National resistance

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
May 18 2007 08:20
National resistance

I have started this on a new thread as I think it is impossible to discuss things on the other:

Quote:
Look, in Palestine, Chechnya, Lebanon Haiti and Iraq, and many other places, it is not an abstract question. International capitalism is in your face with tanks and humvees and bombers, setting up roadblocks, "searching" homes, detaining thousands, commiting massacres, etc.

Of course it is not an abstract question. In the war in the South-East of Turkey nearly 40,000 people have been killed now, around 3,000* villages have been destroyed, and around 400,000* displaced. We are quite aware of the realities of the situation.

Quote:
Unless you accept the imperialist propaganda that this is just a response to terrorism, it is circuimstances revolutionaries have to confront. If the Israeli airstrikes only took out the Lebanese bourgoisie there wouldnt be a problem. But of course this is not reality. These are the major circuimstances that bring workers, peasants and youth to join forces attempting to defend or repel these attacks.

No, we don't accept the imperialist propaganda that this is just a response to terrorism. It is a strange leap though to go from their to support of national liberation struggles though. There seem to be no questions asked here about the class nature of the nationalist movements. Just a huge leap from they are opposed to the big imperialist powers to we should support them. I think that the first question that you should be asking is whether it is in the interests of 'workers, peasants and youth' to die fighting against the Israeli state, and if not whose interests are they dying in.

Quote:
I read that some lebanese anarchists went down to southern lebanon to assist the resistance to the attacks. In my opinion, with very limited information, they were absolutely correct to do so. Just like joining a picket line, putting the boot to the fash, defending a womens clinic.

Well, some of the Lebanese anarchists are very confused. I remember Joe Black saying that they were having an argument on Anarkismo about whether to support the March 14th Movement, or the Hezbollah backed opposition. Supporting a war of national defence is not the same as supporting a workers' picket line. Again you have to ask yourself whose class interests are they supporting here.

Quote:
This is not the same in any way as supporting Hezbollahs politics, strategy, etc. I am frustrated that comrades cannot see the difference. No where does Wayne defend lobbing missles into Israeli civilian communities. I am positive he would condemn these tactics as not only antiworking-class, and anti-internationalist, but as counter productive to the project of ousting the israeli occupation and repeling the attacks on the lebanese poor.

This is exactly supporting Hezbollah’s strategy, which is to be a broad coalition of national resistance forces. The myth of critical support is exactly that, a myth. It doesn't mean that it is supporting every demand in the Hezbollah programme, but I don't think that this is their primary objective. Nobody has said that Wayne Price is actually arguing for firing rockets at Israel. What has been said is that the movement that he supports is firing rockets at Israel. Again it comes down to this myth that you can give critical, but not political support to these groups. You can't pick and choose between 'good' national resistance, and 'bad' national resistance. If you support it, you support it. The alternative, however difficult is class politics.

Quote:
Why would militant opposition to imperialist attack and occupation neccesarily mean acceptance of "native" capitalism and the state?

Why would voting to keep Bush out necessarily mean acceptance of the Democrats? The war in being fought by the Lebanese resistance is to defend native capitalism, and the state.

The national liberation movements in the Middle East are dragging the working class deeper, and deeper into a spiral of national/ethnic/sectarian war. That is why the communists oppose the nationalist movements, and argue for class politics. Not because it is an abstract question, but in fact because the issues of nationalism, and war are probably the most important issues confronting the working class in the region today.

Devrim

*These figures are quite old. They could well be much higher today.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
May 19 2007 16:04
Devrim wrote:
That is why the communists oppose the nationalist movements, and argue for class politics. Not because it is an abstract question, but in fact because the issues of nationalism, and war are probably the most important issues confronting the working class in the region today.

This is good.

