Results 21 to 40 of 145
I voted for the yes-yes position too.
National oppressions may be social constructs, but they are also material realities. Like Palestinians being starved, deprived of employment, education, housing and water.
Edited to add: Oh and being the victim of the most powerful military technologies funded by the most powerful country in the world.
Last edited by blake 3:17; 23rd May 2012 at 21:37. Reason: An addition.
Are you talking about MPLA? If so, in what way do you compare them as worst than the fascist regime? Of course a civil war (read proxy war) spanning more than 25 years will put the country in bad shape, but I still find this confusing.
The MPLA itself is a fascist party. If you know something about Angola reality today you know what I mean. Angola is today ruled dictatorially by a family which owns the entire Angola's wealth, depriving its people from benefiting from it. This was a direct consequence of how the decolonization process was wrongly conducted by the Portuguese authorities which sought to benefit MPLA (supported at the time by USSR, later by USA) over the other movements, denying any real democratic choice to the people of Angola. Don't get me wrong, I'm for the decolonization, but not one that trades one fascist ruling for another.
Well, you got me a little confused here. It seems that you agree with the theory behind national liberation movements but just don't like any that have actually come about, is this correct?
Freedom before Peace
I think since I'm the only one who voted "yes. no." I misunderstood the question
Yes, I think "nations" should be able to rid themselves of imperialist powers. No, I don't want to see them self-determine their way into capitalism.
Save a species, have ginger babies!
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~Albert Einstein
You have historical examples of self-determination without national liberation movements. I usually refer Finland as a good example of it but you have more than that.
I have absolutely no understanding of the history of Finland. Care to explain?
Freedom before Peace
Finland was part of the Imperial Russia before 1917. After the October Revolution the Bolsheviks instituted a general right of self-determination including the right of complete secession for the peoples of Russia. The Finnish parliament immediately declared its independence and secession from Russia and the soviet government recognized it. You had an independence without a national liberation movement. Years later the soviets under Stalin tried to recover Finland as they did with other former Russian territories (the Baltics) but failed to do so.
I can give you the Baltics example as well.
The three Baltic Republics followed the Finnish example and declared their own independence but this time USSR failed to recognized it and waged war against it. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia resisted successfully to the aggression and the soviets ended up recognizing their independence.
So if the Soviet government failed to recognize their independence would you support the Finnish people waging a struggle of independence?
Why or why not?
Do you support the actions of the Baltic states?
Freedom before Peace
That was what happened to the Baltics. Yes, I would. There was no national liberation movement involved whatsoever.
Yes. As I told you above no national liberation movement was involved in the struggle.
there is no such thing as 'self-determination' or 'national liberation' in a capitalist world
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
So, do you support self determination, or do you support some kind of international agency telling people what they should do - which is the exact opposite of self determination?
Luís Henrique
self-determination isn't a real thing.
I know all the big problems with the current state of Angola, still I think it's a strecht to call them fascist. Authoritarian, yes, fascist, not really.
The thing is, you're saying they are more repressive and exploitative than the fascist regime, and I disagree with you in that point. What you had until the death of Savimbi is a direct consequence of the conditions imposed upon the angolan people during fascism. MPLA are to condemn, but I put them far from the agressiveness of colonialism.
"The nation" is bourgeois.
I am opposed to the bourgeoisie.
Therefore, I am opposed to the existence of "the nation".
Therefore, I reject the "right" of a "national" state to exist.
Therefore, I do not support attempts to bring "national" states into existence.
Why they aren't fascist? You have a dictatorial rule that protect the private interests of a family and the oligarchy, the most aggressive capitalism with no free trade-unions or any basic worker rights. I think you have here all the ingredients of a fascist dictatorship.
While you have a significant part of the Angolan population dying from hunger, the president's daughter is expending billions of dollars buying foreign banks.
The issue here is that the average Angolan didn't benefit from the decolonization due to the political elite which took over the country. This political elite was one of Angola's national liberation movements. Angola's example is just one example of why I oppose national liberation movements.
I'm not here defending the colonial exploitation of course, far from it. When I say that they are more exploitative than its colonial predecessors I am referring to the final years of colonialism where Angola benefited from an enormous economic growth which brought better living condition to its native people. This economic investment and development was never paralleled in the post-colonialism period due to the lack of will to do that by MPLA. The living conditions worsened a lot for the average Angolan, except for the elite of course. This elite became billionaire overnight and the political freedom is more repressive now than in the final years of colonialism. In this sense you can say that they are more exploitative than even its colonial predecessors. The racism that you saw in another colonial empires was not so prevalent in Portuguese colonies although you had some as well.
Any sensible Marxist would support the right of the oppressed nations to rise up and get out from the jaws of Imperialism.
Ireland, Palestine, etc.
why can't occupied people by an imperialist country fight their occupation
you probably have no clue on Real life neither history , i suggest you start reading history start by British \ french imperialism
Last edited by wsg1991; 25th May 2012 at 00:05.
the nation is beyond the "Bourgeois"
occupied nations were always treated as second class , even by workers and trade , national liberation come first . this is silly idea is the main reason why communists failed miserably in arab world back in the 50ies , as this stance was inaccepted and weird in Palestinian struggle , in national liberation in Algeria . and it's now that opinion is largely abandoned ) . and BTW you should read about syndicalism history in ex colonies , for example the reason why Tunisian workers formed independent trade unions , because they were not treated fairly by French unions .
Last edited by wsg1991; 25th May 2012 at 00:01.
there is no comparison how treats their citizens , and how they treat colonized country citizens , do any of those against national liberation have an idea how post war french treated Algerians ? you can't try and compare it to how bad capitalism is doing to French society , unlike the ''soft side'' of capitalism that use propaganda , Police on occasions to how they treats non citizens in colonies . you can called them what you want , petty bourgeois nationalists , imperialist wanna be , no real socialist , Fascists , but they proved that they successfully increased life standards in post colony country . and even if they are wanna be imperialists they successfully damaged original imperial power by creating ''new ones '' although i doubt some under developed third world country will be imperialist any time soon
