Third Worldism

For some truly mental third worldism:

http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/criteria-for-fraternal-organizations/

I accuse third-worldists of Americanocentrism. They can only see things in terms of their position in America, which must be a special case (along with Europe). Anyway it is totally reactionary, they should be beaten to death. As for third worldists who actually live in the third world (if any exist, as opposed to Maoists), they are simply bourgeois nationalists.

Here's a text by Solidarity from the 70s which is pretty good: Third Worldism or Socialism

I know this guy who has a theory he made up to which he calls "revolutionary nationalism from an anarchist perspective". It's pretty much ethnic class collaboration and a fetishism of non-white and third world nationalist movements.

He told me we need to "racialize" class discourse, and the focus on "counter-hegemonic consciousness" and not "class consciousness". It's really leaves a distasteful taste in my mouth...

France 1968 is a fairly good argument..

I think anarchists and some leftists had always had a really hard time at understanding the national question.

You want to know why is so frequent the Nationalist deviations of revolutionaries in (or towards) the third world? Because the first world revolutionaries do not really practice internationalism.

The dominant conception of inter-nationalism is anti-nationalism. Is a total opposition to the national liberation, regardless of its class content and international relationships. And that is not what inter-nationalism is. Internationalism is the cooperation of people from different nations.

That's why the spanish CNT clash with the majority of anarchists in Canarias, because anarchists in Canarias cannot (they can't have the luxury of) separate proletarian revolution from national independence. They are both the same thing for them, because independence means self-determination, autonomy.

The social liberation of proletariat in one country is also a national liberation, because only by abolishing bourgeois nation can the proletariat self-manage their culture. The abolishing class exploitaiton do not means the abolishing of nations, but the abolishing of explotaition between nations.

Whoever thinks that a world human community can be achieved by the "I'm a citizen of the world" cosmopolitan (ergo, imperialist) crap, think again. This abstract internationalism has already done too much damage to worldwide revolutionary cooperation.

National liberation is like feminism. We are against bourgeois feminism, not against every feminism.

this is absolutely false.
nation is a bourgeois concept by definition, and it's sole justification is to facilitate class-cooperation and prevent revolutionary struggle.

I'm not a citizen of the world because only a nation grants citizenship as a means of dividing the workers living within its so-called "national borders". Get it?
There is nothing abstract about being an internationalist. The abstractness only comes in when you try to salvage a reactionary notion like "national struggle" from the jaws of its bourgeois creators.
Workers have no country, and that's that.

no, it's not. Women are beings that really exist. Nations are ideological bullshit.

this is fucking ridiculous.

Well, you can (with occasional exceptions) put people in one of two biological sexes. Genders are a different matter.

Sure, the example he was giving is erroneous because national liberation struggles aren't about getting rid of nationalities, but establishing new states on the basis of them. I wasn't sure whether you were making the point that 'men' and 'women' exist, but that, say, 'Germans' or 'Brazilians' don't hence the post above.

Saying that not all feminism has been about abolishing gender.

If you add "bourgeois" behind "national liberation movement" I agree with you.

---------------

Django, you need to find out about canarian anarchism before making such a silly remark. I already said canarian anarchists don't want their own State, they just don't separate national independence with social liberation (as nationalists and anti-nationalists do).

It's the CNT who has a nationalist stance there, because when they turn against independence of Canarias they are supporting spanish imperialism. That's why they are called "anarco-españolistas".

Please do a little research before you answer.

----------------

In general:

States can only provide real independence to bourgeois class and formal independence to the rest of the people. The real national independence for all the people can only be achieved by abolishing of the State and bourgeois nation.

You have to understand that I'm not promoving some sort of etapism (first class-colaboration with local bourgeois for national liberation, then "pure" proletarian revolution). I'm no nationalist (that is, I don't think my nation is the best of the world) nor class-colaborator and I will answer those calumnies with hate.

What I'm telling you is that proletarian revolution is the only way for a true national liberation of the proletariat. What I'm telling you is that inter-nationalism is not anti-nationalism.

Internationalism is not an ideological stance against the concept of nation. Internationalism is the practice of cooperation between people of different nations.

Abstract internationalism, that is the understanding of internationalism as an anti-nationalist (or even anti-nation ) ideology, was, is -and I reckon it will be for a while- an obstacle to the cooperation between proletarians of imperialist countries with the rest of the proletarians, who live in countries oppressed by imperialism (please tell me you acknowledge the existence of imperialism!).

If you don't practice true internationalism by fighting the imperialism of "your own" State, and you show indifference or even antagonism to the struggle against imperialism and colonialism (regardless of their social content and aims) then proletarians of third world countries will not abandon bourgeois or petit-bourgeois nationalism. And the saddest thing is that, when they do that, you'll say "I told you they were bourgeois nationalists!". The self-fulfilled prophecy.

National liberation can have a bourgeois content and aim (or "own" Nation-State, and such) of a proletarian content and aim (self-determination of the people in an economical, political, and cultural way). That's what I'm trying to explain.

