why are identity politics for race and sexuality/sex treated differently by so many anarchists?

We're talking about 'progressive' left-nationalism as 'nationalism' in this thread, because we're asking why anarchists don't support it. Unless the base level of the discussion on libcom is so low we are now talking about how we orientate towards the nationalism of the Nazis

So of the examples you give - Gandhi, the Nazis and the Black Panthers. It arguably only applies to India, unless at a stretch you want to classify the Black Panthers as a left-nationalist group, which I don't think is outright apparent.

India is actually a very good example. See Neil Gray's first part of two pieces, which actually talks about the abuse of identity politics, particularly the Bakri-Id cow festival to turn muslims and hindus into competing socio-political units. Ground which was already laid down by the colonial state and utilised by a rising propertied class for its own ends.

Again, the argument is how we would orientate, in such a scenario like pre1947 India? I think its erroneous we could play a positive role by trailing the rising bourgeoisie (in its nationalist or communalist form), there are clear chauvinisms abound in the process and the end result of this particular struggle.

On the contrary, Auld-bod, I think both the narrower issue of defining 'nation' and the wider issue of 'defining abstract concepts' is extremely important.

We can't have just anyone, down to single individuals, defining words and concepts in any way that they like. That way leads to confusion and an inability to discuss anything in a way that leads to political action. In fact, it's post-modernism gone mad!

You say 'If a Native American wishes to describe their group as a nation' - but native American tribes are not nations, in any historical sense at all.

If we allow any 'group' to be defined as a 'nation', that means we are going down the bourgeois road of accepting the meaning of 'nation' as 'any cultural community'. Then, we're fucked, because throughout human history there have been 'cultural communities' and if we accept any can be described as 'nations' then we are accepting the bourgeois argument that 'nations' are an eternal fixture of human society. This is, not only historical nonsense, but politically dangerous now.

We have to locate the meaning of 'nation' in an historical context, and that context is the rise of the bourgeois class within about the last 300 years. 'Nation' is a bluster to confuse a dominated class that they have something in common with their exploiters. 'Nation' is not a cultural community, which is what the bourgeoisie maintains, in its attempt to hide reality, but a recent ideological mystification by a ruling class. 'Nation' now is used in a similar way to which 'religion' was used in Feudal times. They are both a way of binding together opposed classes, the better to exploit the unwary.

We might as well say that 'custard' is 'dynamite', if we follow this logic, mate!

Or, indeed, that 'nation' is 'community'.

I'm not a 'European', I'm a 'proletarian' and a 'Communist'.

And as an historian, trying to understand history from that vantage point, I can state quite categorically that native Americans are not a 'nation'. I'd expect Communist proletarians from a native American background to agree with me, if they study history.

The use of 'nation' in this case is anachronistic - indigenous American tribes did not have a bourgeoisie trying to build markets, on the back of an exploited proletariat. They lived in very different societies to our modern world. They lived in tribes, not nations.

And if we say 'tribes are nations', we might as well say 'work makes you free'.

LBird, did you bother to read my contribution to the ‘freedom’ discussion - because I think you are making up an imaginary ‘Aunt Sally’ to pillory.

The meaning of a word is relative to the context in which it is used, not simply its historical meaning. This is the cause of major disagreements because some people think they can unilaterally decide what someone else means. (If I get high; it may not mean I’m wearing platform heels!)

I am sure you are a communist though your notion of history is in my opinion rather euro-centric. I say this as your idea that Native Americans live/d in very different societies to our ‘modern world’ is an example of an anthropological perception/observation that the further away someone lives the further back in time they are presumed to inhabit. The Japanese used to refer to Americans as throw-backs - ‘big hairy apes’, etc.

We all live in the same time frame, we have simply evolved differently, and no one is more ‘modern’ than anyone else.

Yours fraternally…

I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on this one, mate.

'Nation' has a meaning for historians. And it's not 'self-identifying community'.

Only if 'Communism' itself is 'euro-centric'. And if this is true, then there is no basis for seeing Communism as a world movement to liberate the world proletariat from economic exploitation by the world bourgeoisie.

This is not only historically meaningless, and a misunderstanding of the term 'modern', but also quite personally insulting that you seem to believe that anything that I've said can be construed as derogatory to any human society, at any point in time.

