National liberation: what is it???

http://www.revleft.com/vb/which-side...339/index.html

When three revolutionary Marxists are on opposite sides (in this case, PRC-UTE, myself, and Marmot) on the question of national liberation, it's fair that we should all go back to the basics.

It seems to me that there are four Marxist (note here I don't say "revolutionary Marxist") positions on the question of national liberation:

1) The common "anti-imperialist" position of Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and their respective followers;
2) Lenin's "qualified" (restrictive) anti-imperialist position;
3) The more "qualified" Republican-Socialist position (Connolly); and
4) The common position of Luxemburg and the left-communists.

The typical argument back and forth is between #1 and #4, but the key concern here is #3, because the "Republican-Socialist" position (a validly Marxist one, mind you) depends on a much more qualified meaning of "national liberation," tying it directly to the need for socialist revolution.



So, what is "national liberation"?

I think I agree with you. I certainly don't consider national liberation good in and of itself, nor do I think it is always wise to condemn it for promoting false ideas of nationalism.

The existence of nation states is a concrete reality for every worker in the world, but these states vary in how they interact with capital and labor. I think it is wise to make qualitative judgements about a national liberation movement, if it would benefit labor in the short term and the long term.

For example, the overthrow of an autocratic regime for one that supports free press, free assembly, etc., is very much a step forward for working peoples if only because it legalizes their right to organize themselves in one geographic area.

But certain Trots that will support rightwing theocracy movements for also attacking imperialist relations I disagree with. An enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

I think it is also important to remember that national liberation can create a kind of security for workers to increase their struggle, both nationally and internationally. It is important to remember that social revolutions have many layers, and to make a sweeping generalization about a country is entirely unfair.

Although I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean by your "republican-socialist" position, I do find myself somewhere in between Trotskyists and Left Communists on the issue.

^^^ That was the position taken by the revolutionary Marxist Connolly:

"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic, your efforts will be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers."



Now, I'm not sure about the revolutionary Marxist Lenin (since he didn't live long after the revolution), since I'm not familiar with the specific national-liberation movements supported by the Bolsheviks outside the "near abroad," so it's entirely possible that he took up Connolly's own position on the matter!



In any event, Connolly's position goes beyond that shared by the Trotskyists, Stalinists, and Maoists. To "Republican Socialists," their definition of national liberation isn't conditional on just anti-imperialist struggle (like Kosovo today), but on socialist revolution itself (like Ireland in 1916).

I would have thought Connolly's position was classic. Certainly as Marxist we don't support national liberation struggles out of political principle, but tactically if it is assessed that these struggles undermine imperialism and/or provide the mass movements through which communists can attempt to organise workers.

In my view, the maxim which should always guide our political orientation to struggles abroad is Lenin's: The enemy is at home.

I think that socialism would have to be established right after liberation. Or like in China's case, where the Communist Party led the struggle for national liberation, although I do not agree with allowing the bourgeois some power.

Yes,but national liberation can also be justified in cases where certain population is being opressed by the other(s).
I mean present time.
We know that there are no chances in making a socialist government in Kosovo,Baskia,Abhasia.....but there is another principle,which can be viewed best from Kosovo's perspective.
To make it brief. Serbian government,police forces and army terrorised ethnic Albanians(Kosovans). USA(imperialist force) intervened by bombing Yugoslavia.
Milosevic drew forces from Kosovo. NATO came to Kosovo.
Nine years after,Kosovo declared independance.
Kosovo will now pay its debts to USA and will become US's "backyard" in Balkan.
Economically,they will be slaves. But Serbia is a capitalist country as well. And Serbia opressed the people.
Therefore,Kosovo's independance is justified.

http://www.iol.ie/~sob/jcet/2001-04-21-pm.html

One could say, perhaps, that Connolly’s writings on the subject gave flesh and blood to the more theoretical articles of Lenin on the national question. Although written with a particular experience in mind, Connolly’s writings nevertheless have a general application in indicating how socialism can be established within the context of national independence.

At the present time, it is interesting to call to mind the main points that Lenin developed. What characterises the epoch of imperialism, he said, is the typical and unavoidable phenomenon of the outbreak of democratic wars and revolts in the suppressed nations. Thus, the socialist revolution is not only or mainly the struggle of the revolutionary working class in the industrial countries: it is the struggle of all oppressed colonies and nations against international imperialism. For Lenin, there was no contradiction between the democratic right of a suppressed nation to secede and the socialist principle of centralisation and proletarian internationalism. In his article “The Question of the Self-Determination of Nations” he points out that by supporting the demand of the suppressed nations for independence, socialists are, in fact, working in the objective interest of the international working class, as the fusion of nations can only come about on a truly democratic basis, which would be impossible without the realisation of self-determination. The fusion of nations can only come about through a transitional period guaranteeing freedom for the suppressed nations of the world. To this question Lenin adds an interesting footnote, namely that the demand for the right to self-determination of nations does not commit socialists to support every demand for national self-determination. After the right to freedom of secession comes the question as to the advisability on economic and political grounds. In other words, the right of the suppressed nations to self-determination must not become an abstract dogmatic principle. This right to self-determination and the role of the national liberation movements in the struggle for socialism was by no means a clear issue within the International.

