Quebec National Question

(Odd though that he does not see that I am FOR national liberation, along with women's liberation, gay liberation, ecological balance, and working class liberation.)

The less important issue is his misreading of the U.S. public. Clearly, as a practical matter, it is MUCH easier to build a movement calling to Bring the Troops Home Now than for Victory to the Resistance.

In practical effects, these are the same thing, since a victory for the resistance would result in bringing the troops home and bringing the troops home would provice a victory for the resistance.

rom the experience of the Vietnam war it was much easier to win over US troops when they felt that the opposition was sympathetic to their plight.

STI seems really to be swimming in moralism here, he wants to say how much he hates the US aggression so he hates the troops

I have to admit, that while I am for the military struggle of the resistance (as my article says) I am sympathetic to the rank and file soldiers.

I DO NOT think that national independence with a new capitalist ruling class can lead to independence from imperialism or to becoming indusstrialized up to the level of the imperialist countries, as STI naively claims.

Cuba, which he cites, won some benefits, but remains unindustrialized and dominated by the world market (which is dominated by the U.S. imperialists).

I DO think that proletarian revolution is possible in Iraq and most regions of the so-called Third World--by which I mean a revolution led by the working class (a minority) and linked to the other oppressed people, particular peasants and which seeks to spread its revolution intenationally

That is why I am for national liberation but reject the program of nationalism.

It would take too long to argue this here

i can report the montrealers were quite content with their condition, realizing the benefits of large federal transfers of capital between quebec and other provinces as need arises (that's the theory anyway), while having bashed their way to a degree of cultural autonomy (as they define culture)

the bloc has never, so far as i know, received more than 49% on their separatist referenda

Compare the current state of Cuba to how it would be, had Batista's regime remained in power since 1959. Which one do you think would have more industrialization? Which one would be more at the whims of the world market? Which one would be closer to proletarian revolution?

Quote:

Do you really think that all seperatism is progressive, regardless of the context?

Yes, I just don't think all kinds of separatism are possible, so they really aren't worth much of your time.

Quote:

By your logic we'd just spend all our time fighting seperatist battles and ending up with smaller and smaller countries, which seems pretty stupid and pointless to me.

Not all kinds of separatism will happen, because there's no cause for them (such as national liberation), so we wouldn't end up with smaller and smaller countries, because people wouldn't want to.

How about Southern U.S. independence?

I don't know - why don't you ask all the proletarian revolutionaries in Cuba?

Oh wait... Castro had them all killed.

And anyways any ideology that requires the bourgeoisie to act (rather than to merely exist) in order to make proletarian revolution is a bankrupt ideology.

How many statelets do we need to break Afghanistan into?

And besides, the south isn't a "nation".

the problem being that many people there think they are a nation, and apart from wilfull self-identification, what is needed?

(source: the gf and her extremely extended family are from north carolina)

If there was a serious significant movement for the South to succeed in modern times that was an actual fight for national independence rather than just a reactionary counter-revolution, then ya, I'd probably support it.

2: what are the criteria distinguishing a 'fight for national independence' from 'reactionary counter-revolution'?

Quote:

i can report the montrealers were quite content with their condition, realizing the benefits of large federal transfers of capital between quebec and other provinces as need arises (that's the theory anyway), while having bashed their way to a degree of cultural autonomy (as they define culture)

I've done some field research of my own.

It appears as though the majority of the working class is currently content with capitalism.

What's your point?

Quote:

the bloc has never, so far as i know, received more than 49% on their separatist referenda

Well bully-bully for the PQ (the Bloc has nothing to do with referenda).

Quote:

2: what are the criteria distinguishing a 'fight for national independence' from 'reactionary counter-revolution'?

A counter-revolution is a reaction (spearheaded by the old ruling class) to an attempt by a rising class to usurp control over society. A fight for national independence is the struggle of a group of people (ie: a nation) to win self-determination through the defeat of foreign imperialist occupyers.

oh, pretty much what you just said

I'll argue with you more later, but I need to finish my review of A People's History Of Iraq: The Iraqi Communist Party, Workers' Movements, And The Left 1924-2004 by Ilario Salluci; or the Northeastern Anarchist editorial brigade will have me shot.