But how do you convince people to sacrifice a short-term defensive orientation for a class orientation that in certain respects is more abstract, or at least might not reap gains in our lifetimes? When one set of "workers, peasants and youth" actually does have access to more power and resources than the "workers, peasants and youth" they are attacking, how do you convince the latter set that they don't?

tojiah wrote:
MJ wrote:
... and borders between "richer" and "poorer" countries tend to be a bit more built up than ones between more roughly equivalent ones, no?

I just don't see the value in going on about how capital divides the working class but avoiding the fact that it mostly divides the working class by stratifying it. This complaint is directed more against the left-communists in this thread than against you.

It certainly leaves the field clear for nationalists of all stripes. That's a big failing of theirs, it seems to me. Chanting "internationalism!" is not enough of an exorcism.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for right-opportunism here. I agree that these stratifications within the class are nothing compared to our class antagonism with the bourgeoisie, and I agree that we need to convince people of the truth of this. But if your political language implies to people that they are simply imagining that they are defending themselves against more privileged aggressors -- because those aggressors aren't themselves capitalists -- and that they should therefore abandon their positions, cede more power to those aggressors, and flee until they have an opportunity to actually unite with them on a class basis, they would be stupid to believe you. So how is this explained? If we don't have a good explanation, our politics will have to get in line behind nationalism, liberalism, M-L-M, and fascism, in terms of their appeal to those people from the most oppressed strata of the class who seek to educate themselves about their struggle.

(These questions aren't in my mind because of wars in the Middle East, but because of the ongoing class struggle across the Western Hemisphere.)

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
May 19 2007 19:18
MJ wrote:
And don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for right-opportunism here. I agree that these stratifications within the class are nothing compared to our class antagonism with the bourgeoisie, and I agree that we need to convince people of the truth of this. But if your political language implies to people that they are simply imagining that they are defending themselves against more privileged aggressors -- because those aggressors aren't themselves capitalists -- and that they should therefore abandon their positions, cede more power to those aggressors, and flee until they have an opportunity to actually unite with them on a class basis, they would be stupid to believe you. So how is this explained? If we don't have a good explanation, our politics will have to get in line behind nationalism, liberalism, M-L-M, and fascism, in terms of their appeal to those people from the most oppressed strata of the class who seek to educate themselves about their struggle.

(These questions aren't in my mind because of wars in the Middle East, but because of the ongoing class struggle across the Western Hemisphere.)

Obviously it's not enough to just finger wag and recite the internationalist position at people, that's a complete waste of time and always counterproductive, but that doesn't mean you have to throw your support behind whatever group of anti-working class nationalists happen to have the shittiest weapons.*

You can't just tell the Palestinians that the IDF soldier pointing a gun at him is a worker too and just as oppressed and exploited (even if it is true, in a sense) but you also can't just tell Israelis who are under genuine threat from suicide bombers or rocket attacks that it's their own fault for living in an oppressor nation.

*I'm not suggesting that this is what you're doing, mind.

Kdog's picture
Kdog
Offline
Joined: 13-12-06
May 19 2007 22:07
Quote:
Of course it is not an abstract question. In the war in the South-East of Turkey nearly 40,000 people have been killed now, around 3,000* villages have been destroyed, and around 400,000* displaced. We are quite aware of the realities of the situation

I found this to be an interesting statement. I am curious if your organization's press describes the war territory as "South-East Turkey" and whether you have confronted the idea that doing so might be a symptom of big-nation nationalism? I would hope your press upholds the disolution of the Turkish state (as well as the Greek, Russian, German, Iraqi, and proto-Kurdish state, etc.) and are not just waiting for calmer times.

You state 3,000+ villages of "South-East Turkey" have beeen destroyed, yet people there are wrong to resist the destruction? You say you are aware of the situation, but that is not really enough, is it comrade? What are workers and farmers in villages facing scorched earth supposed to do? internationalist appeals to the attacking troops would be a good and important tactic, (just as making class appeals to potential scabs are) but whats the back-up plan?

