There is really not much to be said.
North korea, russia praise is destructive.
The critique of those regions is obviously not “pro west” as is evident to anyone with a cell in their skull.
It just wastes all time.
There is really not much to be said.
North korea, russia praise is destructive.
The critique of those regions is obviously not “pro west” as is evident to anyone with a cell in their skull.
It just wastes all time.
The statements in the last paragraph are reasonable, they are just truthful, they are not trying to divert effort towards dictatorship, just contextualise the world, it is easy to note the difference in my opinion
But what benefit does constant refutation have really, the individuals in leninist dominated regions are sufficiently supported by their support under the conception of the international proletariat, they are not intrinsically members of a nation and the support of that nation does not translate into their liberation.
That is what’s traditionally known as “The National Question” and it’s a lot more debatable and nuanced than you give it credit for.
Let’s take the example of Ireland, which was much discussed by various Marxists historically. The movement for Irish independence was not inherently socialist, and the resulting state was still a capitalist system. It was defined more along the lines of nationality than class. However, under the existing system, Ireland had been horribly exploited and abused by the English, and so, this raises the question of whether socialists ought to lend support to such a movement, even though it is not ideologically pure. This is, of course, not something that is specific to Ireland.
Practically speaking, many struggles for independence have historically been more national in character. Frantz Fanon, for instance, was one Marxist who argued strongly for supporting such national liberation movements, observing that oppressed cultures can be stifled in psychological and cultural development because all they can think of is to be free of foreign control. Furthermore, the disparity between the rich and the poor of a colonized country may be less than that of the disparity between colonizer and colonized, and therefore an alliance along class lines can be permissible. Only after removing the pressing outside problem does internal class conflict emerge (and with it class consciousness), and until then it is unreasonable to expect the proletariat of a colonized country to recognize common cause with the proletariat of a colonizing country, especially if said proletariat does not emphatically support decolonization.
In general, this idea that “everyone is included under the conception of the international proletariat” moves away from practical, materialist questions and towards abstract, idealist principles. The national question is very much a relevant and important question in the modern day. Yes, we can all say, “I support the liberation of the Iranian proletariat just like the proletariat of every country” but one person might “support Iranian liberation” through bombing the shit out of them, while another might support leaving them alone and letting them deal with their government on their own, in their own time.
Eventually and ideally, socialists are broadly agreed that in time national distinctions will fade away and become unimportant and irrelevant. However, this must be done voluntarily. If the oppressed are expected to give up their cultural or national identities in order to receive support from socialists in oppressor countries, than this expectation is, and will be seen as, just another foreign imposition.
( the above comment was edited by “OBJECTION!” and mine was a response to the original)
the national identity is their tie to their local oppressors, they are not close to it one bit There is nuance in many things, even dead ends
That’s not always true. There are plenty of cases where a “wealthy” person from a colonized country is able to get an education, which they then returned with committed to liberation. If you actually look into the histories of former colonies, you will often find such figures. Like I said, in colonized countries, the “rich” may be not so different from the poor, and that difference pales in comparison to the gap between them and the colonizers. In any case, trying to impose the same framework to every country regardless of the actual material conditions doesn’t really make sense.
If Irish independence should not have been supported on the basis that it was a national movement, and therefore only tied the Irish to their Irish oppressors, if decolonization of India was pointless because it only left Indians under the thumb of Indian oppressors, then does the same logic not apply to cases like Ukraine? If Ukraine wins the war and remains independent from Russia, then will the war have been pointless because it was a nationalist effort rather than an internal class war, and only leaves Ukrainians under the thumb of Ukrainian bourgeoisie instead of Russian bourgeoisie?
Just because the nationalists claim working class aesthetics, it doesnt change anything, this hypothetical educated individual is capable of betraying the working class with nationalist politics, and to say that applying the same brush to different regions is naive is just to provide room for the true naive statement that those “unreported” regions are better suited for nationalism.
And you assumed my position on ukraine without asking, or in fact the general anarchist stance. Anarchists do not support ukranian nationalism despite the common desire between anarchists to prefer to support individuals in the ukranian nationalist supported region.
But it is not always true, and I hope that anarchists develop ties across the nationalist drawn borders. There are clearly wonderful people squandered in the russian region. Please do not mistake the brave individuals in organisations such as “solidarity collectives” for idiots rather than people forced by the ukranian nationalists into allying with the ukranian nationalists under their circumstance. In any case they clearly try to maintain seperation if you follow their efforts and if you would analyse the situation outside of a big money news corp line, it is clear that the choice to shoot and bomb the incoming soldiers is sensical, despite their class interest.
That then does not make those people nationalists, and people in less stressed theoretical circumstance absolutely should not propose nationalism in their name. And I do not like your line of singling out ukraine to this as to slyly construct a racist strawman.
Well maybe they could be less attached to their homes and move, or rally elsewhere and return, but it is not silly to be attached to a loved environment.
Anyone is capable of betraying the working class. Also this isn’t a “hypothetical” individual, examples inclide Ho Chi Minh, Sun Yat Sen, Thomas Sankara, etc. In my opinion, nationalism does indeed have a different character in undeveloped, colonized countries than it does in developed, oppressor countries, because there are legitimate aspects of national development that are important to undergo. Once those things have been accomplished, nationalism becomes nothing but chauvanism.
I, in fact, asked, “does the same logic not apply to cases like Ukraine?”
Huh. So what you’re saying is that it’s sensical to lend support to a common cause of repelling foreign occupation, rather than, or at least before, engaging in internal class conflict.
This flies completely in the face of your dismissive and oversimplified approach to the National Question, which is precisely why I brought this question up. It seems then, that in Ireland, it could by the same logic be reasonable for Irish socialists to have focused on repelling English occupation, in India, for Indian socialists to have focused on the same, etc. Of course, this is not necessarily the case in every circumstance, but this demonstrates very clearly that the topic is complex and deserves critical examination.
If an Irish socialist lends support to an Irish nationalist movement for the sake of repelling the English, does that make them an Irish nationalist? The distinction seems somewhat semantic. I have no problem saying that one should only “lend support” to national movements (in some situations), rather than “being a nationalist” if you’re allowing that distinction.
I have literally no idea what on earth you’re talking about. What strawman? What racism? This accusation is a complete non sequitor.
I don’t recall saying that it was. Nor do I recall calling anyone an “idiot” for that matter. You seem to be reading a lot into what I said that isn’t really there.