Left-Communist views on national liberation

  1. Lyev
    Lyev
    What the title says really. What solutions do left-coms posit for situations such as China or Vietnam, or more recently somewhere like Palestine? I understand that most peoples views here will be in direct contradiction to the traditional Leninist stance (I am not here at all just to be deliberately bolshie and contentious - I'm genuinely trying to find a position on the issue). But if you put yourself in opposition to national liberation what do you suggest the proletariat should have done in 1960s Vietnam, as an example; just sit around? Would you agree that struggle for self-determination can often become an impetus for nationalism, therefore dividing the international proletariat, rather than uniting it? But, in such situations as I mentioned it's kind of hard to think of any other feasible alternatives. Interesting post on the subject here (emphasis mine):
    However a much bigger part is that no isolated nation can hold out on it's own against a much stronger Imperialist power and national "liberation" struggles inevitably end up allying themselves to another Imperialist bloc and becoming a tool of Imperialism.

    You will note that the communist groups which support national "liberation" of one form or another are all in someway tied up with soviet or chinese realpolitik. Essentially national "liberation" was useful to those groupings because it helped give more support to their own Imperialist coalitions.

    Struggle for an end to Imperialism by uniting with the working class internationally to overthrow capitalism.
    Could someone perhaps explain or elaborate on the part in bold? Thanks very much.
  2. devoration1
    devoration1
    The alternative is for communist revolutionaries to keep a clear class line (correct interpretation of current events), agitate against the war, support revolutionary defeatism and to intervene in the struggles of workers. Opposing national liberation and the 'right of nations to self determination' just means that we don't believe in 1 thing, not that we advocate doing nothing.

    In the epoch of capitalist decadence there are no 'lesser evils', there are no 'progressive' factions of the bourgeoisie. All wars are imperialist wars and are to be opposed, vehemently. Workers have no country. National liberation movements are inter-classist (allying with the class enemy), nationalistic (in direct contradiction to the 1st principle of communism- internationalism) and militaristic- agitating for sending workers to the front to shoot other workers in a different uniform is class treason- and a major reason why left communists consider Stalinists, Maoists and Trotskyists (as well as others like Socialists, some variants of anarchists, etc) as having crossed the dividing line between the proletarian and bourgeois camp.

    - How The Revolutionary Wave of 1917-1923 Was Weakened By Support For "National Liberation" Movements:

    http://en.internationalism.org/ir/066_natlib_01.html
  3. Lyev
    Lyev
    The alternative is for communist revolutionaries to keep a clear class line (correct interpretation of current events), agitate against the war, support revolutionary defeatism and to intervene in the struggles of workers. Opposing national liberation and the 'right of nations to self determination' just means that we don't believe in 1 thing, not that we advocate doing nothing.

    In the epoch of capitalist decadence there are no 'lesser evils', there are no 'progressive' factions of the bourgeoisie. All wars are imperialist wars and are to be opposed, vehemently. Workers have no country. National liberation movements are inter-classist (allying with the class enemy), nationalistic (in direct contradiction to the 1st principle of communism- internationalism) and militaristic- agitating for sending workers to the front to shoot other workers in a different uniform is class treason- and a major reason why left communists consider Stalinists, Maoists and Trotskyists (as well as others like Socialists, some variants of anarchists, etc) as having crossed the dividing line between the proletarian and bourgeois camp.

    - How The Revolutionary Wave of 1917-1923 Was Weakened By Support For "National Liberation" Movements:

    http://en.internationalism.org/ir/066_natlib_01.html
    Is really every war wholly imperialist, always? Surely this is not always the underlying factor in every single war ever. Thanks very much for your reply by the way. Oh and also, what exactly does the term "revolutionary defeatism" mean? Thank you.
  4. devoration1
    devoration1
    Is really every war wholly imperialist, always? Surely this is not always the underlying factor in every single war ever. Thanks very much for your reply by the way. Oh and also, what exactly does the term "revolutionary defeatism" mean? Thanks you.
    Revolutionary Defeatism is a concept made most prominent by Vladimir Lenin in World War I. It is based on the Marxist idea of class struggle. Arguing that the proletariat could not win or gain in a capitalist war, Lenin declared its true enemy is the imperialist leaders who sent their lower classes into battle. Workers would gain more from their own nations’ defeats, he argued, if the war could be turned into civil war and then international revolution.
    Initially rejected by all but the more radical at the socialist Zimmerwald Conference in 1915, the concept appears to have gained support from more and more socialists, especially in Russia in 1917, after it was forcefully reaffirmed in Lenin's April Theses and Russia's war losses continued.
    Revolutionary defeatism can be contrasted, using Lenin's terminology, to ‘revolutionary defencism’ and to social patriotism or social chauvinism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeatism

    For example, during WWII the Italian Left in Exile (in France & Belgium) distributed leaflets printed in both French and German to axis and allied troops condemning both sides and arguing for the soldiers to fraternize with 'the enemy' as their fellow workers; during the recent Russia - Georgia war, the Russian anarcho-syndicalist group KRAS put out a leaflet calling on troops to turn their weapons on their officers (a nice but impractical idea) and return home to struggle for proletarian revolution. In Germany in particular this concept was put into practice- the beginning of the German Revolution of 1918 is often said to be the revolt of a naval detachment in Wihelmshaven and Kiel, who mutineed and then spread the struggle with the local workers, resulting in a national (though mainly centered in Berlin) proletarian revolutionary wave.