Positions are jockeying... but it looks like the Kurdish nationalist bourgios parties of the PUK and KDP have decided to put forth PUK leader Talibani for the Iraq Presidency (he would serve a 2nd term). For the Prime Minister position... both the Dawa party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq are putting up people. From the perspective of a Kurdish nationalist or Shi'ite party member... they are gaining progress in now they have the executive positions in the Iraqi government--something that had been denied to them under the Ba'athist one-party state.

they might argue that the Ba'ath remenants are being supported by the foreign imperialists of Syria

Certainly, Zarqawi is foreign to Iraq and is fighting for a very reactionary ideal.

Still, read the above book. It's good, despite it's shortcomings (for example... based on how little the book mentions them, you could be led to believe that women do not exist in Iraq).

Then the fact that a majority of Quebecers don't support separation (a slight majority, in this case) is irrelivant with regards to whether or not we should support it.

but nobody said otherwise.

newyawka wrote:

but nobody said otherwise.

Then why did you bother to bring up the fact that most Montrealers you met weren't supportive of separation?

face it - you have a reactionary position that leads to class collaboration.

When the peasants and artisans fought with the merchants against the nobility, you would have called that "class collaboration" too. It was still historically progressive, though.

What makes class collaboration in an imperialist society different from that in a conquerred nation is that there are only two classes in the former, but three - the working class, the local bourgeoisie, and the imperial rulers - in the latter.

You've openly said that you think the Taliban driving out the U.S. would be historically progressive.

Compared to imperialist occupation, yes.

And I explained why, at that. I have yet to see that explaination attacked, much less effectively.

I'd be happy to discuss those reasons, should anybody criticise them.

The ICC is a least right about one thing: anti-imperialism is a dead-end ideolgy for the proletariat.

As an end to itself, I agree. Anti-imperialism must be a (though certainly not the only) means to the end of proletarian revolution.

you're saying that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan can't make social revolution

That's indeed what I'm saying. Would you care to argue against it?

should accept the Taliban and Ba'ath as their overlords.

Straw man.

I said that we should fight against reactionary currents within national liberation movements before and after independence is won.

But if the Taliban or the Ba'athists are the only ones practically capable of taking power from the occupatying forces, better them than nobody.

n addition, the idea that urban, industrial proletariat are the only ones capable of making social revolution is clearly ridiculous - explain the revolutions in Russia and the Ukraine, Spain, Korea, Mexico, and the rest.

"Social revolution" is one hella-ambiguous term. If it can be used to describe Russia, Mexico, and Spain all at the same time, it doesn't have much definate (ie: usefull) meaning.

Would you mind clarifying exactly what you mean?

Your politics are as "lib-left" as those of the workers' world party, who supported martial law in poland and the tiananmen square massacre because they thought that the Chinese and Russian sections of the bourgeoisie (though they may not have been willing to own up to the fact that that's what they were) needed to become powerful enough to rival the western section of the bourgeoisie.

Well, since I would have supported Polish resistance to Russian occupation and would have sided with the protesters in Tienamen Square, I don't know how I could be identified with such a group.

To paraphrase what you've said, you advocate supporting the resistance group which has the highest capability to take power, even if "critically", rather than an actual revolutionary organization which is weaker.

Try again.

I support national liberation, and I would "hope" and even "advocate" that the best group possible would take power, but since "the best group" won't be taking power in Iraq or Afghanistan, there remains a question:

Do I support the occupation or the less "savoury" groups?

I support the defeat of imperialist occupation, even if it means the best groups, who wouldn't be in control either way, aren't the winners.

You've even said that the Taliban should retake Afghanistan

In the absence of any better group capable of defeating the occupation, yes.

But we already know that I've said that. Do you care to argue against the reasons that I've given for that position?

Because, up until now, there hasn't been much discussion.

the fact is, the leadership of the taliban, along with las FARC in colombia, the Ba'ath party in Iraq, Fatah and Hamas and any of their equivalents should be shot as the capitalists that they are, by the working class in those countries (and especially women workers in the case of the taliban and Hamas).

No shit!

But that isn't the issue.

The issue isn't "are the FARC and Hamas nice guys?".

The issue is "Who will you support, the occupation or the not-nice guys?".

You may not like either option, but in the absence of a victory for left-wing revolutionaries, which side are you on?

Say what you will about my position, but at least I have a clear answer to that question, unlike nearly everybody else who's participated in this thread.

As for your comment about only leninism being able to overthrow neo-colonialism, who do you think agreed to it in the first place?

I didn't say they're the only ones who could do it (I know you're trying to be comradely, and so am I, but it's really difficult when my actual views are misrepresented mroe often than not).