Again, this is just historical ignorance. Are you really trying to say that there is no difference between a hunter-gatherer society (whether a present-day one studied by anthropologists or a past one studied by historians), and 'modern' capitalist society? So, our society is just 'natural', and not created by humans - and therefore not able to be changed by humans? They are very different societies - we don't all live in the same time frame.

Or is this your personal use of the term 'modern', meaning 'better'?

How do you do analysis of anything, never mind society, if the terms of reference are a personal choice?

Don't call me a 'bastard'.

See? How childish it is to 'interpret' the term 'fraternal' as something that it isn't? It has a meaning - it's not a random assignment of meaning by an individual. That's madness. Personal and political madness.

Comrade, 'nation' doesn't mean 'community'. If we can't agree as Communists on the meaning of political terms, how can we hope to understand, never mind change, the world?

Point taken. I guess I was being too sensitive!

What an interesting discussion. I wish I had time to reply to LBird's reply to my previous post, because I do think it's worth getting involved in liberation struggles of oppressed ethnic minorities and/or struggles against colonialism (but pushing an anti-capitalist and anti-state perspective), but I don't have time. Apparently this is argued in that chapter of Black Flame mentioned earlier, by AuldBold (probably spelling your name wrong, sorry, too lazy to go back and check).

I will also just add, briefly, that oppression by a ruling class which views you as racially inferior is probably going to be harsher and more brutal than oppression from a ruling class which does not view you this way, so although a separate nation-State is not going to truly liberate you, it can improve things.

And then when things don't improve substantially, it helps you (hopefully) to realize that oppressors can look and talk just like you... (and that the oppressed / your potential allies can look and talk quite differently from you...) and that therefore liberation requires moving beyond nationalism. It's harder (though not impossible) to come to that realization, I think, when still oppressed by colonialism or extreme racism. We should still try to push that realization even when those conditions of oppression still exist, because there is hope of it catching on even then, but obtaining a seperate State will probably make it easier for that message to be listened to and believed.

(I'm using the word "you" to refer to people oppressed by colonialism/racism... don't know why I sometimes have a habit of talking in second person.)

I don't see it as much different from working inside reform movements while also arguing a revolutionary perspective. A movement pushing the State to grant free healthcare contradicts our anti-State politics, but we still participate in these movements, while also exposing the inherent limitations of these goals and talking about anarchism is the ultimate goal. We believe that free healthcare is an improvement of a bankrupt system.

Why should it be so very different in these "national liberation" struggles? I think our approach and attitude should be similar, if not identical. Similar in that we are willing to work within such struggles while expressing our own anarchist perspective. Not identical in that while in a reform movement for, say, free healthcare, we would also be supporting that goal (while saying it's not enough), whereas in a national liberation movement, we would be supporting the goal of liberation while arguing against the goal of a nation-State.

Damn, looks like I had time to shoot my mouth* off a whole lot, after all.

* (fingers)

Yeah, ultraviolet, your lack of time has become a serious hindrance to taking this 'interesting discussion' forward, because you haven't answered any of the points made by both me and others, in opposition to your notion of support for 'liberation' struggles. You seem to have moved onto a mode of mere reiteration of your beliefs, rather than continuing to engage in a critical discussion of them.

If you've made your political decision already, then there's no more work for us to do in opposing your point of view.

Which is a shame, because it's not only 'interesting', but also vital for Communists to maintain a class, internationalist position on the subject.

FWIW, you seem to have moved onto a discussion of 'human oppression' (a liberal concept) and its various levels, rather than remain with our discussion of 'economic exploitation' (a Communist concept).

You've started to ignore 'class'.

This would be suicide, both political and actual. Your 'anarchist perspective', if allowed to participate by the majority, would be cynically used during the national struggle to win a nation-state, and when this goal is achieved you would be exterminated by that new nation-state.

The purpose of a nation is class-collaboration in favour of a bourgeoisie. When that goal is achieved, those opposing it from within (your 'anarchist perspective') are to be destroyed as harmful to the new 'nation'.

A central goal of 'national liberation' is death to Communists. Why volunteer for suicide?

72 hours have elapsed, CRUD and BJJ have been unbanned. Please make sure you're familiar with the posting guidelines to prevent this happening again. If you want to discuss moderation policy, please do so in the feedback forum rather than on this thread.

LBird perhaps this may help explain my position more clearly.

09.07.11 from the thread: What is freedom?

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

A good point, although it can also be used as an illustration of the way words and their meanings alter in terms of context. You realised I meant ‘fraternally’ as a friendly salutation, however if I had been maliciously ironic it would have insinuated something else.

