National Liberation

With this topic I agree with the ICC's comments/position on the matter.

National liberation and the formation of new nations has never been a specific task of the proletariat. If in the nineteenth century revolutionaries gave their support to certain national liberation movements, they did not have any illusions that these were anything but bourgeois movements; neither did they give their support in the name of ‘the rights of nations to self determination’. They supported such movements because in the ascendant phase of capitalism the nation represented the most appropriate framework for the development of capitalism, and the establishment of new nation states, by eliminating the constricting vestiges of pre-capitalist social relations, represented a step forward in the development of the productive forces on a world scale and thus in the maturation of the material conditions for socialism. (see note)

As capitalism entered its period of decline, the nation together with capitalist relations of production as a whole, became too narrow for the development of the productive forces. Today in a situation where even the oldest and most powerful countries are incapable of developing, the juridical constitution of new countries does not lead to any real progress. In a world divided up by the imperialist blocs every ‘national liberation’ struggle, far from representing something progressive, can only be a moment in the continuous conflict between rival imperialist blocs in which the workers and peasants, whether voluntarily or forcibly enlisted, only participate as cannon fodder.

Such struggles in no way ‘weaken imperialism’ because they do not challenge it at its roots: in the capitalist relations of production. If they weaken one imperialist bloc it is only to strengthen another; and the new nations set up in such conflicts must themselves become imperialist, because in the epoch of decadence no country, whether large or small, can avoid engaging in imperialist policies.

In the present epoch a ‘successful’ struggle for ‘national liberation’ can only mean a change in imperialist masters for the country concerned; for the workers, especially in the new ‘socialist’ countries, it means an intensification, a systematisation, a militarisation of exploitation by the statified capital which - because it is an expression of the barbarism of the system - proceeds to transform the ‘liberated’ nation into a concentration camp. Contrary to what some people claim, these struggles do not provide the proletariat of the Third World with a springboard for class struggle. By mobilising the workers behind the national capital in the name of ‘patriotic’ mystifications, these struggles always act as a barrier to the proletarian struggle which is often extremely bitter in such countries. Over the last fifty years history has amply shown, contrary to the assertions of the Communist International, that ‘national liberation’ struggles do not serve as an impetus to the struggle either of the workers in the advanced countries or of the workers in the backward the workers in the backward countries. Neither have anything to gain from such struggles, nor any camp to choose. In these conflicts the only revolutionary slogan against this latter-day version of ‘national defence’ dressed up as so-called ‘national liberation’, is the one revolutionaries took up during World War I: revolutionary defeatism, "turn the imperialist war into a civil war". Any position of ‘unconditional’ or ‘critical’ support for these struggles is, whether intentionally or not, similar to the positions of the ‘social chauvinists’ of the First World War. It is thus totally incompatible with coherent communist activity.

IMO, these 'national liberation' movements are harmful diversions for Communists and workers everywhere for the very reasons the article explained/laid out. This is an issue I think we must take a 'no comprise' stance on or at the very least recognize that these are bourgeois movements that will only benefit the bourgeois and can in no way benefit the proletariat, our interests or the movement worldwide.

Thoughts? (I’m looking at you Malte, )

I do strongly agree with the ICC's analysis of the national question.

However, personally I have a less dogmatic approach on this. I do acknowledge that national liberation movements and class struggle do not necessarily collide, and that social emancipation also can be manifested in national liberation struggles. Therefore I rather call for critical solidarity with certain, progressive national liberation movements, than a total rejection of it, although I ultamtively acknowledge the reactionary nature of the bourgeois idea of "national liberation"

However, the approach of some Leninist organisations to support any single "national liberation" movement on earth as long as it fights the US in the name of "anti-imperialism" is utterly absurd and very narrow-minded for the reasons that the ICC is pointing out:

Such struggles in no way ‘weaken imperialism’ because they do not challenge it at its roots: in the capitalist relations of production. If they weaken one imperialist bloc it is only to strengthen another; and the new nations set up in such conflicts must themselves become imperialist, because in the epoch of decadence no country, whether large or small, can avoid engaging in imperialist policies.