I said that, of all the forces which fight (and can win) against imperial domination in the Thrid World, Leninists (especially Maoists) will do the best job of kicking out foreign exploiters, will develop the economy the fastest, and will make the best lot for women, homosexuals, etc.

The history of Africa and Asia are most illuminating on this point.

You'll have to be a bit less vague if you want to have a discussion.

The histories of Africa and Asia could fill several bookshelves.

What about which parts of the histories of those places proves whatever point you're trying to make.

Regardless, to me the concept of an anti-imperialist state is as ridiculous as the concept of an anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-fascist, or anti-capitalist one, but you seem to think that these entities can exist; please explain.

No I don't. You've yet again butchered my position.

Havn't managed to come up with a reply to my response to your post yet, Oliver? Well, it's nice to know that you've at least found enough time to throw together a few content-free posts with which to waste the server's memory. So much for "comradely criticism", I guess.

OliverTwister wrote:

How about Southern U.S. independence?

I assume you're talking about the Civil War?

That was a bourgeois revolution within the American nation. The North, which was more industrialized and urbanized than the south, had a powerful bourgeoisie who no longer wanted the slave system of the Southern aristocracy to hinder their efforts to gain economic supremacy. They tried to reform their way out of it, but it just ended up that the class whose system was being reformed away didn't like it much. That they were concentrated in the South was a result of ecological factors, not national.

And besides, the south isn't a "nation".

OliverTwister wrote:

I don't know - why don't you ask all the proletarian revolutionaries in Cuba?

Oh wait... Castro had them all killed.

And Batista showed up at their meetings with hugs and candy, I'm sure.

Duh, you missed the point.

Quote:

And anyways any ideology that requires the bourgeoisie to act (rather than to merely exist) in order to make proletarian revolution is a bankrupt ideology.

I came up with two really good responses to that, and I can't decide which one is better, so I'm posting both.

1)

... Seriously?

You do know that there was a system before capitalism, and that the bourgeoisie overthrew that system (or rather, led the overthrow of that system), allowing them to industrialize (you know, uh, creating a proletariat), which makes proletarian revolution possible, right?

"Rah! If it's not an anarchist revolution right this minute, I'm going to have a tantrum!"

2)

Wow! Yet another wild claim without a single shred of support!

Not much for productive debate, but it sure looks like fun. I think I'll try it.

Any ideology put forward by OliverTwister is a bankrupt ideology.

Wow, it was a kick, now that I've done it myself.

Now, on to something worth replying to...

Flint wrote:

How many statelets do we need to break Afghanistan into?

"We" don't need to do anything - it'll be the people of those nations who break Afghanistan up into statelets - if at all. What we should do is support those who are fighting for independence and carry out our own work here in the First World.

Anti-imperialism and national liberation are the be-alls and end-alls of my outlook, remember.

Quote:

the problem being that many people there think they are a nation, and apart from wilfull self-identification, what is needed?

(source: the gf and her extremely extended family are from north carolina)

If there was a serious significant movement for the South to succeed in modern times that was an actual fight for national independence rather than just a reactionary counter-revolution, then ya, I'd probably support it.

the working class and the bourgeoisie are both global classes.

And as a point of history, the peasants and artisans overwhelmingly did not fight with the merchants, but in many cases there were attempted peasant revolutions which were recuperated by the merchants (much easier depending on how much class collaboration had occured),

while at the same time the merchants simply became more and more wealthy until the gentry could not compete for power.

Imperialism is the current mode of global capitalism and has been for the last century or so. Any forces which attempt to create a new state, or take over an existing one, are by their nature capitalist and part of imperialism. Every state is an imperialist occupier.

Anti-imperialism is the name given to a group of bourgoiesie with certain common interests (often a geographc bloc) attempting to increase their stature within their global class.

Don't think there's much to argue here. This is the paradigmatic difference between someone who believes that the working-class (and I use the term in the broad sense of "order-takers") always has the ability to make revolution and who recognizes the now-global nature of that class, and someone for whom "the workers" are merely two words out of many used to elaborate their fetish of perverted marxist historiography.

Would the Ba'ath be better post-occupation than pre-occupation for the class?

Or does what you're saying basically equate with the leninists such as the Sparts who attacked anyone who would not chant "victory to Iraq" during the war?

