In many cases local bourgeoisie are actually helped a lot by imerialism, take a look at Saudi Arabia for example, and Mexico, there are tons of Mexican Millionaires that have gotten rich with the help of the American Bourgeoisie.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:04 pm
I think the bourgeoise and the "working class" should work together to create a better society.
That is called fascism.

[KC]

Or...capitalism.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 16, 2007 02:56 pm
Revolution has to be waged according to the concrete conditions for revolution in each country. In countries like China, there are center sections of the bourgeoisie (what's called the national-bourgeoisie) that are suppressed by the imperialist bourgeoisie. Classes like these are POTENTIAL allies of the proletariat (and if they are allies, they usually aren't very stable ones!). In other words, it is often possible to win over these classes to the leadership of the proletariat.

...

But this is always under the leadership, and interests of the proletariat, in struggling with and leading these strata.
There is a problem here, and it is that the national liberation struggle is not a struggle in the interests of the proletariat, but a struggle in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

What you seem to be suggesting here is that the proletariat as a class should lead a struggle which is in the interests of another class, a class which is in fact directly opposed to its interests.

While it is possible that individual workers may lead this struggle as atomised citizens it is not at all possible that the working class can lead the struggle as a 'class for itself' due to the very fact that a 'class for itself' does not act in the interests of other classes against its own interest.

Individual workers, or even so-called 'workers' parties' can lead the struggle of the national bourgeoisie, but in doing so they act against the interests of the working class, and tend to be incorporated into the bourgeoisie.

That said it is possible that a strong working class will pull sections of other non-exploitative classes into its struggle. The idea that the working class can lead the struggle of sections of the bourgeoisie, and still act in its own interest though is ridiculous.

Devrim

[KC]

devrim, did you ever get a chance to read that Hekmat piece I linked to earlier?

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 16, 2007 08:59 am--> (devrimankara @ November 16, 2007 08:59 am)


Electronic Light
What is that supposed to prove? That your identity alone gives you special insights?

It proves nothing. The ideas stand, or fall on their own strength. It is ironic though that it is North America students telling workers in the 'third world' that they have 'western chauvinist thinking'.

Devrim [/b]
Like students from Harvard or UC Berkeleytelling working class people their politics are petty burgoise :lol:

[Devrim]

Why was this thread moved from politics?
Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Because it is propaganda I guess.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 17, 2007 06:07 am
Because it is propaganda I guess.
I think that the original point was, but the discussion on it now is a political one. Can it be moved back, please?
Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I split the relevant posts into this new thread.

[jacobin1949]

I certainly don't agree with MIM and if you want to know how crazy they are read their endorsement of Osama.

BUT

There is some truth to their labor aristocracy claim. I mean its bleak and nihlist and if you accept it theres not much left to do but endorse Osama.

And yet theres some truth to it. I mean the fact is that many "working class" white in the USA do make far more than bourgeois in the third world and have a much higher standard of living. And it seems a bit simplistic to say that the white worker is more oppressed than the colored bourgeois. And furthermore in a honesty it is possible that imperialism makes the American workers wages artificially high and whatever moral and spiritual gain a world communist revolution would give white workers- initially at least his standard of living may actually go down. If we are going to be realists we have to acknowledge that there has NEVER been a communist movement in the USA that had serious chance of taking power not even in the Great Depression. And Europe has not experienced a serious communist movement since 1950 except MAYBE 68, but thats questionable.

Now Im no mim, but it is a little annoying to here people who have a higher standard of living than "Bourgeois" in the 3rd world condemn them as oppressors and implacable enemies.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Class relations aren't determined by "living standards"... and your assertion that working people in the imperialist countries make more than the bourgeoisie in the imperialist-oppressed countries lacks as much sense as proof.

We've already had a thread on the labor aristocracy --what it is and what it isn't. I suggest you take a look: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69157

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:28 pm
I certainly don't agree with MIM and if you want to know how crazy they are read their endorsement of Osama.

BUT

There is some truth to their labor aristocracy claim. I mean its bleak and nihlist and if you accept it theres not much left to do but endorse Osama.

And yet theres some truth to it. I mean the fact is that many "working class" white in the USA do make far more than bourgeois in the third world and have a much higher standard of living. And it seems a bit simplistic to say that the white worker is more oppressed than the colored bourgeois. And furthermore in a honesty it is possible that imperialism makes the American workers wages artificially high and whatever moral and spiritual gain a world communist revolution would give white workers- initially at least his standard of living may actually go down. If we are going to be realists we have to acknowledge that there has NEVER been a communist movement in the USA that had serious chance of taking power not even in the Great Depression. And Europe has not experienced a serious communist movement since 1950 except MAYBE 68, but thats questionable.