This is for example IMO very true for the current Iraqi resistance, or large parts of the current Palestinian resistance, which are hailed by many Leninists "anti-imperialists".

Everyone here is just going to agree to this statement .

FYI, Malte you can find that brief if you go to the ICC web page under Theory and Pratice, and click your mouse on "Internationalism". Maybe the word "internationalism" translates differently in German?

The ICC particularly are against National-Liberation through their
understanding of decadence theory. Not thats its messed up, to me it makes sense why capitalism is no longer progressive.

IMO understanding decadance theory helps, but you can also see the situation today, blatantly. For example, as the Bolivarians preach socialism, they are suppressing workers movements, and manufacturing the workers unitary organizations-- a workers council isn't an organ the workers made themselves, and control themselves, they merely are set under a predetermined plan to enact the governments regulations on businesses. While at the same time the government slanders the USA, they are making deals with China and Russia to strengthen their industrial/ Millitary complexes. Meanwhile Venezuela is trying to create a bank with its allies in Latin America.

Venezuela certainly has imperialistic ambitions, while China and Russia are exploiting the the dominance of Western Imperialism by serving as an alternative imperialism. So we see the nationalist wrapped in the red flag is walking over to the other block. Where are the workers? Disillusioned, confused, and demobilized.

However, personally I have a less dogmatic approach on this. I do acknowledge that national liberation movements and class struggle do not necessarily collide, and that social emancipation also can be manifested in national liberation struggles. Therefore I rather call for critical solidarity with certain, progressive national liberation movements, than a total rejection of it, although I ultamtively acknowledge the reactionary nature of the bourgeois idea of "national liberation"

Which certain, progressive national liberation movements are you talking about?

For me anyways Mansoor Hekmat has pretty much outlined why every single national-bourgeois rug dealer sells out.

s the Bolivarians preach socialism, they are suppressing workers movements, and manufacturing the workers unitary organizations-- a workers council isn't an organ the workers made themselves, and control themselves, they merely are set under a predetermined plan to enact the governments regulations on businesses. While at the same time the government slanders the USA, they are making deals with China and Russia to strengthen their industrial/ Millitary complexes. Meanwhile Venezuela is trying to create a bank with its allies in Latin America.

I understand, but like Malte said, I think it is wise to not be as dogmatic about the rejection of national liberation as Marxist-Leninists are about following it blindly. One example that comes to mind, though it wasn't exactly a national liberation movement, was the election of Allende in Chile. Allende was very much incapable of working outside the confines of imperialism and was forced into a situation similar to what you are talking about with Venezuela. Socialism confined within capitalism is always going to be distorted and unsavory. But what is important to remember that the election of Allende did help build class consciousness insofar that workers for the first time were able to openly unionize without the fear of violence or imprisonment. While national liberation in itself will inevitably lead towards an imperialist path, it can also provide the impetus for social movements that are beneficial to working peoples.

FYI, Malte you can find that brief if you go to the ICC web page under Theory and Pratice, and click your mouse on "Internationalism". Maybe the word "internationalism" translates differently in German?

It's rather a question of interpretation than translation. I certainly share the ICC's interpretation of internationalism, unlike the Leninist interpretation of it.

Which certain, progressive national liberation movements are you talking about?

Basque country for example, but admittedly also to a lesser degree Castro's Cuba or Chavez' Venezuela. I do uphold a certain critical solidarity with them, I do see both Cuba and Venezuela as a progress in class struggle in Latin America. I just don't see the purpose of a total opposition to them, although you are certainly right with your criticism of Chavez.

So principally I agree, in the end most national liberation movements do sell out and get corrupted in the end, which is no surprise considering it's bourgeois ideological core.

An acid test for the reactionary degree of national liberation movements is IMO the question of "blood and soil" as the Nazis put it, means rights and privileges based on heritage rather than class. Many national liberation movements which are hailed by the Leninists such as the Palestinian one are ideologically not very far away from the Nazi's view on this, otherwise PFLP would not justify and defend suicide attacks on Israeli working class civilians.

While national liberation in itself will inevitably lead towards an imperialist path, it can also provide the impetus for social movements that are beneficial to working peoples.