You say you do not accept the imperialist propaganda that this is just a response to terrorism yet look at what you say here:

Quote:
I think that the first question that you should be asking is whether it is in the interests of 'workers, peasants and youth' to die fighting against the Israeli state, and if not whose interests are they dying in.

as if the vast majority of those Lebanese andf Palestinians killed by Israel had made a choice to die, or been pushed to die by national liberation movements. Really, comrade, can't you see how this smacks of big-nation nationalism?
It seems to be your position that until the working-classes of Lebanon or Palestine or "South-Eastern Turkey" have built libertarian communism they have no business defending themselves?

I don't believe a difference in an analysis of the various nationalist, stalinist, islamist organizations dominant in the various national liberation movements is at the root of our debate. Like you, I believe Hezzbollah, the PKK, the FARC etc. are pro-capitalist operations. I do not believe it is in the class interests of workers, peasants, wwomen, youth, etc. to join or follow these groups.

But I do believe the reality of national oppression (not just some mass nationalist hysteria) means that revolutionaries have to confront that oppression. There are material reasons why workers join national liberation fronts. If libertarian revolutionaries do not confront it, then the middle-class or pro-capitalist politics of the nationalists, marxists and mullahs will go unchallenged. (Or to be more precise will not be challenged in an organized coherant way).

Again, to ground this discussion in something rea, from my part of the world. How about Malcolm X? An open Black Nationalist. From your line of argumentation, I would assume that you regard him and his organizing as just as problematic for the working-class as that of the KKK or George Lincoln Rockwell. This is insane, but I can not see how you could argue any different.

And that you would condemn Robert Williams the left-wing black nationalist worker who organized an Armed predominantly working-class chapter of the liberal-integrationist NAACP to use arms to resist white racist invasions of the black community in North Carolina. Again this would be consistent with your line of argumentation.

Since I dont believe you are stupid, insane, or racist please explain to me how you would confront these situations differently than I imagine?

more later.

solidarity,

K.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 19 2007 22:26
Quote:
national oppression

sorry. what is this?

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 19 2007 22:30
Quote:
This is insane, but I can not see how you could argue any different

you mean the kernel of black nationalism, the part of his politics which is black nationalism being just as problematic as a kernel of white nationalism? Not that the movement associated with Malcom X is as bad as the KKK. Surely?

Too apolitical?

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
May 20 2007 00:00
Kdog wrote:
Quote:
Of course it is not an abstract question. In the war in the South-East of Turkey nearly 40,000 people have been killed now, around 3,000* villages have been destroyed, and around 400,000* displaced. We are quite aware of the realities of the situation

I found this to be an interesting statement. I am curious if your organization's press describes the war territory as "South-East Turkey" and whether you have confronted the idea that doing so might be a symptom of big-nation nationalism? I would hope your press upholds the disolution of the Turkish state (as well as the Greek, Russian, German, Iraqi, and proto-Kurdish state, etc.) and are not just waiting for calmer times.

I would hypothesise that since the rest of the world outside of Kurdish nationalists call it south east Turkey, so would Devrim. Although it isn't perfect, to call it Kurdistan would be far more of a political statement. It would hopefully be apparent that his organisation opposes the nation-state, regardless of semantics.

I think you make a good point when you ask:

Quote:
You state 3,000+ villages of "South-East Turkey" have beeen destroyed, yet people there are wrong to resist the destruction? You say you are aware of the situation, but that is not really enough, is it comrade? What are workers and farmers in villages facing scorched earth supposed to do?

I remember around the time of the Iraqi invasion, i was involved in countless debates with friends, family, acquaintances, fellow students etc. What surprised me was the number of people saying "Well if US tanks rolled down my street I'd resist them in a flash." In reality, I think I probably would too, as would most people on my street regardless of their thoughts on internationalism. I think this is a problem with left communism's refusal to grant agency to the working class, and the refusal to orientate their politics around its immediate needs. Defending your family and possessions against tanks is as reasonable as defending your job (if not more so). In such times, talk of "working class interests" rings especially hollow in its irony.