Now Im no mim, but it is a little annoying to here people who have a higher standard of living than "Bourgeois" in the 3rd world condemn them as oppressors and implacable enemies.
Well the economic problems of the "labour aristocracy theory" sort of ruin its reliability. The labor aristocracy, as conceived of by Marxists who accept it, see a "large minority" of First world workers bought off by the super profits in the global south.

MIM seems to suggest that the Entire First World working class is a labor aristocracy.

Now, total up all the wages of the first world workers, and it's literally impossible for the third world to produce enough value to cover it.

Lenin was attempting to find out why Europe didn't go through a socialist revolution after Russia. He didn't just come up with the idea because of the economics of imperialism, in fact, because the economics of the "labor aristocracy theory" show a negligible boost (in regards to the first world workers wage bill).

-----------

Also, if the "labour aristocracy theory" is right (despite the economic flaws), how is it that most of the third world workers movements are suffering from reformism too? Who buys them off?

[jacobin1949]

Lenin recognized that there was a small "window of opportunity" before the peasants and later the workers were bought off. In France it happened as early as 1793 the peasents who led the 1789 revolution were given land and became conservative.

LEnin recognized that even in backward Russia had some moderate agrarian peasant reforms been carried out the vast peasant masses would have been made into conservatives. Its seems as though much of the west and even some backward nations have passed Lenin's "window of opportunity" during which even the lower classes are made conservative. I think the most pressing issue of 21st century Marxism is how to get around this.

Of course people dont always act as economic agents. Hypothetically 1st world workers could lead a revolution against their own class interests if properly educated.

[Revolution Until Victory]

lol, don't waste your time with them left-communists. I already had an identical argument with devirm and it just kept going in circles. They can't stop contradiciting themselves.


The problem is that all of them are anti-working class organisations that advocate workers dying to defend bourgeois interests.

workers are dying for the interests of the workers, not the bourgeoisie. If the workers were dying to simply establish a bourgeoisie democracy after liberation, then you are 100% right. But this isn't what is being advocated. The logic here, as I have explained many times before, is that the ultimate goal, workers liberation, will take place after a tactical goal, national liberaion, have been achieved. Socialism can't be achieved under the yoke of the imperialists. You can't eat a candy bar with the wrap on. You have to take off the wrap, and then eat it. Your ultimate goal would be to eat this cand bar, but you would first have a tacitcal goal to get the wrap off. Do I like taking the wrap off?? NO!! removing the wrap is not the end, but simply a mean to reaching the ultimate end of eating the candy. The problem is, left-communists oppose removing the wrap from the candy bar, yet at the same time, claim they aim at eating this candy bar!! See the contradiction in thier position!! They want socicalism and workers emancipation (the candy bar) before national liberation (taking off the wrap).


You talk of '[i]f a colonial power invades your country...'. I would take Marx's view on this. The working man has no country. You can not take away from him what he has never had.

why are you mentioning that?? who ever denied that workers have no country, and that you can't take away from them what they don't own??
National-Liberation shouldn't be supported so workers would "take back thier country". As you said, they don't own it in the first place. Rather, workers will fight for their own total emancipation, after national liberation have took place which will allow the proletarian revolution, and thus, end of exploitation and liberation.


You talk about one side 'trying to reduce its people to slaves'. And to stop this we should shed our blood for, and let 'our own' side treat us like slaves. I can't see the logic of that.

One side, the forgein bourgeoisie, the imperialists, are trying to enslave the whole country, both bourgeoisie and prole (of course, that doesn't mean the national-bourgeoisie wouldn't be the no.1 collaboraters of imperilaism). The workers, to free themselves from the enslavment they suffer from the national bourgeoisie will first have to free themselves from the enslavment they and the local bourgeoisie suffer from the forgien bourgeoisie, the imperialists. No one ever advocated that the workers shed thier blood so they can be treated as slaves by "thier own" masters.


So, it was wrong for the CCP to advocate a unified front of the proletariat, peasantry, petty-bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie to defeat Japanese imperialism (keeping in mind that Japan had sliced of a large chunk already).

nothing wrong with this temprorary, tactical allance, as long as it is lead by the proles, since the capitalist class interests of the national bourgeoisie will always lead them towards compromise and peaceful settlment with imperialism and colonialism.