True, workers can gain a sense of solidarity and empowerment, but they have to organize as a class against all capital, otherwise, even if they get ice cream out of it, they are just taken for a ride.

i think you people are attributing poor lenin the shitty politics his followers have today.

keep in mind that the italian communist left has very leninist "roots". also keep in mind historically, the communist left acknowledged the october revolution proletarian.

i am against much national liberation unless national liberation is coupled with class struggle politics. i dont know if this has ever happened. i suppose the IRA could be an example but i heard bad things about them so i am not sure.

however i am damn sure if those damn yanks invaded mexico some day i would rather run away than become cannon fodder for the bourgeoisie. i dont give a shit about the whole national liberation rhetoric, because i would know that if i fought, i wouldnt be fighting for my interests.

the funny thing is that when marxist leninists adamantly support anti-imperialism, like for example, saddam hussein against america, they dont understand they are cheering workers that are forced for the iraqi state to fight for their nation. contrary to those silly guerrillas, most conscription soldiers would rather not be there. same if the bombs ever fall in tehran,; i doubt that most soldiers wouldnt rather choose isntead fleeing with their respective families.

at what point does supporting a national liberation become acceptable?

Well the point I was trying to make is that it is never alright to support the political ambitions of the national liberation movement, for exactly the reasons stated in the article, but it is alright to support people that are supporting national liberation if it means supporting class struggle.

Everyone here is just going to agree to this statement .

Well it seems not:

Therefore I rather call for critical solidarity with certain, progressive national liberation movements, than a total rejection of it, although I ultamtively acknowledge the reactionary nature of the bourgeois idea of "national liberation"

While national liberation in itself will inevitably lead towards an imperialist path, it can also provide the impetus for social movements that are beneficial to working peoples.

I think this bring up other issues relevant to this forum of what a left communist is as this idea that their can be progressive national liberation struggles is one that I believe places people outside of the communist left.

On the topic under discussion though, I have a question to both Malte, and Chimx; What is a 'progressive national liberation movement', and what 'social movements that are beneficial to working peoples have their impetus provided by national liberation struggles'?

Devrim

I was thinking of the unionization movement in Chile that came about specifically because of the victory of Allende. But when Korean liberation occurred after WWII, there was a movement called the CPKI where control was seized by local communities. Although it was allied with bourgeois politicians to some degree it also resulted in unionizing and worker seizure of factories -- of course this also was the cause of its downfall and the reason why the US tried to break the movement up in the end.

On the topic under discussion though, I have a question to both Malte, and Chimx; What is a 'progressive national liberation movement', and what 'social movements that are beneficial to working peoples have their impetus provided by national liberation struggles'?

I am not arguing that national liberation is progressive, but rather social revolutions can and do occur within national liberation movements themselves that are progressive.

But then when the third-world workers take a stand against all capital, not just foreign, it's no longer a national struggle. The struggle has detoured from national struggle, and it is one of class. I don't understand how anyone can forsee a national struggle taking a detour, and therefore supporting it because of foresight.

I am not arguing that national liberation is progressive, but rather social revolutions can and do occur within national liberation movements themselves that are progressive.

I basically agree with that statement. like I said, I don't think it helps to be overly dogmatic over this issue.

Most movements in the (third) world for social liberation and emancipation just did occur in the context of national liberation movements, I think we have to acknowledge this, and while keeping the bourgeois nature of the aim of national liberation in mind, should uphold critical solidarity with them.

Which shoudln't mean that we should go around and call for solidarity with whole organsiations like the PKK, ETA, IRA, etc, hell no, but rather with individual workers affected with repression during this struggle, or progressive workers actions (strikes, factory sqattings etc.) which are occurring as a part or as a side effect of the "national liberation process". I hope you understand what I mean.

I don't really think this is a binary, black and white issue at all, when it comes to day by day political work. Otherwise the communist left will always remain a tiny sect.

Furthermore, maybe the politics of "lesser evil" isn't really that ideal, but as an anti-fascist I always will prefer and support for example ETA over Falange, the PKK over grey wolves, Castro or Chavez over Bush, etc.