Quote:

n addition, the idea that urban, industrial proletariat are the only ones capable of making social revolution is clearly ridiculous - explain the revolutions in Russia and the Ukraine, Spain, Korea, Mexico, and the rest.

STI wrote:

"Social revolution" is one hella-ambiguous term. If it can be used to describe Russia, Mexico, and Spain all at the same time, it doesn't have much definate (ie: usefull) meaning.

Would you mind clarifying exactly what you mean?

Yes an accelerated period in history in which the workers expropriate, through force, the property of the ruling class and create a libertarian socialist society (sometimes known as dictatorship of the proletariat).

Do you support the kurdish seperatists who are allied with the U.S. occupiers?

At what point would you have switched your support from the CNT in Spain to the USSR-quislings?

STI wrote:

In the absence of any better group capable of defeating the occupation, yes.

But we already know that I've said that. Do you care to argue against the reasons that I've given for that position?

Because, up until now, there hasn't been much discussion.

Interesting how the people of Afghanistan need Saudis and Pakistanis to save them from imperialism.

My position is clear. I support the workers. In the absence of a worker revolution, which overlords rule a certain area can be pretty fucking moot.

Quite a few rebellious workers are going to hook up with reactionary forces which offer the ability to fight the capitalists - that doesn't change the reactionary nature of those forces.

but to side with the ba'ath or islamists because they can take power and keep the windfalls from their exploitation of the Iraqi people more "local" (which isn't exactly guaranteed or even necessarily likely)

is to sell the Iraqi people down the river and tell them "too bad you're to stupid to actually take power yourselves."

Short of worker's revolution, I'm in general agreement with that statement.

Specifically I was referring to the many revolutions led by leninist (and often Maoist) forces which suffered from the ruling party deciding that the WTO was offering a good deal for the country.

All of the most developed countries in Africa; SA, Kenya, Nigeria, Egypt, and Algeria were captured by "socialists" with the end of white rule - and within a matter of years those "socialists" had recuped every gain that the workers had made in the space created by intra-bourgeois conflicts and had put the country right where it was before in relation to other imperialists.

Other than black, Chicano, or native seperatism, there is far more support for southern independence than any other seperatist movement north of the Rio Grande - certainly more than there is for Quebec or Vermont.

And yet, I think nearly all of us recognize that any modern forces advocating southern independence (and especialy any hypothetical force which could bring it about) is not a step forward.

Are you actually claiming that there's a "nation" which does not already have bourgeoisie and proletariat?

Quote:

Anyways this is a great example of what they call "meddling" - I.E. people like me would be up against the wall if there was a "southern revolution", while you would give "critical support" to those forces, regretting that they unfortunately shot every organized proletarian militant but celebrating their victory over imperialism.

If the south were, for some reason, to all of a sudden have a majority support for separation, there'd have to be a reason for it. Fundies wouldn't want it - they're happy throwing weight around the whole of the US, no reason to paint themselves into one corner. Who else? And why? Why would they have you against the wall? Did you actively oppose separatist forces? Well then what did you expect would happen?

Your "hypothetical example" is useless, since it wouldn't happen. The conditions of your example create (you claim, at least) some outrageous results, but that simply stems from the fact that it is an outrageous situation. It wouldn't happen in reality.

Quote:

Or is that not what you're doing with Afghanistan and Iraq?

The majority of proletarian militants, I'd bet, are fighting for an end to the occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq (for as large as those proletariats are), so no, it's not.

You keep making the same mistake over and over. I'm not out there cheering for the resistance becase I find them to be "spotless" or any such thing. Everything in this issue is a matter of comparison. Yes, the resistance forces will do some shitty things, but compared to the occupation?.

Like that old song goes, "Which side are you on?"

That's the litmus test, as far as I'm concerned.

Progression is about comparison. Compared to feudalism, capitalism is progressive. Compared to US occupation, victory for the fundamentalists is progressive.

Proletarian revolution in Iraq is simply not possible. The material conditions necessary for proletarian revolution are simply not present, like it or not. One of the things that are required for proletarian revolution is the absence of a foreign dominator and a vigorous local bourgeoisie. That can't exist under US occupation.

I'd support a Kurdish movement for national independence…

OliverTwister wrote:

the working class and the bourgeoisie are both global classes.

Obviously not entirely.

The bourgeoisie from one area will often be in competition with another bourgeoisie (that's what a war is) because they have competing interests at those times.