A national bourgeosie "exploited", lol.

yes, the national bourgeoisie, and all the classes of a country, could be exploited by imperialism.


You are more interested in "anti-imperialism" than the working class turning against BOTH the national bourgeosie and the imperialist bourgeosie.

hahaha typical baselss accusations. Turning against the imperialsits is a step paving the way for turning against the national bourgoisie.


Workers have no country, workers have no interests tied to their nation. Workers have no interest tied to the national bourgeosie.

Again, the workers have an interest in national liberatoin in which national liberation would pave the way for workers liberation.


By the same token, maoists are always the first ones running behind the sectarian nationalist gangs that make up the so called "iraqi resistance", while they do nothing more than slaughtering each other because of irrelevant religious differences.

yawn, yet more pro-imperialist crap. The secterian groups are not considred part of the resistance.


Why don't I ever see maoists calling for the iraqi to seize the means of production. They are always concerned with killing more americans than anything else.

yup, why aren't those blood-thirsty, violent, anti-working class Maoists advocating for socialism under imperialist control??? :angry:

As stupid as eating a candy bar with the wrap still on.


There have been many successes of People's War- just because it was not headed by Maoism does not mean that the ideology of People's War itself has failed.

Nicaragua, Cambodia, South Vietnam, Afghanistan, all used the tactics of People's War to cast out invaders and colonizers, even if they were not Maoist. Not to mention the growing successes in Naxal India, the Philippines, and Iraq.

don't forget Lebanon, comrade.


What you advocate today is class collaboration

call it whatever you like, yet it won't change the fact it is a tactical, temproray alliance in the interests of the workers, in which the anti-imperialsit front will be stronger (of course, lead by the proles) and thus national liberation will follow which will pave the way for workers liberation, thier ultimate interest.


It is not in the interests of the working class to sacrifice itself in the name of national defence.

It is not in the interets of the workers to sacrifice itself in the name of national defence and stop there, all happy with their local exploiter. The war of national liberation is in the interests of the workers when it will be used as a tool paving the way for workers revolution and liberation.


It is not about who is leading the national struggle. We reject the struggle in itself.

You reject national liberation struggle??

Which is equal to reject to remove the wrap off a candy bar, since your ultimate goal is to eat the candy bar, not to take the wrap off, and you end up not taking the wrap off coz what you will only do is eat the candy. Do you realize how stupid this is?? "My goal is to eat the candy, I will not have any other goal, even if it will latter allow me to achive my goal and eat the candy"!!! good for you.


Too bad neither me nor devrim are "westerners".

Too bad no one accused either you or devrim of being "westerner". You were accused of holding Western-chauvanist views, which I also think so. You don't have to be a Westerner to have a western chauvanist thought.


National liberation is impossible today

not is isn't. if you mean by "today", post-USSR, then let's analyze it. From 1990 until today, we have the national liberation stuggle in South Africa, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia. In South Africa, the struggle begain in 1948 and ended in 1994. However, I will be genoures and not count South Africa, since at 1990 negotiations with the ANC had already begun and so it could be considred to have been liberated during the USSR. In Palestine, the struggle began in 1948 and continues until today. In Afghanistan, the struggle is in its 6th year, with the resistance achieving more and more as time passes by. In Iraq, the struggle is in its 4th year, the resistance is fighting bravely. In Somalia, it was less than a year. In Lebanon, National-liberation have been achieved.


and it is that the national liberation struggle is not a struggle in the interests of the proletariat, but a struggle in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

it could be either way.


While it is possible that individual workers may lead this struggle as atomised citizens it is not at all possible that the working class can lead the struggle as a 'class for itself' due to the very fact that a 'class for itself' does not act in the interests of other classes against its own interest.

but who said the working class will be fighting against its own interests in the national liberation struggle??

[Entrails Konfetti]

The government of a given country doesn't tell the multinational banks who back it to be imperialist. These multinationals stay behind one country or the other because of its military might-- which secures their positions. True, there are people in the governments who own the mulitnationals, do business with them, and are paid by them.

Each multinational according to its ability to compete locates their centers to each countries military might. For example the USA is more powerful than Germany militarily, and so the bigger finance capital are in the USA. If Germany were to miraculously expand their military farther than the USAs, most of the finance capital will pull out of the USA into Germany. Then, we will hear about Americans complaining about those " Damn Nazi Germans".