I agree with you that we need to have a mutual understanding of language to have a useful dialogue. Unfortunately the dynamic and creative nature of language will lead to misunderstands; how many arguments in these threads are generated by reading a meaning into something which may be totally unintended by the author. Therefore the emphasis must be on mutual understanding.

Again I agree with you, though our choice of ‘idea labelling’ may not be deemed appropriate by a third party. If the Sioux describe themselves as a ‘nation’ surely this should be seen simply as an idiosyncratic use of the term?

So the Native American use of the word ‘nation’ is anachronistic, and we live in the modern world. On reflection, I agree that their use of the term is anachronistic (in describing their form of society with a word which is inappropriate); to juxtapose us as living in the ‘modern world’ is only true in the sense that ‘our’ capitalism is at present the most advanced mode of production.

It makes me very uncomfortable to view human beings as ‘them and us’ (unless it is in terms of class) or being ‘in a different time frame’ (except in terms of material advantages), as it is too close to the ideology which capitalism uses to exploit the so-called ‘backward natives'.

I hope my use of language has not been too singular!

Thanks for your comradely response, Auld-bod.

Yeah, the 'context' and 'dialogue' is an internet discussion between Communists (us and ultraviolet especially) about the 'meaning' of 'nation'.

My main purpose is to simply show that it doesn't mean 'community', in an ahistoric, 'friendly', communal, cuddly way. I'm placing class-content into the political meaning of 'nation'.

I'm maintaining that 'nation' is a bourgeois organisational form with a specific political purpose: to bullshit the other classes within the geographical target area of that bourgeois class, to appear as a 'caring community for all' within its bounds.

To accept this lie at face value, as apparently the supporters of 'national liberation' do, is suicide for Communists.

That's why I'm keen to engage ultraviolet in further debate.

From the moment of 'national liberation', those Communist supporters now become the 'enemy within', a cancer within the nation which must be expunged.

Yeah, I'm trying desperately to build some 'mutual understanding', mate!

But this is a site for the political education of Communists, isn't it? Not a storehouse of idiosyncratic uses of language, meaningless anecdotes, fireside chats, gossip, or the other thousand uses of language?

Surely when we discuss 'nation', we Communists have to define what it means for us, in a political context, and to prevent us making mistakes in practice?

Thanks again for your thoughtful concession - I'm only arguing because I think that it's so important for Communists like us to get to a 'mutual understanding', as you say, of this crucial political term - it's not a ego trip about being 'proved right'. I, like you, am always keen to learn.

Unfortunately, I think this is an inescapable problem, Auld-bod. We should expose our perspective, rather than pretending we're being 'objective' in the old positivist sense. 'We' are not 'hunter-gatherers'.

Anyway, thanks again for your comments.

I didn't argue against your points because I agreed with you that the term "national liberation" should be avoided, rather than attempting to redefine it. No need for me to address your arguments if I have conceded to them!

Have you only been skimming, but not reading my posts? I don't see how you missed that.

So you're saying there's no point in anarchists participating in these struggles to try to push for an anarchist perspective, and change the discourse from national liberation to class liberation? You believe such efforts will inevitably be doomed to failure? If that was the case, then explain Manchuria:

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

I know.

We're not volunteering for suicide if we are working within the movement to try to redirect it towards anarchism. Abstaining from the movement would be more suicidal, because abstention guarantees that nationalism, not anarchist politics, will prevail.

What do you mean by "human oppression"? You mean any oppression that is not class oppression? Are you denying other forms of oppression exist?

You call the acknolwedgement of non-class oppressions liberal? So, anarchists, communists, etc. cannot acknowledge any other oppression but class?

And you're saying that by acknowledging other forms of oppression, this means I'm ignoring class? I don't think that I've ignored class in this conversation. Every post I've made in this thread has included the point that we have to enter these anticolonial, etc. struggles with a class perspective.

These questions are not merely rhetorical, I'm actually not certain this is what you're saying, and ask that you please forgive me and clarify if Im wrong.

P.S. - Thank you, RedEd, for taking the time to summarize the key points from that Black Flame chapter relevant to this discussion!
(see post #90)

Unfortunately, ultraviolet, you seem to have missed the meaning of my posts. I've read yours with great interest!

.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the 'term' should be 'avoided' but the 'act'.

You seem to be arguing that if you call the political act of 'national liberation' something else, then that solves the problem.