Rosa Luxemburg, one of the proponents of left-communism, did for example never deny national liberation per se, but simplified say it's blind support without having a look at the class context.

maybe my position is not the position of the ICC or other current left-communist organisations, but in the end I think it does not collide with left-communist tradition, which is very divert. I am a supporter of "anti-national solidarity" all along, and I think especially "in your own backyard" it's important to struggle against the virus of nationalism and the nation in general.

Furthermore, maybe the politics of "lesser evil" isn't really that ideal, but as an anti-fascist I always will prefer and support for example ETA over Falange, the PKK over grey wolves, Castro or Chavez over Bush, etc.

I think that this is the main point. Left communism rejects the lesser evil argument, and holds that today no factors of the bourgeoisie are progressive. From that we say that workers should fight for their own interests, and not for the interests of different factions of the ruling class.

To take up the argument on the issue of the PKK, and the Grey Wolves though, it is very clear that the Grey Wolves were (they don't operate in the way that they did anymore) a vicious nationalist murder gang, but then the PKK are...a vicious nationalist murder gang.

But it goes beyond this. When you argue for people to support the PKK against for example the Turkish state in effect you are calling for support for the interests of other powers. In the past the PKK was certainly a tool of Syria. In the future it may well be a tool of the US. Certainly today PEJAC is working with the US.

The whole idea of national independence is a myth today.

Devrim

I think that this is the main point. Left communism rejects the lesser evil argument, and holds that today no factors of the bourgeoisie are progressive. From that we say that workers should fight for their own interests, and not for the interests of different factions of the ruling class.

Well, I don't think it's easy as that. I think you can hardly deny that lives for the average worker is better today in Cuba for example than it was before as a result of a national liberation struggle.

I think just like reforms of capitalism can be a means of class struggle, as Rosa Luxemburg once argued, national liberation struggles can be too.

hey don't operate in the way that they did anymore

This is new to me, the grey wolves are very active here in Germany, and pretty effective in recruiting among the youth with a Turkish migration background. They are known for attacks on Kurds as well as leftists, and they are able to mobilize tens of thousands of people, as a recent anti-Kurdish demonstration in Cologne has shown.

As an anti-fascist, they are my enemy. PKK supporters walk side by side with me at anti-fascist demonstrations and actions, or did sit next to me at the blockades during the G8 summit.

I really don't want to see the PKK and the fascist grey wolves as one and the same.

Well, I don't think it's easy as that. I think you can hardly deny that lives for the average worker is better today in Cuba for example than it was before as a result of a national liberation struggle.

But what is a national liberation struggle? Did Cuba not end up "liberating" itself from one imperialist power several years after the "revolution" only to... be subordinate to another imperialist power?

Now, all this is, in our opinion, a period thing, so to speak. You say:

I think just like reforms of capitalism can be a means of class struggle, as Rosa Luxemburg once argued, national liberation struggles can be too.

There was a time in which the national liberation movements weren't necessarily pawns in the imperialist arena, because imperialism as it is today did not exist back then. However, now for any national liberation movement to be succesful, for any national liberation movement to come close to any of it's aims, that national liberation movement needs support of this or that imperialist power.

Now the issue of the PKK came up. In late 70s, there wasn't a strong and effective Kurdish nationalist organization in Turkey but several small Stalinist - Kurdish nationalist groups. PKK was among them, but there were several others. PKK ended up establishing strong relations with several countries (the strongest supporter being Syria as mentioned before) and part of it's activity became murdering people from the other Kurdish nationalist and Stalinist groups operating in the region. It wasn't because they were evil from a moral perspective: any other group as such would have done the same thing, being the dominant power in the region would have been the goal of any nationalist group. The reason PKK was able to do all this was that they were militarily the strongest group among the others.