So already Lenin's position is indeed more restrictive than that shared by the followers of, Trotsky Stalin, and Mao. Connolly just goes further, between the mere anti-imperialism of Lenin and the staunch position of the revolutionary Marxist Luxemburg (and the left-communists).



Again, since there is implicit disagreement within the four positions above on the definition of "national liberation," what is "national liberation" in the first place?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/which-side...339/index.html

When three revolutionary Marxists are on opposite sides (in this case, PRC-UTE, myself, and Marmot) on the question of national liberation, it's fair that we should all go back to the basics.

It seems to me that there are four Marxist (note here I don't say "revolutionary Marxist") positions on the question of national liberation:

1) The common anti-imperialist position of Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and their respective followers;
2) Lenin's "qualified" (restrictive) anti-imperialist position;
3) The more "qualified" Republican-Socialist position (Connolly); and
4) The common position of Luxemburg and the left-communists.

The typical argument back and forth is between #1 and #4, but the key concern here is #3, because the "Republican-Socialist" position (a validly Marxist one, mind you) depends on a much more qualified meaning of "national liberation," tying it directly to the need for socialist revolution.



So, what is "national liberation"?

the necessity of applying the republican socialist analysis is tied to:

the position of one section of the working class as a more oppressed and exploited section of the working class, based on language, national identity, tribe, whatever (whether hyper or super-exploited, relative or absolute...) cannot be resolved without overthrow of old colonial regimes, such as Stormont in the six counties of Ireland that Britain still occupies;

the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be completed without the working class- it's not that national liberation will be a byproduct of a socialist revolution (which is the implicit position of much of the left) but the understanding that national liberation by necessity must be led by the working class, who will push on past the democratic revolution in the process, or in other words, capitalism's limits will force their hand as in the Cuban Revolution;

the hope of Marx, Lenin and Connolly that a successful revolt in a colony such as the 6c could provoke a wider workers revolt in Britain, and then in Europe.


I think I recall that Lenin did not consider his position as distinct from Connolly's and was apparently an admirer of Connolly, considering the Easter Rising to be the beginning of the larger wave of revolts that culminated in the October Revolution. There were definitely some differences- for instance Connolly was wrong to place his hopes in a German victory in WWI... but I don't know that they were big enough to be listed seperately.


imo, 1 and 4 are so simplistic as to be useless and meaningless. there is general rule that can explain the almost infinite complexity of the human world in that way.

^^^ Here's an interesting spin on "national liberation": What about the aboriginal peoples of North America (Canada's First Nations and Native Americans)? They're not part of some occupying power, and they had a primitive-communist and/or primitive-socialist past.

In my mind, every struggle for national liberation is to be supported in principle.

The only thing up for discussion in my mind is how hard we should shout we support this or that group fighting for national liberation. For example, when the SWP said "We Are All Hezbollah", they should have shot themselves for being dumbfucks.

But will they go back to being like that if they are liberated? I think thats the real question. If they just want a state of their own, which would be organized as a bourgeois democracy, then I think we should by all means oppose it.

if you want to alienate yourself from the people there, by all means do so.
Bourgeois democracy is a step ahead from bourgeois coming from another country to oppress you [especially if they took your land and continue to live there]. In a sense, it's the completion of the bourgeois revolution in less developed nations. First imperialism takes capitalism there, then capitalism asserts itself there. As marx said, capitalism is necessary for communism to be possible --> let the bourgeois assert themselves there, then people are able to see that changing the boss doesn't change anything.

Yes, but the examples given were from N.America. Canada and USA have a population that is predominately non-indeginous

All the more reason for non-indigenous to support the struggle for indigenous freedom.

Im guessing that when the time for a revolution does come, the indegionous people there will just go along like everyone else.

Stop guessing, it gets us nowhere. There's no reason to assume they will, especially if they're disconnected from revolutionary organisations because those organisations don't support their struggle for an independent state.

The thing is, tho, that I dont really see them developing their own bourgeoisie anytime soon. In China and India the foreign bourgeois hold most of the market, and I think that makes it really hard for them to develop a strong ruling class of their own.

look at the actual situation and guess again. India has a large bourgeois class, so does china (they just call themselves the Communist Party, i.e they're bureaucrats, in practice inseperable in effect from the bourgeoisie).

if you want to alienate yourself from the people there, by all means do so. Bourgeois democracy is a step ahead from bourgeois coming from another country to oppress you [especially if they took your land and continue to live there]. In a sense, it's the completion of the bourgeois revolution in less developed nations. First imperialism takes capitalism there, then capitalism asserts itself there. As marx said, capitalism is necessary for communism to be possible --> let the bourgeois assert themselves there, then people are able to see that changing the boss doesn't change anything.