Why did I say that national liberation is like gender liberation? Because gender liberation does not mean that the differences between men and women will be abolished, it means that the explotaition between them will be abolished.

Do you really think that in a post-capitalist world all human beens are going to be the same? Differences are not our enemy, alienation and explotaition is.

PS: I don't even know how to argue with the stance that nations do not exist! If we deny the existence of things that don't fit in our ideologies then what's the point of being a revolutionary? Let's just ideologically deny the existence of capitalism!

Which is even more bizarre, because it assumes that these people are somehow inherently (genetically?) 'Canarians', as opposed to living in a geo-political entity called the Canary Islands.

This is the typical 'with us or against us' stuff you get from nationalists - if you take a class line you are supporting imperialism. We hear it when we criticise Hamas, when we criticise the IRA, etc, and here it is again.

Here I'd ask you to do some research. You understand that there was no nationalism until the last few centuries? And that this is due to the development of a particular kind of class society, and the development of particular ideologies which were of use in reproducing that class society?

Yes, this is what is totally bizarre. Where do this nations come from? Are we born 'British' or 'Gambian' or 'Polish' or whatever, and does this determine us in such a fundamental way that we have to be forever divided into these groups and govern ourselves accordingly?

I don't think so. 'Nations' are narratives developed by states as they develop, which pretty much any reading of the history of nationalism will tell you.

Which again assumes that our division into 'nations' is natural and good. Internationalism is about worldwide class solidarity, not about 'the Spanish working class' and the 'Ghanian working class' or whatever respecting their inherent and permanent differences and jollying along anyway.

Except movements which were explicitly anti-nationalist have been few and far between, and the 'left' has been riddled with nationalism since the first international, it even formalised the demand for 'national-self determination' at the second.

So you can't show a succesful national liberation struggle then? I wonder why.

National liberation struggles aren't fought by some essential spirit of the nation, they are fought by real organisations with real aims and goals. And those aims and goals have been without exception opposed to class struggle, because a successful national liberation struggle requires that classes are united behind the national idea .You can see this throughout history, from the IRA breaking strikes in the 20s to Hamas breaking strikes in Gaza now. National solidarity has to be put before class solidarity, thats what nationalism is, even 'oppressed' nationalisms.

I should note that I've been giving real examples, your discussion has been pretty 'abstract'. 'Class content' - Wut?

Also, they're nationalist because left/anarchist/communist groups won't support their nationalism? Circular thinking much?

The point is obviously that the division of people into nations is not a timeless and inherent quality of human beings, its a relatively recent historical phenomenon and 'nations' as we currently understand them are a product of the development of capitalist social relations, as even a cursory look at history will show you. Though the fact that you compare nationalism to capitalism is useful, because they're mutually supportive and both need to be struggled against.

On Third-worldism: the struggles these last few years in Eygpt, Bangla-Desh and so on show the weight and tenacity of the working class internationally. The latter is a global class, globally exploited and with the same global interests. The idea that workers in the main metropoles have been integrated into capital was a feature of the betrayal of social democracy just into the last century and its falsity has been exposed dozens of times in the intervening decades in profound struggles (68 mentioned above) and not least in the USA at the moment, where millions of proletarians are being reduced to abject poverty.

On national liberation: there was a time when national liberation was in the interests of and supported by the working class. The formation of nations during the 1800s was a step forward for the defeat of reactionary forces and the coherence of capitalism. It was a major advance that brought the proletariat squarely onto the stage. There were fuzzy areas, the nascent proletariat was used and abused by the bourgeoisie but the development of the nation state clearly impulsed the development of capital and labour.

Then the world became too small and those nation states turned in on themselves, politically and militarily, to greater and greater degrees. This fight is one that the working class can't support - supporting factions of the bourgeoisie can only mean supporting the national interest, for a century directly contrary to the interests of the working class. Every national liberation struggle from the 1960s was entwined in the interests of one nation, or national bloc against the interests of the other. To call for workers to enlist and fight in any national liberation campaign is a betrayal of the class.

I see a lot of anger in the answers and very few thoughts.

You get mad because I say that indifference toward the fight against imperialism/colonialism results in a passive support of the latter.

Really, do you think there is a "third way" when it comes to be for or against any kind of oppression? If you don't help the oppressed (which doesn't mean to give up your autonomy), then you help the oppressor.

Here, I have an example that won't shock your anti-nationalist feelings: If I say that if you don't support working class struggle then you support bourgeois regime, am I being a 'with us or against us' zealot?

The problem is that you think differences (specially national differences) are inherently bad. You think that differences separates us. That's not correct (or that's only correct with class differences). What separates us is alienation, exploitation. What can unite us is not the abolition of our differences (which can only happen by uniformity), but our cooperation independently of our differences or even thanks to our differences.

To eliminate the exploitation between nations doesn't mean to eliminate the nations. That's just ridiculous. I know that nations are social construct, that they are historical. I say it for the last time: you're not talking to a nationalist. But historical constructs cannot be erased from one day to another. If nations are going to disappear one day, it will be by free will of the individuals of different nations, not because "nations are bad, nations are bourgeois, nations are shit".