As for why the wests living standards are higher-- the more powerful finance capital indepts the countries with the lesser, through the interest rate on loans that never cap. Also the wests money is worth more because through things like IMF, the loaner countries (with the finance capital which is having a hard time competing) have to raise their currency making their exports more expensive, so they have to buy western commodities, and hold western monies in their banks to weigh the standards, to buy loans, pay off debt and commodities-- this makes the western monies circulate farther, bringing in a greater cash flow, with a greater access to the commodities on the world-wide market. And ofcourse the finance capital (wherever it chooses its base) is tied to the national banks through the government issue of currency.

Another thing some of the monies that were exported to debtor countries national banks must be held or this causes inflation for west. And letting other countries money flow out of the national bank is a good way to start a war.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory+November 18, 2007 05:06 am--> (Revolution Until Victory @ November 18, 2007 05:06 am) lol, don't waste your time with them left-communists. I already had an identical argument with devirm and it just kept going in circles. They can't stop contradiciting themselves.
[/b]
Please show where I contradicted myself.


Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory+--> (Revolution Until Victory)You can't eat a candy bar with the wrap on. You have to take off the wrap, and then eat it. Your ultimate goal would be to eat this cand bar, but you would first have a tacitcal goal to get the wrap off. Do I like taking the wrap off?? NO!! removing the wrap is not the end, but simply a mean to reaching the ultimate end of eating the candy. The problem is, left-communists oppose removing the wrap from the candy bar, yet at the same time, claim they aim at eating this candy bar!! See the contradiction in thier position!! They want socicalism and workers emancipation (the candy bar) before national liberation (taking off the wrap).[/b]

This is a bit pathetic replacing a political argument with a very poor analogy. It has no connection whatsoever. Do you really expect people to take it seriously.


Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory

Originally posted by Devrim
National liberation is impossible today

not is isn't. if you mean by "today", post-USSR, then let's analyze it. From 1990 until today, we have the national liberation stuggle in South Africa, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia. In South Africa, the struggle begain in 1948 and ended in 1994. However, I will be genoures and not count South Africa, since at 1990 negotiations with the ANC had already begun and so it could be considred to have been liberated during the USSR. In Palestine, the struggle began in 1948 and continues until today. In Afghanistan, the struggle is in its 6th year, with the resistance achieving more and more as time passes by. In Iraq, the struggle is in its 4th year, the resistance is fighting bravely. In Somalia, it was less than a year. In Lebanon, National-liberation have been achieved.

This at least is a political argument. I think, however, you have misunderstood my point here. I am not saying that national liberation struggles are impossible. Plainly they are not. Workers are dying all over the world on behalf of the bourgeoisie even as we speak. What I am saying is that national liberation is impossible. Even a 'victorious' national liberation struggle can not break an individual nation out of the world system.


Revolution Until [email protected]
Rather, workers will fight for their own total emancipation, after national liberation have took place which will allow the proletarian revolution, and thus, end of exploitation and liberation.

So you keep saying, but there exists no evidence for this assertion whatsoever. On the other hand there are plenty of examples of newly 'liberated' nations turning viciously against the working class.

A policy of class alliances theoretically disarms the working class.


Revolution Until Victory
No one ever advocated that the workers shed thier blood so they can be treated as slaves by "thier own" masters.

We think you have. You try to sell them the promise of socialism in the hereafter in exchange for them subordinating themselves to nationalism today.

Devrim


Devrim

[Revolution Until Victory]

Please show where I contradicted myself.

not reffering to you.


This is a bit pathetic replacing a political argument with a very poor analogy. It has no connection whatsoever. Do you really expect people to take it seriously.

lol, can you prove how it is a "very poor anology"??


So you keep saying, but there exists no evidence for this assertion whatsoever. On the other hand there are plenty of examples of newly 'liberated' nations turning viciously against the working class.

likewise, a capitalist can claim "communism doesn't work" since there is no evidence to prove your assertion. The plenty of examples of newly liberated countries turing against the workers doesn't prove anything.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory+November 18, 2007 07:01 am--> (Revolution Until Victory @ November 18, 2007 07:01 am) lol, can you prove how it is a "very poor anology"??
[/b]
National liberation struggles developing into class struggles, and eating a chocolate bar? You have got to be joking. Come on I don't need to prove this is a poor analogy.


Revolution Until Victory
likewise, a capitalist can claim "communism doesn't work" since there is no evidence to prove your assertion. The plenty of examples of newly liberated countries turing against the workers doesn't prove anything.