Of course the problem is national liberation movements using the desperation of those doing just that as a negotiating tool, a bargaining chip. I dunno, I'd like to hear people's views on this. I remember Belfast spending a good 10 pages or so defending his support of the movement to eradicate the Israeli-Palestinian wall, on the grounds of class struggle being nearly impossible while it stood. I'm not sure I'd agree with that per se, but I welcome his attempts to actually engage with the Palestine crisis. The left communist seems as arrogant and distant as the Trots who cheerlead national liberationists - the other side of the binary.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 20 2007 00:48
Quote:
the other side of the binary
Quote:
Of course the problem is national liberation movements using the desperation of those doing just that as a negotiating tool, a bargaining chip.

Yes Alan, that may be true. But this is how Bordiga makes me feel:

That's gotta be worth something confused

Besides which you haven't really said what bargaining national liberation movements are involved with, which is annoyinng for n00bs like myself.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 20 2007 00:51

Of course the reasonable thing to take from your post Alan, is to question whether the leftcoms do actually maintain that no-one resist the slaughter of their families? Do they?

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
May 20 2007 01:01
lem wrote:
Quote:
the other side of the binary
Quote:
Of course the problem is national liberation movements using the desperation of those doing just that as a negotiating tool, a bargaining chip.

Yes Alan, that may be true. But this is how Bordiga makes me feel:

That's between you and your pillow.

Quote:
Besides which you haven't really said what bargaining national liberation movements are involved with, which is annoyinng for n00bs like myself.

Well it helps if you look at international relations as a neverending stream of cockwaving, in which artillery, popularity and bombs are phallic objects.

And whether or not left communists tell people to defend their homes in the event of invasion, it is the logical extension of their "internationalism or death" line.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 20 2007 01:03

You can't just say "it's the logical extension blah blah blah". You should allow people a nuanced position on such intricacies.
Do you mean bargaining for inverstment of capital? 'Money', if you will.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 20 2007 01:05

Anyway, emotions are important. It's not as if there is some blueprint about how to work out progressive strategies. If there is, no one told me about it.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
May 20 2007 01:12
lem wrote:
You can't just say "it's the logical extension blah blah blah". You should allow people a nuanced position on such intricacies.

It's left communism for fuck's sake! Nuance doesn't come into it! Every position (as you can see on the interventions thread) is methodically worked out and then stuck to like a limpet to superglue as part of a grand narrative. That's kinda its point.

Quote:
Do you mean bargaining for inverstment of capital? 'Money', if you will.

Well yes but more political power. National liberationist politicians actually tend to gain out of tragedies happening within their group/identity. It adds weight to the "martyr" status they've appointed themselves. Hence when Israel snaps at Hezbollah firing rockets over the border and sends the tanks in, Hezbollah gains the sympathy vote and then in a PR stunt that would probably make Alistair Campbell exit his load, do all the reconstruction work for free.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 20 2007 01:38

i don't quite follow your reasoning.

the fact that they are very methodological, doesn't that mean that they only reach those logical conclusions if they do.

i mean, either they do think no defense of your family's slaughter, or they do not. Being methodological isn't gonna effect that eother way. unless they conclude that. in which case they've concluded that and i hope they would say so.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
May 20 2007 03:11

Defend your life, if you can, and your house too. That's not the same as a political organisation taking a political stance that equates this with the illusion of national liberation. As if one's "own" nation can't roll tanks down your street.

This is not a choice between trying to stay alive and being an internationalist. During imperialist wars, internationalists sometimes find themselves drafted into armies, or forced to do what they can to live. Marc Chiric was in the French army in WW2. There were thousands of Bolsheviks in the Tsar's army in WW1. However, left communist groups in WW2 and the Bolsheviks in WW1 always maintained an internationalist stance. Individual Bolsheviks in the trenches still did what they could to agitate amongst the troops.