Here, I'll show you where I get my "nationalist" position on the national question:

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm (italics are mine)

Now, do you get it?

So if a capitalist claims he is being 'oppressed' by increased state taxtion, or if a local government chief claims he is being 'oppressed' by funding cutbacks from the centre, anarchists spring to their defence? The point is that fighting against 'national oppression' has nothing to do with fighting against capitalism, but with reorganising it in a certain locale to the benefit of certain forces. Nations by definition can't be 'oppressed'.

This isn't to say that we don't oppose imperialism and war. The problem is that lots of leftists attempt to turn 'anti-war' sentiment in to a pro-war sentiment (for war as waged by the 'natives') or at least muddy the waters in such a way as to make confusion inevitable. This should be rejected. I oppose the war in afghanistan, and i oppose the war in Iraq. This doesn't mean I support Al-Quaeda or the Taliban. Militarised capitalism and 'national oppression' are two different things - if there were tanks on the streets here it wouldn't matter in my book whether they are British ones or part of a foreign occupying force, they would have to be responded to on a class basis.

This isn't an example, and isn't comparable. Classes are positions within a material economic structure. 'Nations' are imagined communities invented by states and their intellectuals as they develop. Classes have real material interests, nations have imagined 'national interests'.

No, thats not what I think. Read my posts again. What I'm saying is that nationalism is an ideology born out of the development of capitalism, and has a specific use, to create a myth of shared nationhood and unite classes behind it, replacing any real or potential class solidarity with national solidarity (hence the many examples of national liberation forces cracking down on working class actions, as they don't have a choice if they're going to succeed).

I haven't said there's anything wrong with 'difference' anwhere, and I think that variation in culture stands against nationalist fantasies anyway, firstly because it changes according to historical and economic pressures anyway regardless of borders, second because there's often as much variation within 'nations' as across them, and thirdly because national 'culture' changes so significantly over time that the idea of a continuous single 'nation' becomes absurd.

No, it will disappear because the material conditions which require and pertpetuate nationalism will disappear, for the same reason that belief in unity through the person of the Carolingian Emperor disappeared alongside the material conditions which made such an ideology necessary. If you are accepting that nations are produced by certain historical conditions, they you also have to accept that they are reliant on those historical conditions and not part of the essential makeup of people.

What, that you're as affected by 19th century assumptions about nations and nationalism as Marx could be? Yeah.

Also, we're not in the 19th century.

No, because you are talking about 'nations' oppressing each other. Nations are cross-class ideological communities where opposed material interests are brought together under an imagined 'national interest'. It is this 'national interest' which is being oppressed, and so a section of those 'oppressed' are every bit as bourgeois as capitalists or government functionaries. A look at pretty much any national liberation movement in history will tell you this.

It involves fighting against the militarism and war that capitalism necessarily entails, including the militarism and war of national liberation movements, who have been fully capable of launching brutal wars of their own - Vietnam being a case in point.

'Cultural', 'political' and 'economical self determination' are fantasies anyway, cultures have never 'self-determined', political self-determination for 'nations' is pure capitalist ideology, and economical self determination is impossible in a world capitalist market. But if you are talking about all of this in a stateless society it gets even more weird.

Fine, then please give a national liberation movement you deem worthy of support as an example. I'd be happy to discuss it.

You still haven't explained exactly what you think 'nations' are, where they come from, or how they come be oppressed.

Class is completely different because it is a material position within a mode of production. The working class aren't a 'nation' sharing some mysterious national essence in common, they are a class defined by their inability to live off anything but their ability to work for a wage. Likewise capitalists are defined by the fact that they primarily live off their capital.

Nations on the other hand just define themelves, they assume an arbitrary unity on the basis of some superficial shared attribute, like being born in one place of holding a passport there, or some national institution or even worse 'values' that bring together people with opposed material interests.

So my point is that these are completely different kind of things, my view that class exploitation does exist is based on the fact it can be defined in this way, 'national oppression' hasn't been yet.

Please define it then, as you haven't done so yet. And if this is a materialist analysis please explain why you think nations will continue to exist in a stateless, post-capitalist world and why they would have the 'right' to 'self-determine'.

Yes, the idea the 'nation' was solidified through the nationalist ideologies of the 19th century. By way of example, only 14% of 'Italians' spoke Italian on unification, and during the French revolution only 12% of French people spoke 'proper' French. 'Nations' in the modern sense are created in the course of capitalist modernisation, which has usually been accompanied by a nationalist idelogy to bind classes together, because prior to the erosion of local cultures by mass communication, national education, print capitalism etc cultures were often distinct from one nation to the next. Before the 18th century there were no 'nations' as you mean them, and no movements of 'national liberation' in the modern sense of creating independent states to wrap around specific national groups defined on linguistic, cultural or ethnic terms.

Please say where you think 'nations' come from if you disagree though.

No, I think that critiques of capitalism and class society are still valid and useful. The point isn't to hold up revolutionary celebrities and swallow their works whole, but to find what ideas have relevance and usefulness.