Quote:

And as a point of history, the peasants and artisans overwhelmingly did not fight with the merchants, but in many cases there were attempted peasant revolutions which were recuperated by the merchants (much easier depending on how much class collaboration had occured),

Why did those rebellions end up being "recuperated" by the bourgeoisie? Could it have been that they were, aside from the nobility, the only class which was fit to rule? Were bourgeois revolutions therefore not progressive?

Quote:

while at the same time the merchants simply became more and more wealthy until the gentry could not compete for power.

They did more than simply fail to "compete for power", they were overthrown.

Quote:

Imperialism is the current mode of global capitalism and has been for the last century or so. Any forces which attempt to create a new state, or take over an existing one, are by their nature capitalist and part of imperialism. Every state is an imperialist occupier.

That's just silly. Unless a country is investing surplus capital elsewhere and/or involving itself in the military occupation (either attempted or actual) of another place, it isn't engaging in imperialism. You can't just use "imperialist" as a catch-all for governments you don't like. It leads to bad thinking and bad acting.

Quote:

Anti-imperialism is the name given to a group of bourgoiesie with certain common interests (often a geographc bloc) attempting to increase their stature within their global class.

Really? It's called anti-imperialism when Canada occupies Haiti or when the "coalition of the willing" invade Iraq? That's called anti-imperialism?

Strange. I thought it was called imperialism.

Quote:

Don't think there's much to argue here. This is the paradigmatic difference between someone who believes that the working-class (and I use the term in the broad sense of "order-takers") always has the ability to make revolution and who recognizes the now-global nature of that class, and someone for whom "the workers" are merely two words out of many used to elaborate their fetish of perverted marxist historiography.

Its the fact that you see the working class as simply "those who take orders" that would lead you to some of the lousy conclusions you've made. The condition of life as a peasant is vastly different than that of a proletarian, which creates a much different consciousness. Peasants are, compared to proletarians, more religious, less educated, more sexist, more homophobic, and therefore incapbable of creating communist revolution. It's not that peasants can't create any revolution, it just won't be communist.

And now on to the proletarians of the Third World. While they're much better than peasants, it would be foolish to have any illusions about what they're like, for the most part. They are, compared to the first-world proletariat, smaller as a portion of the total population, less educated, more religious, more sexist, more homophobic, and therefore less capable (if at all) of creating proletarian revolution.

Keep in mind that this will change... eventually. History isn't always as fast as we'd like it to be. It's taken us First-world workers close to 200 years to make proletarian revolution, and we still havn't done it. We've had some "good runs", just like workers in the Third World could (and probably will), but, for whatever reason, we have yet to "get it right".

How we could expect other workers who are, all things considered, more backward than we are to do what we havn't yet been able to do is beyond me. All this said, the sole reason for this backwardness is a lack of progression and development, not "because they're not European" or any such foolishness. It has entirely to do with environment, and will change... eventually. In order for that change to be faster, economic development must happen more quickly and more sensibly, and both of which would be the case if the local bourgeoisie were to have control instead of imperialist occupiers and their toadies.

Quote:

Would the Ba'ath be better post-occupation than pre-occupation for the class?

Neither of us could know that for sure. That isn't the issue, though. The issue is one of whether or not the post-occupation Ba'athists would be better than the occupation. It seems sensible to me that they would be.

Quote:

Or does what you're saying basically equate with the leninists such as the Sparts who attacked anyone who would not chant "victory to Iraq" during the war?

Depends on what you mean by "attacked". I would disagree with them, as I've already done in this thread and elsewhere.

The fact that Leninists do it is irrelivant, though. Leninists "do" a lot of things, some of which we agree with and some of which we don't. Whether or not "Leninists do X" should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not we do it, we should do or not do whatever we deem to be the best option by virtue of the fact that we deem it to be the best option.

Quote:

Quote:

n addition, the idea that urban, industrial proletariat are the only ones capable of making social revolution is clearly ridiculous - explain the revolutions in Russia and the Ukraine, Spain, Korea, Mexico, and the rest.

STI wrote:

"Social revolution" is one hella-ambiguous term. If it can be used to describe Russia, Mexico, and Spain all at the same time, it doesn't have much definate (ie: usefull) meaning.

Would you mind clarifying exactly what you mean?

Yes an accelerated period in history in which the workers expropriate, through force, the property of the ruling class and create a libertarian socialist society (sometimes known as dictatorship of the proletariat).