A national liberation movement will always be against the working class when it struggles. I don't think it, being a completely bourgeois movement goes with the working class movement for any other reason than for manipulating it. When it can't manipulate the movement it will be viciously against it. Survivors of the Halabja massacre (a good article on it: http://libcom.org/history/1988-the-halabja-massacre) chased Kurdish nationalists (Peshmergas) with stones when they came to the refuge camps. The peshmergas had surrounded the city and prevented the working class people from leaving while aiding the rich men in town to leave when the inhabitants were trying to run away. Even after the massacre the Peshmargas would not let people leave and they looted homes and raped women. The workers there had seen that the national liberation movement was directly against their interests. There are lots and lots of other examples.

This is new to me, the grey wolves are very active here in Germany, and pretty effective in recruiting among the youth with a Turkish migration background. They are known for attacks on Kurds as well as leftists, and they are able to mobilize tens of thousands of people, as a recent anti-Kurdish demonstration in Cologne has shown.

I would imagine they would be more radical in Europe. In Turkey though, they are a mass bourgeois party (they get 15% of the votes) and the leaders of their party have been trying make the Grey Wolves behave as they need to look like a respectable bourgeois party. The more radical and murderous wing have been transferred to BBP.

I really don't want to see the PKK and the fascist grey wolves as one and the same.

But at the end of the day, I think they are:



(This is a picture from the Turkish parliament. One of the two is the leader of the fascist party the other one is the leader of the Kurdish nationalist party.)

They are on one side of the class barricade, and workers are on another.

When the national liberation issue came up in the Third International, left wings of the communist parties, from Iran to China and from Central Asia to Turkey and from India to Korea opposed the idea of giving any amount of support to those movements. As for Luxemburg's position, she thought that "under the rule of capitalism there is no self-determination of peoples, that in a class society each class of the nation strives to 'determine itself' in a different fashion, and that, for the bourgeois classes, the stand-point of national freedom is fully subordinated to that of class rule."

But what is a national liberation struggle? Did Cuba not end up "liberating" itself from one imperialist power several years after the "revolution" only to... be subordinate to another imperialist power?

Well, that might be true, although I wouldn't equate the USSR with today's competing imperialist power like the EU, Russia, China. But once again, for the average worker the final result Cuban national liberation struggle, the Cuban socialist republic, did mean a huge improvement in living conditions, and so a step forward in class struggle.

I personally neither believe in the idea of "national self-determination" (as I have stressed numerous times here at revleft), nor do I share the idea of the independent nation state as a goal for any communist organisation. However, I do believe that national liberation struggles can be a means of class struggle, like I said before. Of course this is a "play with fire", but you also might argue that you are turning the weapons of the class enemy against himself.

I'm rather pragmatic on this issue. That might be colliding with some of the "true teachings" of left communism, so I guess I'm more sympathetic and ideologically close to left communism, than being a left communist myself, but I hope that won't stop you from keeping me in your group.

They are on one side of the class barricade, and workers are on another.

Like I have mentioned, my personal experience is quiet different.

But for the record: At our local leftist, social centre there was a students group close to the PKK who wanted to use our location for group meeting and Kurdish folklore stuff, and I did spoke out against it.

Actually I don't have any real sympathy for the PKK, they are deeply involved in organized crime here including human trafficking. Not so socialist, is it? I just saw in the news that some PKK members in my town have been arrested who where involved protection money extortion. To frighten the shop owners they did claim that they "had kill dozens of people as a warrior for the PKK"...

Well, that might be true, although I wouldn't equate the USSR with today's competing imperialist power like the EU, Russia, China.

Why not? Weren't they in fact stronger than each one of those powers?

I personally neither believe in the idea of "national self-determination" (as I have stressed numerous times here at revleft), nor do I share the idea of the independent nation state as a goal for any communist organisation. However, I do believe that national liberation struggles can be a means of class struggle, like I said before. Of course this is a "play with fire", but you also might argue that you are turning the weapons of the class enemy against himself.

Playing with fire generally tends to burn the player, unfortunately. The position of trying to turn the national liberation against the class enemy, even while being aware that it was a weapon of the class enemy, had tragic consequences for the workers' movement.