I agree. It doesn't prove anything. It does suggest tendencies though.

I would prefer you went back to the point you have missed in the last post. Is national liberation possible today? Can individual bourgeois states break out of the imperialist system?

Devrim

[Revolution Until Victory]

National liberation struggles developing into class struggles, and eating a chocolate bar? You have got to be joking. Come on I don't need to prove this is a poor analogy.

just coz the anology used symbolism doesn't mean it is poor.


I would prefer you went back to the point you have missed in the last post. Is national liberation possible today? Can individual bourgeois states break out of the imperialist system?

I missed that point coz we have already gone over this many times, and it just kept going in circles, with each repeating his own opnion.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Devrim is right.

The myth of national-liberation movements is that they can serve us a pressure-cooker of socialist revolution. As history has shown, the nationalist bourgeois that would take over the “oppressed” nation would side with another imperialist bloc that is more “benevolent” than their past occupiers. The only true liberation is under the banner of the international proletariat.

[kasama-rl]

The question of national liberation has been an extremely important one for the socialist revolution.

In first half of the nineteen century, the early emerging capitalist relations and industry were (more or less) confined to europe -- so the socialist revolution Marx struggled to understand and unleash was seen as a european one. Some have considered that merely "eurocentric" -- but it was, in fact, a result of the material conditions of those times.

However increasingly, capitalism emerged more and more fully as a world system -- and it became clear that the of capitalism was entwined (deeply) with the growth and transformation of global colonial empires.

It meant that the resistance of oppressed peoples to the empires (which preceded capitalism) was now merged with the world-historic struggle of the proletariat as a class for socialism and communism.

Put another way: The largest class in the world (until very recently) was the peasantry. And it was inevitable and necessary, that the revolutionary struggle of peasants against feudal conditions would be one of the major engines for change in our world.

Marx said (in a particularly prophetic passage written close to his death) that revolution would look like a new Paris Commune backed by a second edition of the German peasant wars. In his poetic way he was describing much of what we saw and experienced in the twentieth century (including the two outstanding socialist revolutions in Russia and China).

I think we need to step back and look at this larger historic process of 150 years... especially if we want to understand where we now are, and what now faces us (theoretically and practically).

* * * * * *

Here is how I would pose it:

1) Revolution in the nineteenth century (roughly from 1848 to 1920) starts with the exhaustion of the bourgeoisie's revolutionary character and efforts.

It is marked by sections of the European industrial proletariat breaking loose from the anti-feudal coalition and carving a path toward an alternative society -- first in the Paris Commune and then in the October Revolution. (Meanwhile, of course, other sections of that social democratic movement stayed within the bourgeoisie's coalition and carved their path toward respectability within the system.)

2) Revolution in the twentieth century (1920-1990) starts with the exhaustion of proletarian revolution in Europe.

It is marked by the anti-colonial revolutions breaking loose from old traditionalist resistances, and carving various paths toward an alternative society.

3) The revolution in the twenty-first century starts after the first wave of socialist revolutions have exhausted themselves in capitalist restoration.

Parallel to that the wave of anti-colonial struggles play themselves out and the third world has become even more tightly integrated into global capitallist production and exchange. (By that I mean many things, including that the dynamics of the North-South relationship is no longer mainly the extract of resources for capitalist industry in the metropoles, but the situation of capitalist manufacture itself along the low wage interface between capitalist relations and decaying feudal ones.)

It is marked by the emergence of an urbanized planet of slums with highly interconnected productive circuits and information -- and by profound new questions about the very possibility of alternative society -- how it will be initiated, what it will look like, how revoutionary societies will operate within the new more integrated world.

* * * * *

National liberation was in many ways the storm center of the world's revolutionary process during the twentieth century.

Now as we stand deep in a relative lull in revolutionary struggles (with the main notable exception of Nepal), it is not clear to me how and where we can expect the next wave of revolutions to emerge. I think we should assume they will be as startling and disruptive of previous notions as the Russian revolution was to the assumptions of the 2nd international and as the Chinese revolution was to the assumptions of the Comintern.

[grove street]

National liberation hurts Imperalism and being the Highest stage of Capitalism it's also a step towards socialist revolution along with hurting the biggest gainers of global Capitalism

It is very difficult for there to be a Socialist revolution under foreign occupation> Before such a revolution can take place the foreign occupants must be removed> This was eaisly explained by "Revolution Until Victory" through the metaphore of a candy bar