Then Russia, Mexico, the Ukraine, and I'd bet Korea (though I'm not at all familiar with the example you're bringing up) were not "social revolutions".

Look at the outcomes of all those revolutions. All of those outcomes came about for a reason. If the Russian revolution is "a social revolution", then I don't want it.

Quote:

Do you support the kurdish seperatists who are allied with the U.S. occupiers?

Like all fighters for national liberation, somewhat.

I do support Kurdish independence. I don't support the alliance with US imperialists. In fact, I don't think their strategy will lead to any kind of satisfying national liberation at all - just domination by US imperialists instead of Iraqi.

Another possible outcome of that whole thing might be the creation of a "Kurdistan" (or whatever it ends up being called) with a situation similar to Israel (though much less economic development). At the end of the day, I don't doubt the US imperialists would be happy to have another client-state in the middle east. Whether or not it's powerful enough to fulfill that role is another factor to consider - the imperialists might just say "fuck it" and treat it like any other imperial possession.

Quote:

At what point would you have switched your support from the CNT in Spain to the USSR-quislings?

That's a very different situation from Iraq or Afghanistan. For one, the CNT was a significant force at one time, the same can't be said for any lib-left group in Iraq. Also, there would have been different things to consider in Spain than Iraq. Spain's economy was more highly-developed in 1936 than in today's Iraq. The proletariat was more advanced. There was no foreign occupier in the same sense as there is in Iraq today.

But, had I been there, I would have advocated and fought for victory for the CNT (if I had to bet, I probably would have focused on the FoD) until the very end - the same way I advocate victory for the best groups in Iraq, and will continue to. But, again, that's not what the issue at hand is. The issue at hand is: the asshole resistors, or the occupiers ("the socialists or Franco"?). I side with the former in both cases.

Quote:

STI wrote:

In the absence of any better group capable of defeating the occupation, yes.

But we already know that I've said that. Do you care to argue against the reasons that I've given for that position?

Because, up until now, there hasn't been much discussion.

Interesting how the people of Afghanistan need Saudis and Pakistanis to save them from imperialism.

What does that have to do with what it was in response to? What are you even talking about?

Quote:

My position is clear. I support the workers. In the absence of a worker revolution, which overlords rule a certain area can be pretty fucking moot.

Well, I've explained how it isn't "fucking moot", so whatever. Refusal to address those points doesn't change the fact that they're there.

Quote:

Quite a few rebellious workers are going to hook up with reactionary forces which offer the ability to fight the capitalists - that doesn't change the reactionary nature of those forces.

So the question (still) is: do you support victory for those forces (who do, in the end, have some pretty reactionary ideologies) over occupation?

Quote:

but to side with the ba'ath or islamists because they can take power and keep the windfalls from their exploitation of the Iraqi people more "local" (which isn't exactly guaranteed or even necessarily likely)

It's not the fact that it's "kept local" that I find particularily appealing, it's the effect of that fact: faster, more thorough and well-rounded development of the economy - a necessary precursor to proletarian revolution.

Quote:

is to sell the Iraqi people down the river and tell them "too bad you're to stupid to actually take power yourselves."

It's not "selling them down the river", it's an objective analysis of the reality of the situation. I'm on the side which I think is in the best interests, in the long run, of proletarian revolution in both Iraq and America.

Quote:

Short of worker's revolution, I'm in general agreement with that statement.

Short of the fact that I don't think workers' revolution is possible in those societies, I'm in general agreement with that statement.

Quote:

Specifically I was referring to the many revolutions led by leninist (and often Maoist) forces which suffered from the ruling party deciding that the WTO was offering a good deal for the country.

That's simply the nature of Leninism - an eventual return to capitalism (though better off than before). This is why I don't think Leninism is capable of creating a classless society.

But remember: compared to the alternative? Had the US not been opposed in Vietnam, would Vietnam be better off than it is now (not that they were left with much to work with after the war).

Quote:

All of the most developed countries in Africa; SA, Kenya, Nigeria, Egypt, and Algeria were captured by "socialists" with the end of white rule - and within a matter of years those "socialists" had recuped every gain that the workers had made in the space created by intra-bourgeois conflicts and had put the country right where it was before in relation to other imperialists.

Could you link to or post some more info on these examples? I really want to know more about them before "weighing in".

Quote:

Other than black, Chicano, or native seperatism, there is far more support for southern independence than any other seperatist movement north of the Rio Grande - certainly more than there is for Quebec or Vermont.

