The notion of an oppressed nation entails the oppression of an entire body which encompasses numerous different classes. Nations might have a history, perhaps even a spirit: But not a collective homogeneous will. The victor class inherits the legacy of the according nations: That does not mean different nations can oppress others. Even Lenin noted that if a country "oppresses another" it cannot be free itself. Oppression itself is vague: it can mean many different things.
Could you please explain your argument when you say that the nationalism of the oppressed nation is anti-scientific ?
Nationalism can only exist with a necessary context. Historically, most notably in Russia, the Communists were successful in exposing to the masses the real paradigm of struggle - between classes. It is a matter of the relationships between ideology and the real battlefield of struggle. Our cause is legitimate when we are willing to fight - to die for it. the Communists were not as prominent as the nationalists - but they were still a very sizable and real force.
And what do you think should be the aim of a revolutionary party, if most of the proletariat is driven by these ethnic politics of division and the appeal of nationalism ? Did any revolutionary party ever smashed these tenets of capitalism ? Also, I ignored that former Communist parties ever had an appeal in the Middle East. The idea we've of it, in the West, is the duality of Islamists and Nationalists (except Afghanistan and Yemen, yet their context is quite vague for me). Do you have any reading on the subject ?
But the situation in the Middle East is not so different. Former Communist parties which had previously attracted impressive portions of the population, which had a real ideological upper hand now pander to either Islamists or Liberals - because these things are alive while the old left is dead. Bastardizations and mutations of all stripes of revolutionary theory have been made globally to adapt to these concessions and changes.
Thank you, though it is not through creativity or intelligence that I make my posts - Marxism is all of our shared legacy, it is the common means by which we understand the world around us - one need only take it. The situation in Canada is quite different from Algeria, despite the common feature of ethnic separatism. I would say that in a place like Canada, so weakened is the Left that it's own definitive politics is rendered illegitimate even in their eyes by the overwhelming power of capitalist mysticism. We know longer possess our own distinct language and claim to universal truth, but capitalism has left intact phenomena like nationalism (including anti-imperialism), anti-semitism among other things. The old Left, in it's last desperate attempt to preserve itself, thus takes advantage of the ideological legitimacy of nationalism and throws to the fires real revolutionary politics.
Hello Comrade, I wished to express my admiration for your threads and arguments. Few on Revleft make posts as coherent, intelligent and poetic as yours. Also, I wished to have your thought on nationalities question : Here in Quebec, the proletariat and petty-bourgeoisie is linguistically and ethnically divided between French-Canadians and English-Canadians. The whole left is singing for independence, from Social-Dems. to radical left. Same goes in Algeria; the Berber are requesting independence, which is profoundly dividing the working-class of both sides. What do you think is a wise position for a Revolutionary Party ? From your Algerian Comrade who has the same name as yours (hehe), Rafiq.