Internationalism cannot be limited to what individuals do in difficult conditions. However when parties take a stance, sometimes shit happens. Look at the Bolsheviks.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 20 2007 03:19

so you're saying that members must have some freedom from the party line? or that the party line is that it's ok for individuals to protect their families. i'm not sure that that is a very imprtant distinction.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
May 20 2007 03:41

The party Line?

I'll repeat this. There were thousands of Bolsheviks drafted into the Czar's army. They bayoneted German proles in uniform, and they agitated against the war.

Nuanced enough for Y'all?

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 20 2007 03:45

well, you've lost me. but i guess it wasn't to me tbh.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 20 2007 03:55

btw you stupid communists. 'nuanced' doesn't mean secret!

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 20 2007 06:48
alibadani wrote:
Defend your life, if you can, and your house too. That's not the same as a political organisation taking a political stance that equates this with the illusion of national liberation. As if one's "own" nation can't roll tanks down your street.

yeah i think that's important. i always make the point that a militarisation of our 'own' ruling class should be resisted every bit as much as a foreign one, which kinda illustrates there's no inherent 'national' content to not wanting to get blown up, and so referring to such activities as 'grassroots national liberation' makes about as much sense as describing the spanish revolution as a national liberation movement. i mean if there was a military coup in the UK (blair can't bear to hand over to brown afterall perhaps ... tongue) i'd hope people in my street would be out in the streets every bit as much as if the soldiers spoke another language (to the the extent they were less so would reflect the grip of nationalist ideology i guess).

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
May 20 2007 07:32
Joseph K. wrote:
alibadani wrote:
Defend your life, if you can, and your house too. That's not the same as a political organisation taking a political stance that equates this with the illusion of national liberation. As if one's "own" nation can't roll tanks down your street.

yeah i think that's important. i always make the point that a militarisation of our 'own' ruling class should be resisted every bit as much as a foreign one, which kinda illustrates there's no inherent 'national' content to not wanting to get blown up, and so referring to such activities as 'grassroots national liberation' makes about as much sense as describing the spanish revolution as a national liberation movement. i mean if there was a military coup in the UK (blair can't bear to hand over to brown afterall perhaps ... tongue) i'd hope people in my street would be out in the streets every bit as much as if the soldiers spoke another language (to the the extent they were less so would reflect the grip of nationalist ideology i guess).

I don't agree with Ali Badani about everything, but this bit i surely do.

If i'd been in lebanon, i would have been doing everything i could to keep myself, my family, my firends alive. The last thing i would have done is voluntarily fought for, or alongside, hezbollah.

Now if it came down to a soldier trying to get into my hosue, that's another thing... but how the fuck do proletarians struggle against bombers? they don't...

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
May 20 2007 08:22
Kdog wrote:
I found this to be an interesting statement. I am curious if your organization's press describes the war territory as "South-East Turkey" and whether you have confronted the idea that doing so might be a symptom of big-nation nationalism?

Generally, we refer to the area as "the South East" in our press. I wrote Turkey as people may not be familiar with our organisation, or where it is based. The alternative seems to me to write North West Kurdistan, which has two disadvantages. First, when writing in for an international audience, it is a term which may be unclear, and secondly it is a term which implies acceptence of the political positions of the Kurdish nationalists, and particulary the PKK. The term 'Kurdistan' as a georgaphical entity is also unclear as it refers to an area, which covers the territory of five states. The term I would use in Turkish, as would most of the population of Turkey, would be 'Güneydoğu Anadolu', 'South East Anatolia'.

I am not sure what you are suggesting by saying that this 'might be a symptom of big-nation nationalism'. It either suggest that we have an openly nationalist agenda, which we don't. Our position on this is quite clear:

EKS wrote:
It is very clear that Kurds in Turkey have been subjected to terrible oppression at the hands of the State. I remember talking to a comrade from Halabja in Iraq. She had been bombed with chemical weapons, seen half of her family die, been temporarily blinded, and lived in a tent in a refuge camp in Iran for two years. When I asked her why she had refused our invitation to come to Turkey, she replied that they really treat Kurds badly there. In the war, which has been raging in the South East since 1984, over 36,000 have been killed, 3,000 Kurdish villages have been destroyed, and nearly 400,000 people have been displaced.