Really? There's more than 50% support for separatism in the South? That's roughly what the separatists got in Quebec in the last referendum. It's lower now, but come on. Is there really that much support for separatism in the South?

Quote:

And yet, I think nearly all of us recognize that any modern forces advocating southern independence (and especialy any hypothetical force which could bring it about) is not a step forward.

And what kind of forces are those?

Really, this whole "Southern separatist" thing is right out of the blue for me. I'd never heard of such a thing until you mentioned it. Is it real on any large scale, or is it just a hypothetical?

Quote:

Are you actually claiming that there's a "nation" which does not already have bourgeoisie and proletariat?

No, and I don't think I ever have. What I've claimed is that industrial production isn't proliferated enough in much of the world, and all the effects that such a condition has are present. For one, the proletariat isn't much of a numerical force compared to the First World. For another, they're more "backward" than the First World proletariat - time and technological/economic advancement are needed to change that condition. Who will do this? Imperialist occupiers won't, not to the degree or with the speed necessary at least. Peasants won't. The proletariat can't. Only the local bourgeoisie (whether they're the wealthy in a market-capitalist society or the ruling party of a state-socialst one) can and will do it.

Quote:

Quote:

Anyways this is a great example of what they call "meddling" - I.E. people like me would be up against the wall if there was a "southern revolution", while you would give "critical support" to those forces, regretting that they unfortunately shot every organized proletarian militant but celebrating their victory over imperialism.

If the south were, for some reason, to all of a sudden have a majority support for separation, there'd have to be a reason for it. Fundies wouldn't want it - they're happy throwing weight around the whole of the US, no reason to paint themselves into one corner. Who else? And why? Why would they have you against the wall? Did you actively oppose separatist forces? Well then what did you expect would happen?

I would know that either they would win or the proletariat would, and whichever did would attempt to crush the other.

STI wrote:

Your "hypothetical example" is useless, since it wouldn't happen. The conditions of your example create (you claim, at least) some outrageous results, but that simply stems from the fact that it is an outrageous situation. It wouldn't happen in reality.

But you would support it if it did.

STI wrote:

Quote:

Or is that not what you're doing with Afghanistan and Iraq?

The majority of proletarian militants, I'd bet, are fighting for an end to the occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq (for as large as those proletariats are), so no, it's not.

But it's not the proletarian elements or forms of resistance you want us to support, its the bourgeois ones.

STI wrote:

You keep making the same mistake over and over. I'm not out there cheering for the resistance becase I find them to be "spotless" or any such thing. Everything in this issue is a matter of comparison. Yes, the resistance forces will do some shitty things, but compared to the occupation?.

If you were in China during the Cultural Revolution, would you have supported the bourgeoisie who supported allying with Russia or those who supported allying with the US? Everything is a matter of comparison when proletarian revolution is taken off the table.

STI wrote:

Like that old song goes, "Which side are you on?"

That's the litmus test, as far as I'm concerned.

The issue over the Iraqi war is not which side we are on. This is a false question. Two reactionary currents are opposed to each other, and then the working class is asked which one of them it supports. If the working class is to become ‘a class for itself’, it must start to answer these questions by affirming its own interests as a ‘a class for itself’. The answer to this question is that the working class is against all imperialists wars.

The root of this question though do not lie in the discussion of the Iraq war. They lie in a different conceptions of history.

STI wrote:

Progression is about comparison. Compared to feudalism, capitalism is progressive. Compared to US occupation, victory for the fundamentalists is progressive.

The question is whether capitalism is progressive or not today, and whether the working class should support more ‘progressive’ capitalist factions. This is the real issue here.

The Communist left take two different positions on this The Theory of Decadence (The ICC’s position), and the ‘Theory of Invariance’ (The GCI’s position). The theory of decadence states basically that since the outbreak of The First World War, Capitalism has been in a period of decadence whereas the theory of decadence state that Communist revolution has always been hypothetically possible. The differences between these two positions is not the discussion now, but both of them say that all factions of capitalism are equally reactionary today, and that their can be no support for imperialist war.

One of the problems of anarchism is that it is basically ahistorical. Because it fails to take up a theoretical stance on history, it ends up repeating the same arguments again, and again-just over different issues.

Is victory for the fundamentalist progressive? If so, in what way? If one believes that

STI wrote:

Proletarian revolution in Iraq is simply not possible. The material conditions necessary for proletarian revolution are simply not present, like it or not. One of the things that are required for proletarian revolution is the absence of a foreign dominator and a vigorous local bourgeoisie. That can't exist under US occupation.