The interests of the working class is independent and internationally united class struggle, leading to the overthrow of world capitalist system and establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus national liberation is, especially in an epoch in which such movements can't exist in real terms without being tools of inter-imperialist rivalries, something only aiding the slide into barbarism. Also as you acknowledge, it is a weapon of the class enemy. Obviously, a world revolution can't happen if the revolutionary wave is not the wave of the workers of the world, that is both European and Asian and African and American etc. workers. All those workers have common interests. Bourgeois nationalism in the West is not in the interests of the Western workers, why should bourgeois national liberation in the third world be in the interests of the workers there? It can be argued that, perhaps, it is because the national liberation movements had more social-democratic-like, or more state-capitalistic policies, focusing more on the welfare state etc. but what is the welfare state? Does it really improve workers fundamental conditions or is it another form of exploitation?

I'm rather pragmatic on this issue.

So am I. Communists supporting nationalist movements is something that could never work and that would ultimately mean pushing workers and communists into the mercy of nationalists.

Lets give an example of the practice of the Bolsheviks in this matter who were much more aware of the nature of and cautious of the dangers of national liberation than the "Leninists" of today who fanatically support even the most reactionary nationalist movements:

"From October 1917, the Bolsheviks pushed for the independence of the countries which the Czarist empire had kept subjugated: the Baltic countries, Finland, Poland, the Ukraine, Armenia etc... They believed that such an attitude would guarantee the revolutionary proletariat indispensable support for its efforts to retain power while waiting for the maturation and explosion of the proletarian revolution in the great European countries, especially Germany. These hope were never to be fulfilled: · Finland: the Soviet government recognised its independence on the 18th of December 1917. The working class movement in this country was very strong: it was on the revolutionary ascent, it had strong links with the Russian workers and had actively participated in the 1905 and 1917 revolutions. It was not a question of a country dominated by feudalism, but a very developed capitalist territory. And the Finnish bourgeoisie used the Soviet power's gift in order to crush the workers' insurrection that broke out in January 1918. This struggle lasted nearly 3 months but, despite the resolute support the Soviets gave to the Finnish workers, the new state was able to destroy the revolutionary movement, thanks to German troops whom they called on to help them;
· The Ukraine: the local nationalist movement did not represent a real bourgeois movement, but rather obliquely expressed the vague resentments of the peasants against the Russian landlords and above all the Poles. The proletariat in this region came from all over Russia and was very developed. In these conditions the band of nationalist adventurers that set up the 'Ukraine Rada' (Vinnickenko, Petlyura etc.) rapidly sought the patronage of German and Austrian imperialism. At the same time it dedicated all its forces to attacking the workers' soviets, which had been formed in Kharkov and other cities. The French general Tabouis who, because of the collapse of the central powers, replaced the German influence, employed Ukrainian reactionary bands in the war of the White Guards against the Soviets.
"Ukrainian nationalism... was a mere whim, a folly of a few dozen petty bourgeois intellectuals without the slightest roots in the economic, political or psychological relationships of the country; it was without any historical tradition, since the Ukraine never formed a nation or government, was without any national culture... To what was at first a mere farce they lent such importance that the farce became a matter of the most deadly seriousness - not as a serious national movement for which, afterwards as before, there are no roots at all, but as a shingle and rallying flag of counter-revolution. At Brest, out of this addled egg crept the German bayonets" (Rosa Luxemburg, idem, pages 382-2);
· The Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania): the workers' soviets took power in this zone at the same moment as the October revolution. 'National liberation' was carried out by British marines: "With the termination of hostilities against Germany, British naval units appeared in the Baltic. The Estonian Soviet Republic collapsed in January 1919. The Latvian Soviet Republic held out in Riga for five months and then succumbed to the threat of British naval guns" (E.H.Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, vol. 1, page 317)
· In Asiatic Russia, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan: "A Bashkir government under one Validov, which had proclaimed an autonomous Bashkir state after the October revolution, went over to the Orenburg Cossacks who were in open warfare against the Soviet Government; and this was typical of the prevailing attitude of the nationalists" (idem, page 324). For its part the 'national-revolutionary' government of Kokanda (in central Asia), with a programme that included the imposition of Islamic law, the defence of private property, and the forced seclusion of women, unleashed a fierce war against the workers' Soviet of Tashkent (the principal industrial city of Russian Turkestan).
· In Caucasia a Transcaucasian republic was formed, and its tutelage was fought over between Turkey, Germany and Great Britain. This caused it to break up into 3 'independent' republics (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan), which fiercely confronted each other, urged on in turn by each of the contesting powers. The three republics supported with all their forces the British troops in their battle against the Baku workers' Soviet, which from 1917-20 suffered bombardment and massacres by the British;
· Turkey: from the beginning the Soviet government supported the 'revolutionary nationalist' Kemal Attaturk. Radek, a member of the CI, exhorted the recently formed Turkish Communist Party thus: "Your first task, as soon as you have formed as an independent party, will be to support the movement for the national freedom of Turkey" (Acts of the first four Congresses of the CI). The result was a catastrophe: Kemal crushed without leniency the strikes and demonstrations of the young Turkish proletariat and, if for a time he allied with the Soviet government, it was only done to put pressure on the British troops who were occupying Constantinople, and on the Greeks who had occupied large parts of Western Turkey. However, once the Greeks had been defeated and having offered British imperialism his fidelity if they left Constantinople, Kemal broke off the alliance with the Soviets and offered the British the head of the Turkish Communist Party, which was viciously persecuted.
· The case of Poland should also be mentioned. The national emancipation of Poland was almost a dogma in the Second International. When Rosa Luxemburg, at the end of the 19th century, demonstrated that this slogan was now erroneous and dangerous since capitalist development had tightly bound the Polish bourgeoisie to the Russian Czarist imperial caste, she provoked a stormy polemic inside the International. But the truth was that the workers of Warsaw, Lodz and elsewhere were at the vanguard of the 1905 revolution and had produced revolutionaries as outstanding as Rosa. Lenin had recognised that "The experience of the 1905 revolution demonstrated that even in these two nations (he is referring to Poland and Finland) the leading classes, the landlords and the bourgeoisie, renounced the revolutionary struggle for liberty and had looked for a rapprochement with the leading classes in Russia and with the Czarist monarchy out of fear of the revolutionary proletariat of Finland and Poland" (minutes of the Prague party conference, 1912).
Unfortunately the Bolsheviks held onto the dogma of 'the right of nations to self-determination', and from October 1917 on they promoted the independence of Poland. On 29 August 1918 the Council of Peoples Commissars declared "All treaties and acts concluded by the government of the former Russian Empire with the government of Prussia or of the Austro-Hungarian Empire concerning Poland, in view of their incompatibility with the principle of the self-determination of nations and with the revolutionary sense of right of the Russian people, which recognises the indefeasible right of the Polish people to independence and unity, are hereby irrevocably rescinded" (quoted in E.H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, vol 1, p 293).