Ironic. You claim in the "socialist competition" thread that there doesn't need to be a capitalist mode of production post-revolution, but here you sound a bit stageist, no?

If a revolution occurs in one country, and that country proceeds directly to labour-time economics (real socialism), wouldn't that ironically validate "Comrade" Stalin's "socialism in one country" crap?

Ironic. You claim in the "socialist competition" thread that there doesn't need to be a capitalist mode of production post-revolution, but here you sound a bit stageist, no?

Stageist?
Well
The fact is, it cannot be said to be otherwise, that where there is industry there are bourgeois (or bureaucrats, same difference). Imperialism brought industry to many nations, and in fact all nations now have some level of industry (one or two exceptions can perhaps be found, but those are, on the grand scale, irrelevant).
So, communism IS possible, by Marx's standards of 1880 thereabout, in about every country in the world.

If a revolution occurs in one country, and that country proceeds directly to labour-time economics (real socialism), wouldn't that ironically validate "Comrade" Stalin's "socialism in one country" crap?

The idea of socialism in one country isn't crap, it's only crap when it's coupled with a dictatorship of the bureaucracy. What is crap however, is to assume that one socialist nation can in fact be socialist AND survive for any serious stretch of time without revolutions abroad.
In this sense I support lenin when he said that for the russian revolution to survive the german one had to succeed (history sure did prove him right..).

That sounds kinda nationalistic to me. Indeginous people have no right to call upon their ancestors, who happened to inhabit that land for centuries, to create a nation state of their own at present.

And why not?

Ofcourse it's nationalistic, striving towards your own nation is per definition nationalistic.

The fact is that, even if at one point in history their ancestors were subjected to foreign imperialism and military occupation, the situation today is much different.

For the indigenous, the situation has barely changed since the end of the 19th century, being locked up in reservations, in extreme poverty.

Imo, a revolution in N. America must include both the indegionous and non-indeginous population. Why should any group support the other in nationalistic actions is beyond me.

I agree, the point im making however is exactly that IF we want Indigenous and non-Indigenous to revolt TOGETHER, revolutionary organisations have to support Indigenous struggles for their own independent state.
That is the whole idea of the trotskyite united front, a concept with which i couldnt agree more (the implementation is in practice often not that good, but that is a different discussion).

Again, why should they have an independant state?

Again, why the fuck not?

Ok, so I was wrong about India. But the fact is that in China, as well as in many far-east nations, foreign bourgeoisie employs much of the workforce.

Err yes, the same goes for the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain etc etc etc.

There are McDonalds everywhere comrade.


I understand the apprehension with nationalistic struggle, with you coming from the balkans. The Croats however were completely right when they rebelled [just not in slaughtering civilian serbs..], and Tito was a fucking bastard even if he stopped people from killing eachother. Social pacification will never be more than the murder of the social.

In that case, the aim should not be making a state for indeginous people, but rather bringing them up to level with the rest, within the US and Canada.

You continuously confuse our aims with the self-professed aims of the oppressed.

I know, and agree, that our aims should not include the establishment of new states, the point im making however is that if we are to remain linked with oppressed groups we'll have to support struggles which in principle have nothing to do with our "ideology". However, due to the objective circumstances present in certain countries, supporting national liberation is key for a number of reasons
1. A people which oppresses another cannot be free
2. Imperialism is what kept capitalism alive [now it's globalisation]
3. If we see people revolt against occupation of their country (theirs indeed by ancestry), and if those people represent a large majority in the area where they are revolting, we are to support them for the simply reason of strategy (if we do not support them why would they support our revolution?).

The aim is not a nation state, the aim is the revolution itself. If that happens in two now existing countries (US, Canada), or the two now existing and a potential third indeginous nation state, is not so much important than the revolution itself.

Comrade, that's not the point.

But, as I stated before, we need to be very carefull about giving them such support (infact, we should be carefull about giving any support to movements that show any degree of nationalism). If they simply want to have a nation state organized like a bourgeois democracy, then I for one am strictly against it.

Comrade, YOU can be strictly against it, that however wouldnt change a goddamn thing. The only thing it might accomplish is a severe weakness amongst the revolutionary left in that bourgeois democracy to come.

Every analysis should be a concrete analysis of the concrete situation. That's the whole problem of this discussion, we're talking in grand generalizations. Yes, there are circumstances in which national liberation is not to be supported, but so are there circumstances in which failing to support national liberation means failure for the revolution.