I don't think that this is in anyway a Turkish nationalist line. On a personal level last year, I was threatend with a prosecution under article 301 of the criminal code for 'insulting Turkishness'.

The second possibility is that you are suggesting that we are sub consciously influenced by 'our latent Turkish nationalism'. I have actually pointed this out before on here, but in our organisation we have more Kurds than 'White Turks'. In fact, the majority of our membership comes from ethnic groups who are wagging, or have in the pars wagged, national liberation struggles. So, I don't think it is down to any sort of 'latent nationalism'.

What I would say about it is that it seems to me that this whole idea of 'big-nation nationalism' is one that is used by leftists to attack any critisism of national liberation movements. I am not saying that you are conciously using it like this, but to me it comes across as a slur, and nothing else.

I am a bit busy today, and will come back to the other points later.

Devrim

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
May 20 2007 18:02
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
I remember around the time of the Iraqi invasion, i was involved in countless debates with friends, family, acquaintances, fellow students etc. What surprised me was the number of people saying "Well if US tanks rolled down my street I'd resist them in a flash." In reality, I think I probably would too, as would most people on my street regardless of their thoughts on internationalism.

I don't know. In practice, when faced with police/military violence, I take as much of a stand as I dare, then get the fuck out of the way when it gets too hot. If people broke into my house with guns, I'd probably do the same. Why would I risk my life for the little property that I have here, or for an apartment that I'm only renting? (I'd fight to the death for my books, though.)

People who have their own villages to defend are probably not completely proletarized, though, or at least retain the consciousness of an anachronistic peasant class, which is probably the most significant issue here.

There's no bravery involved in defending your landlord's property, which is where a "pure" proletarian lives.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
May 20 2007 21:41
tojiah wrote:
(I'd fight to the death for my books, though.)

I agree with that.
The average person, whatever they say, would not fight if American tanks rolled down the streets.

Quote:
Hence when Israel snaps at Hezbollah firing rockets over the border and sends the tanks in, Hezbollah gains the sympathy vote and then in a PR stunt that would probably make Alistair Campbell exit his load, do all the reconstruction work for free.

Israel did not snap, it had been waiting to do that for a while. I think that they did not expect the Hezbollah attack that triggered it but I'm sure they were thankful of the opportunity nonetheless.

Turkey is the country that exists, therefore it makes sense to refer to the area as south eastern Turkey.

Quote:
I'll repeat this. There were thousands of Bolsheviks drafted into the Czar's army. They bayoneted German proles in uniform, and they agitated against the war.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There is a difference between a conscript and a volunteer.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
May 20 2007 21:54
jef costello wrote:
tojiah wrote:
(I'd fight to the death for my books, though.)

I agree with that.
The average person, whatever they say, would not fight if American tanks rolled down the streets.

By the time the tanks were rolling down the street, you'd already have had a few days of shock and awe aerial bombardment, so probably not much house left to defend I reckon.

Kdog's picture
Kdog
Offline
Joined: 13-12-06
May 21 2007 02:10

I don't think this should be reduced to an individual ethical decision to defend ones home and family. If even this is a dilemma for some people, I'd recomend a new hobby.

The question is what we do collectively, what we organize for, what we urge others to do (even at some risk to them and ourselves)?

I believe that people facing national oppression, ie particular forms of oppression and heightened exploitation directed at particular ethnicities/cultures/nationalities will tend to organize or be organized to resist along these lines. There is a problem in that this will include the capitalist class (or petty bourgeois) within those groups who seek only to establish a new "normal" nation, who will oppose more radical approaches that confront not only imperialism, but capitalism, patriarchy and the state as well.