Supporting the resistance would be progressive. I don’t believe this.

Capital is a global system. Whilst in the Middle East there may be remnants of feudalism, the basis of the economy is completely capitalist. It is no longer necessary to develop capitalism in order to create the conditions for the formation of the working class. The working class already exists. It is true that working class revolution is not on the immediate agenda in Iraq, but nor is it in America. Do revolutionaries in the States then stop supporting the working class, and support ‘historically progressive’ factions of the bourgeoisie there too. This argument is coming dangerously close to the argument of the Cliffities (the faction around the English SWP), ‘Vote Labour, but build a fighting socialist alternative’. This position is not incorrect because it is the argument of the Trotskyites. It is incorrect because it seeks to ally the working class with a ‘progressive’ faction of the bourgeoisie, and therefore is actively against any independent working class initiatives.

The position of revolutionaries during an imperialist war is against their own bourgeoisie, but that , however, does not mean allying oneself with the opposing bourgeoisie. I agree with STI that the slogan ‘Bring the troops home’ is liberalism, and does smack of supporting ‘our boys’. However, ‘Victory to the insurgency’ is an equally bad slogan. It doesn’t line the working class up alongside their fellow worker, but alongside reactionary gangs, which is what the resistance basically is.

The task in America is to fight against the imperialist war, but not by supporting the other side. The propagation of an independent class position is essential, a plague on both their houses. Yes a defeat for the ‘allied’ forces would probably be good for the prospects of working class struggle in America, and while the working class should fight against ‘their own’ ruling class that does not mean supporting the opposing ruling class.

STI wrote:

I'd support a Kurdish movement for national independence…

Why? Because it is ‘progressive’? In what why are the feudal clan parties of the KDP, and the PUK more progressive than the centralized Iraqi state was? If you support a Kurdish state, would you also support a Shiite state, Turcoman state, a Yezidi state, and an Assyrian state? Is it revolutionary to turn the entire Middle East into another Lebanon? How many rival ethnic groups would you like to divide the proletariat into?

Against imperialist war revolutionaries oppose internationalism.

The working class has no country.

Two reactionary currents are opposed to each other

If the working class is to become ‘a class for itself’, it must start to answer these questions by affirming its own interests as a ‘a class for itself’.

The answer to this question is that the working class is against all imperialists wars.

The root of this question though do not lie in the discussion of the Iraq war. They lie in a different conceptions of history.

The question is whether capitalism is progressive or not today, and whether the working class should support more ‘progressive’ capitalist factions. This is the real issue here.

The differences between these two positions is not the discussion now, but both of them say that all factions of capitalism are equally reactionary today, and that their can be no support for imperialist war.

Is victory for the fundamentalist progressive? If so, in what way? If one believes that

It is no longer necessary to develop capitalism in order to create the conditions for the formation of the working class. The working class already exists

It is true that working class revolution is not on the immediate agenda in Iraq, but nor is it in America.

Do revolutionaries in the States then stop supporting the working class, and support ‘historically progressive’ factions of the bourgeoisie there too.

It is incorrect because it seeks to ally the working class with a ‘progressive’ faction of the bourgeoisie, and therefore is actively against any independent working class initiatives.

The position of revolutionaries during an imperialist war is against their own bourgeoisie, but that , however, does not mean allying oneself with the opposing bourgeoisie.

However, ‘Victory to the insurgency’ is an equally bad slogan. It doesn’t line the working class up alongside their fellow worker, but alongside reactionary gangs, which is what the resistance basically is.

The task in America is to fight against the imperialist war, but not by supporting the other side.

The propagation of an independent class position is essential, a plague on both their houses

Yes a defeat for the ‘allied’ forces would probably be good for the prospects of working class struggle in America, and while the working class should fight against ‘their own’ ruling class that does not mean supporting the opposing ruling class.

In what why are the feudal clan parties of the KDP, and the PUK more progressive than the centralized Iraqi state was?

If you support a Kurdish state, would you also support a Shiite state, Turcoman state, a Yezidi state, and an Assyrian state? Is it revolutionary to turn the entire Middle East into another Lebanon? How many rival ethnic groups would you like to divide the proletariat into?

Against imperialist war revolutionaries oppose internationalism.

The working class has no country.