Belgium, France, Nedherlands, Spain, ect. Even if we put the whole Europe together, the Far Eastern Proletariat outnumbers us by far, not to mention that conditions that we live in cannot be compared with the conditions of the Far Eastern workers.

Comrade, again, that's not the point I was making. The point was that almost everywhere foreign bourgeois employs most of the workforce.

But one thing is for sure: us, Croats, Bosniaks and everyone else were very wrong to rebel. Instead of starting a war, and cutting up a big and influential country into seven pieces, we could have stayed together, and formed some sort of a bourgeois democracy, as that would probably be the only reasonable option at the time. Instead of that, we are just changing our allegiance, and becoming more and more dependant on the EU - or what I prefer to call it- Euroslavia.

heh good point

I just have some weird fetish for Croatia xD But yea, all those rebellions, staged by rightists like Tudjman. When in Croatia a few years ago there was a national holiday where they were celebrating some genocidal attack on the Serbian enclave in Croatia o0 Military folk in fancy uniforms explaining how brilliant the attack was on tv.

Comrades should note my position on the nationalities question here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nationalit...251/index.html

The last post reiterates my shared position with that of Stalin in 1922, in direct opposition to Lenin.



Consistent with my position on spoiled labels and terms (including "communist" and "socialist," and since the 1930s "national socialist," which Lenin used to describe Stalin after the Georgia affair), should the term "national liberation" be revisited as well?



I'm thinking of several possibilities here:

1) Socio-national liberation (ties "socialist" revolution with national liberation)

2) Social-proletocratic national liberation (the most accurate position concerning Marxism, the workers' movement for the DOTP, and national liberation all merged into one - although this one's too long and may butt heads with Stalin's oddly non-reactionary 1917 and 1922 positions on nationalities)

3) Proleto-national liberation (sounds weird, and there's no "social"/"socialist" aspect to this)



-------------------
"National liberation guy": So what if they're not in a position to trigger a socialist revolution in their country and in the surrounding countries? At least they're weakening imperialism. They can have a socialist revolution later.

Revolutionary Marxist: Imperialism is a GLOBAL system. Because of this, genuine national liberation is tied to the hip with socialist revolution. Anything short of socio-national liberation is two-stageist, and the equation of so-called "anti-imperialism" (read: nationalism) with genuine national liberation - socio-national liberation - is reductionist.
-------------------



Thoughts?

In responce to your PM on the topic of revising or abandoning the term National Liberation, I would agree... the only reason it has been continually used is because the Comintern adopted the term.

I would prefer 'anti-imperialist' or republican socialism. To be scientific, it is not a struggle for a 'nation' but to finish the tasks of the democratic revolutinon, which can only be done by the working class in this era.

Also, despite the hyperbole and hysteria from the Left, the truth is that Irish Republicanism is not classical nationalism- seeking to create an ethnically exclusive nation-state. That is actually what the partitioning of Ireland right now is based on: an orange state in the northeast corner of the island, and a green one in the rest of the country. Both states make straight appeals to ethno-national identities and sectarianism, and the six county state cannot survive without it. Republicanism is an attempt to overcome the 'tribal' divisions and create a new state that is essentially pluralistic. That's what the tricolour was meant to represent, and that's the cornerstone of anti-imperialism and republicanism that has to be re-asserted after the disaster of the Provisional's Catholic Defenderism hijacking the very idea of republicanism for their opportunism.

^^^ But doesn't "republican socialism" today have too much connotations with just the Irish republican socialism? Nobody talks of "republican socialism" in respect to Basque national liberation, or maybe in respect to Venezuela (although no up-to-arms struggle against an imperialist power was fought by Chavez, his "Bolivarianism" could count as an example of "Connollyist" national liberation).

[I opposed the "socialist" label in the Learning thread on the "communist" label because, here in North America, lots of people abusingly equate "socialism" with corporate bailouts - "'socialism' for the rich, capitalism for everyone else," so goes the saying. ]

In response to your PM on the topic of revising

Like I said to CZ in my "WITBD: Overcoming the crises of theory" article (also in "Internal challenges"), I prefer not to use the term "revise" (it reeks of "revisionism"). To revisit something, or to re-define it, or to re-formulate it (as opposed to "reform" it ), or to refine it is OK, but there should be no indication of revisionism or reformism.

Looking at it this way, it does make sense. However, there is the practical issue (for US and Canada, anyway, South America is a bit different), and that is: 1. Indeginous people are a wast minority (3.8% in Canada, 1.64% in USA) and are scattered across the continent. How could, in such conditions a indeginous nation-state be formed? Or will there be more than just one?

they are only scattered in the sense that they now inhabit small "reservations" on infertile land.

Well like this http://www.republicoflakotah.com/