    In the period of capitalist decadence, it seems to me that all wars are imperialist wars- from those involving nation-state against nation-state (US vs Iraq, Russia vs Georgia, etc) and those involving proto-states within a nation-state (Naxalites vs India, PKK vs Turkey, etc).

    This is in contrast to the idea that wars during capitalism's ascendant period, where it was still growing and 'progressive' as a mode of production and social system, were capable of being progressive or advancing the productive potential of global capitalism.

    The transition period between capitalist ascendancy and the completion of the world market and the advent of decadence is the beginning of the 20th century, usually marked as 1914 (the start of WWI, the inter-imperialist world war).
  5. Monkey Riding Dragon
    Monkey Riding Dragon
    Lenin however, unlike yourself, recognized the existence of a distinction between imperialist nations and oppressed nations and supported the right to self-determination. The two world wars were fundamentally different than all current wars in that they were inter-imperialist wars, i.e. wars between rival empires over colonies. Today's prevailing contradiction, by contrast, is not between rival empires, but between the imperialist countries and the oppressed nations.

    Let's use what I think is a clear example: Afghanistan. Would you honestly argue that the current central government of Afghanistan is imperialist? Surely not! It's clearly a puppet regime of the United States. Are the Taliban imperialists because they're fighting for the right of their country to govern itself? Surely not! Imperialism means that you oppress and exploit other nations. It is very different from fighting for self-determination. America is an imperialist country. Afghanistan is not. See what I mean? We really should be defining imperialism according to scientific criteria, not just according to the existence of states and wars.
  6. devoration1
    devoration1
    I side with Luxembourg on the right of nations to self-determination and national liberation, who disagreed vehemently with Lenin on this point.

    I'd like to shift the discussion a little to a pragmatic point: What has national liberation and the philosophy of the right of nations to self determination done that is positive for the poor people of colonial, semi-colonial and/or third world nations/peoples?

    A quote from a 1988 article in International Review:

    Whereas after the First World War there was, up until the beginning of the ‘30s, a certain attenuation in inter-imperialist tensions and a significant reduction in armaments, none of this happened after the Second World War. Since ‘peace’ was re-established there have been about 150 wars in the world [5], killing tens of millions of people, and amply proving that “under capitalism there is no funda­mental opposition between war and peace”, and that “war, taking on a permanent character, has become decadent capitalism’s way of life.” And what characterises all these wars, like the two world wars, is that unlike those of the previous century, at no time have they permitted any progress in the development of the productive forces, having had no other result than massive destructions which have bled dry the countries in which they have taken place (not to mention the horrible massacres they have provoked). Among a multi­tude of examples of the wars that have taken place since 1945, we can take that of Vietnam, which, according to those who in the 1960s and 70s were demonstrating under the flags of the NLF [6], would make it possible to build a new and modern country, whose inhabitants would be freed from the calamities which accompanied the old Saigon regime. Since the reunification of this country in 1975, not only have the Vietnamese population not had any peace (the old ‘armies of liberation’ have been converted into an occupying army in Cambodia), but also their economic situation has got worse and worse to the point where, at its last Congress, the ruling party had to admit that the economy was bankrupt.
    Regarding the imperialist nature of the war in Afghanistan, I'd again like to revisit an issue of International Review from 2004:

    The real stakes revealed by the war in Afghanistan

    Although the IBRP recognises that capitalism is in its historical period of decline, this theoretical framework is missing from its understanding of imperialist war today. Capitalism's fundamental need is still the accumulation of capital, but the relations of production that once ensured its fantastic development now prevent it from finding sufficient fields for expansion. Increasingly production is geared towards the destruction, rather than the reproduction of wealth. The understanding that war, while becoming more and more necessary for the bourgeoisie, has ceased to be profitable for the capitalist system as a whole, is therefore not a denial of Marxist materialism but an expression of its ability to understand the different phases through which an economic system passes, and in particular the passage from its ascendant to its decadent phase. In the latter phase, the economic imperative continues to push the bourgeoisie, all the more in the periods of open crisis, not toward war for immediate, or particular financial gain, but toward a global and ultimately suicidal fight for military supremacy among its rival national units.
    Only by drawing out the implications of capitalist decadence for present day imperialist conflict can we show to the working class the enormous dangers represented by the war in Afghanistan, and by those wars which will inevitably follow it. The IBRP on the other hand tends to give the proletariat a false, reassuring picture of a system that is, as in its youthful phase, still able to subordinate its military objectives to the needs of economic expansion.
    Moreover, with its misconception of a European imperialism, united around the Euro, the IBRP gives the impression of a relatively stable evolution of world capitalism toward two new imperialist blocs. On the contrary, the contradictory and antagonistic interests of the European powers towards each other as well as to the USA points to quite a different period of capitalism's decay. It indicates a terminal phase of decomposition, where, even if Germany is trying to assert itself as an alternative pole to the US, imperialist chaos has the upper hand; where military conflict threatens to generalise in a catastrophic way.
    It is quite true that the war in Afghanistan is about the maintenance and reinforcement by America of its position as the world's only superpower. But this status is not determined by specific economic factors, like the control of oil, as the IBRP puts forward. It is rather dependent on geo-strategic questions, on the ability of the US to achieve a military supremacy in key areas of the world, and to prevent its rivals from seriously contesting its positions. Areas of the world like Afghanistan which proved their strategic worth to the imperialist powers long before oil became known as 'black gold'. It was not for oil that the 19th century British Raj twice sent armies into Afghanistan, and eventually succeeded in setting up a puppet ruler there. The importance of Afghanistan is not because it is a potential vehicle of an oil pipeline, but because it is at the geographical hub of the main imperialist powers of the Middle and Far East, and of South Asia, control of which will greatly increase US power not only in this region but in relation to the major European imperialisms.
    The United States achieved its dominant imperialist position essentially by emerging victorious from two world wars. Fundamentally the key to its ability to keep this position also lies at the military level.
    Definition of Imperialism from dictionary.com:

    [FONT=Arial Unicode MS]im·pe·ri·al·ism[/FONT]

       /[FONT=Arial Unicode MS]ɪmˈpɪəriəˌlɪzəm[/FONT]/ Show Spelled[im-peer-ee-[FONT=Georgia]uh[/FONT]-liz-[FONT=Georgia]uh[/FONT]m] Show IPA
    –noun 1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

    2. advocacy of imperial interests.

    3. an imperial system of government.

    4. imperial government.

    5. British . the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

    The first definition being the one I am using when using the word. I believe that in the epoch of capitalist decadence, and more specifically since the collapse of the bloc's and the beginning of a new stage in decadence, decomposition, all nations and proto-nations are acting in an 'each against all' fashion. Because certain nations or proto-nations (KLA, PKK, Taliban, etc) are weaker or smaller than other imperialist nations (USA, UK, Russia, China, etc) does not mean they are any 'friendlier', or 'more progressive'. Lenin's analysis was appropriate for the ascendant phase of capitalism, when the world market was still growing and the productive forces were capable of expanding. Good examples of this are smaller nations that were able to assert themselves on the global stage as major or regional powers (Japan and Russia being two of the late comers). Luxembourg's analysis that this was a suicidal policy for the working class has proved correct, especially after the massacres in the '20s of communists and workers by our 'allies' the Kamalists and KMT, then the decades of support for national liberation fronts and wars in everywhere from Vietnam to Angola to Eritrea- where there is just a change of one faction of the bourgeoisie ruling at the expense of another; and small or weaker nations bullying, making war on or exploiting weaker groups and/or nations including so called 'oppressed' nations (India and Pakistan in Kashmir, Turkey in Kurdistan, Russia in Chechnya and Georgia, Vietnam in Cambodia, etc).
  7. zimmerwald1915
    Lenin however, unlike yourself, recognized the existence of a distinction between imperialist nations and oppressed nations and supported the right to self-determination. The two world wars were fundamentally different than all current wars in that they were inter-imperialist wars, i.e. wars between rival empires over colonies. Today's prevailing contradiction, by contrast, is not between rival empires, but between the imperialist countries and the oppressed nations.
    Left communists reject the distinction between imperialist and oppressed nations not because some nations clearly win and because some nations clearly lose in the imperialist game, but because all nations have no choice but to play. Even if the part they play is puppet or toady to some stronger power, these nations are part of the imperial system. "National liberation" has never managed to remove a nation from the imperial system. All it has ever achieved is moving a nation from one imperialist camp to another. You bring up the Vietnamese national liberation struggle. Essentially all that was accomplished was the absorption of the American-aligned South Vietnam by the Russian-aligned North Vietnam, which was then strong enough to act as the Russian proxy in the region (propping up pro-Russian governments in Laos and Cambodia, warring with American-aligned China and disputing the Spratley Islands IIRC with that country). There was no liberation for the working class of Vietnam, who were then and are today some of the most exploited on the planet.

    The only anti-imperialist policy is the policy of proletarian revolution: national liberation is a dead end and a trap, and its advocates are witting or unwitting partisans of the bourgeoisie.
  8. HEAD ICE
    HEAD ICE
    This was a good informative thread.