While it was correct that the proletarian bastion should denounce and annul the secret treaties of the bourgeois government, it was a serious error to do so in the name of 'principles' which were not on a proletarian terrain, but a bourgeois one, viz the 'right of nations'. This was rapidly demonstrated in practice. Poland fell under the iron dictatorship of Pilsudski, the veteran social patriot, who smashed the workers' strikes, allied Poland with France and Britain, and actively supported the counter-revolution of the White Armies by invading the Ukraine in 1920." (ICC, http://en.internationalism.org/ir/066_natlib_01.html)

so I guess I'm more sympathetic and ideologically close to left communism, than being a left communist myself, but I hope that won't stop you from keeping me in your group.

Of course not We are simply trying to discuss the issue to the fullest extent because we think it's a very important issue.

Like I have mentioned, my personal experience is quiet different.

Well, don't get me wrong - there are lots of people who support Kurdish nationalism to some extent in my family and among their friends, and they are all very nice people who I love and who I can discuss politics with. However, this doesn't change the nature of their politics, which is bourgeois - despite their personal class background.

But from a general perspective, of course the Kurdish peasant boy whose village was burnt and who had little choice but go to join the PKK is not the class enemy, nor is the son of from a working class family in western Turkey who was sent to the south east to kill that peasant boy. It is the bourgeoisie, the leadership of the Armed Forces and the PKK who make those who have the same class interests kill each other that is the enemy.