Well how do we face this dilemma? The advice of the Left Communists seems to be that you wash your hands, stay away, don't pollute yourself with struggles that are not "pure". This will surely avoid mistakes like giving support to the projects of the ambitious new Nationalist bourgeoisie. This is a real danger, and it is important to be clear about this danger. Many "anarchists" I have known have been incredibly soft on every kind of nationalist, reformist, stalinist, etc. group mainly as a gut reaction to US imperialist propaganda etc.

But what is even more dangerous, is that like the Left Communists, anarchists will abandon any struggle that is not libertarian communist from inception, one that contains contradictions and inner-class struggle. Instead of resisting imperialism and the authoritarian leadership and tendencies of the nationalists, anarchists will retreat to the safety of the "pure" millieu of abstraction.

I am for anarchists fighting in national liberation movements because I am against imperialism and national oppression, and I know that the nationalist, marxist, and islamist organizations will not fight to overthrow the system at the root of the problem, even as many of their members and base come into conflict with it.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
May 21 2007 02:33
Quote:
Well how do we face this dilemma? The advice of the Left Communists seems to be that you wash your hands, stay away, don't pollute yourself with struggles that are not "pure". This will surely avoid mistakes like giving support to the projects of the ambitious new Nationalist bourgeoisie. This is a real danger, and it is important to be clear about this danger. Many "anarchists" I have known have been incredibly soft on every kind of nationalist, reformist, stalinist, etc. group mainly as a gut reaction to US imperialist propaganda etc.

But what is even more dangerous, is that like the Left Communists, anarchists will abandon any struggle that is not libertarian communist from inception, one that contains contradictions and inner-class struggle. Instead of resisting imperialism and the authoritarian leadership and tendencies of the nationalists, anarchists will retreat to the safety of the "pure" millieu of abstraction.

Speaking for myself I'd say that no struggle is "pure" - but there are grounds on which the working class can fight, and grounds on which it can't (at least not as a class-for-itself). Strikes, rent strikes, movements against police brutality and prisons, etc. are areas where the working class can fight for itself - armed struggle is not (at least not unless defending a "liberated zone", and I'm not really sure even then, especially considering the technology that the ruling class has available).

Kdog's picture
Kdog
Offline
Joined: 13-12-06
May 21 2007 02:43

I very much appreciate MJ & Alan's comments (tho they might not like mine).

Devrim suggests I am making slurs against he and his group, possibly "unconciously" wink . I am not. While it would be very easy for me to be insulted by some of his arguments, I am raising serious issues that should be addressed.

I do think it is telling that Devrim sees big-nation nationalism primarily as a ephithet used against Left-Communists. While he is correct in seeing the dangers of falling into support of one or another nationalist group (possibly from guilt or unclear politics) he apparently sees no danger of a proimperialism within the left (from unclear politics, big nation nationalism or racism). This is a big difference.

At the end of the previous thread on National Liberation, Devrim demands a one-word yes or no answer to his question on National Liberation ("Do you support armed resistance to an Israeli invasion of Lebanon?"). This was a really clarifying question for me, so I'd like to return the question, but based on circuimstances closer to my part of the world:

Do you support the left-wing Black nationalist Robert Williams group armed resistance to white racist invasions of the Black community in North Carolina?

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
May 21 2007 04:24
Quote:
I do think it is telling that Devrim sees big-nation nationalism primarily as a ephithet used against Left-Communists.

NB, this is probably, at least partially, because the only time that that term has been used on these boards was Joe_Black2 accusing all the Left Communists, as well as anarchists and anyone else who didn't support national liberation movements, of being "big-nation nationalists". So there is a context for Devrim asking if that's how you intended it

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
May 21 2007 04:38

oh so now Joe Black was the one that said "A distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation"?

just when i thought you couldn't possibly demonstrate a more thorough education in radical political history you outdo yourself.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
May 21 2007 04:46

revol68 do you think fascism is the socialism of proletarian nations? y/n