Actually I don't have any real sympathy for the PKK, they are deeply involved in organized crime here including human trafficking. Not so socialist, is it?

No, not so socialist at all.

Then you're talking about supporting a social revolution rather than a national liberation? It just happens that a social revolution is occuring within the context of a national liberation.

My point then stands, when would it be acceptable to support a national liberation?

I don't think we really disagree with any degree of significance. I was simply emphasizing the fact that class struggle often develops from national liberation movements. Because national liberation can act as a catalyst to class struggle, the two are often tightly woven together. In my Korean example, there weren't two distinct movements for national liberation and class struggle that would make supporting one over the other realistically feasible.

Of course, I suppose I'm still not sure what we mean by "support". Are we talking about making a post voicing our support on an internet forum, or actively assisting the movement?

But then when the third-world workers take a stand against all capital, not just foreign, it's no longer a national struggle. The struggle has detoured from national struggle, and it is one of class. I don't understand how anyone can forsee a national struggle taking a detour, and therefore supporting it because of foresight.

Well no countries proletarian is one homogeneous mass. A single detour doesn't occur over night, but a series of detours. But you are right, it is impossible to predict when these things happen. I just thing it is important to be supportive of any facets that could be beneficial to workers and not write off a movement because it is "national liberation". It's too easy to be critical when one is so geographically detached.

Well no countries proletarian is one homogeneous mass. A single detour doesn't occur over night, but a series of detours. But you are right, it is impossible to predict when these things happen. I just thing it is important to be supportive of any facets that could be beneficial to workers and not write off a movement because it is "national liberation". It's too easy to be critical when one is so geographically detached.

It may take some time and agitation, to help the proletariat to take these detours.

For me theres a difference between supporting actions of the working-class, that may have a national context-- like the Shanghai workers seizing foreign factories in 1927, and standing behind the nationalists. In this case the workers later moved onto national capital, maybe they realized that national capital was just as exploitive, or maybe it was the work of the few millitants that helped them realize this, or maybe both. But the point stands that there's no place for Communists to stand behind the nationalists. As in this case, what happened was that Communists-in-bed- with-the-Kuomintang handed both the workers and millitants over-- and the workers were slaughtered and demoralized.

We must stand with our fellow workers, and help them understand that national capital is just as exploitive. We must stick to our principles otherwise we compromise the revolution away.

They don't operate in the way that they did anymore

This is new to me, the grey wolves are very active here in Germany, and pretty effective in recruiting among the youth with a Turkish migration background. They are known for attacks on Kurds as well as leftists, and they are able to mobilize tens of thousands of people, as a recent anti-Kurdish demonstration in Cologne has shown.

Just quickly on a point of clarification back in the period running up to the 1980 coup they were a lot different to how they are now. I think their members were convicted of over 600 murders that year. It is different from today.

On the point of the demonstrations, are you sure they were organised by Grey Wolves? Most of them here were organised by the trade unions. They could have been organised by the MHP, or another fascist group in Germnay, but they could have just as well been organised by the CHP (social democrats).

Actually I don't have any real sympathy for the PKK, they are deeply involved in organized crime here including human trafficking. Not so socialist, is it? I just saw in the news that some PKK members in my town have been arrested who where involved protection money extortion. To frighten the shop owners they did claim that they "had kill dozens of people as a warrior for the PKK"...

Of course the PKK are involved in gangsterism. They also murder members of rival leftist organisations that operate in their areas, and at one stage had a campaign of murdering school teachers. I think that these sort of groups can not but end up this way.

I could go on about what they do, but really it is not the point. Even if they were 'clean', the problem would be with what they do.

Devrim

On the point of the demonstrations, are you sure they were organised by Grey Wolves?

Yes, I'm quiet sure about that. It might also been demonstrations by various Turkish nationalist groups.

As I said, the grey wolves very popular here among the Turkish youth. During the recent anti-kurdish incitement members of the grey wolved/MHP committed attacks on Kurds, but also Armenians, all over Germany.

Unfortunately the problem of Turkish fascist groups in Germany is a problem that is either underestimate by Antifa groups here, or it is being put aside for reasons of wrong political correctness.