On the contrary, I'm arguing that 'class collaboration' is deadly for workers. Further, I'm arguing that the politics of 'nat. lib.' is 'class collaboration'. And indeed, just changing the name for this act of class collaboration from 'nat. lib.' to a different term, and simply continuing with the policy of 'nat. lib.' under a different name, doesn't solve the problem!

We're not really arguing about the 'terms' we use here, ultraviolet, but the 'policies' that we advocate that Communists follow in practice.

On Manchuria, what little I can find in fact doesn't suggest that the Shinmin Commune was the result of any sort of intervention by Anarchists in a 'national liberation' struggle which they then proceeded to turn to Communism from within.

From what I can tell by a quick reading of the internet, from your quoting of RedEd:

... that RedEd is wrong in their categorisation.

The Korean Anarchist Movement seems to have been an entirely separate movement from the other nationalist strands, like the Stalinists. The KAM organised autonomously, they didn't join, participate in, and persuade a 'nationalist movement' of the benefits of Libertarian Communism, which is the policy you seem to be arguing for.

Perhaps you or RedEd could correct me? My info from a quick browse of:

http://www.struggle.ws/talks/korea.html

Furthermore, the whole episode seems to be one of 'military defence against outside invasion', rather than an internal 'national liberation' struggle.

Do you have access to any more detailed information of the period, before we come to a political conclusion based upon those events? On the whole, it seems to be a relatively minor and unknown episode, and not of much value for us in our discussion. But, I'm keen to learn...

On the issue of 'oppression', I think it's better for now to stick to the issue of 'nat. lib.', which is already a bit of a derail from the thread title.

[later edit]

I just read the link provided above in a bit more detail, and found:

'Top down'? Hmmm....

Surely this rings alarm bells for Anarchists? I'm a Marxist, and it rings them for me!

Does this shed some light for you, ultraviolet? Or would you accept 'interim, top down' power, for the sake of 'national defence'?

For my part, I have my Libertarian Communist doubts...

[end edit]

I have been reading your posts, sorry if I misunderstood your point. It's clear now.

I agree with you. I haven't been arguing for class collaboration. And I've said in every post I'm not advocating that we call for a new State. That would be a popular front, where you join the government or join a bourgeois nationalist group and liquidate your own politics to unify with theirs. (Like what the CNT did in the Spanish revolution.)

What I'm advocating is a united front, where you work with these other groups on shared goals -- like fighting fascism, or fighting colonialism, or fighting against a State which is committing genocide or ethnic cleansing or apartheid, etc. Meanwhile, you keep your anarchist politics, and advocate for them to those from other groups you're working with, trying to bring them into your camp, and -- if possible, if you have the numbers -- push forward with the revolutionary agenda of expropriation, collectivization, etc. This is what the CNT should have done, and it's what the Bolsheviks did do before they were in power, forming a united front with the provisional government against a proto-fascist general who wanted to take power.

The popular front / united front distinction is a pretty standard one, and I think most revolutionaries tend to agree that the former is bad and the latter is good -- am I wrong? Maybe your disagreement with me so far has been because you think I'm advocating a popular front? If so this is just a misunderstanding.

As for Manchuria, sad to see it wasn't as cool as I thought it was, but that doesn't mean there isn't the potential to redirect a nationalist movement towards anarchist goals. I don't see why this should be any more "impossible" than redirecting a reformist labor movement which is mobilized only on defending old gains, using only legal actions, and the least militant legal actions at that (negotiations moreso than strikes), towards revolution. In both cases we have a looooooooonnnnnnnnng way to go!

Ultraviolet, in my opinion there is a fundamental difference between the two positions, in an armed liberation struggle with cross-class allies, once the objective is within reach (or even before, if you prove ‘politically troublesome’) you are expendable having served your purpose as cannon fodder. Some Spanish anarchists fought with the ‘Free French’ in WW2, but much good it did them in the long term.

Anarchists working in a reformist labour movement is about building working class solidarity and confidence though class action, even if your ‘allies’ can often be politically dubious. The union is composed of one class even if it contains a number of competing ideologies. The political competition is how to defeat the real enemy, the class enemy.

True enough, there is that difference. But I wasn't saying that difference didn't exist. I was just saying in both cases it's equally difficult to influence it in an anarchist direction.

And as a side note, a movement for free health care, abortion rights, etc. would have us working in a united front with "leftwing" bourgeois parties, etc. not just the working class. Would that be class collaboration, in your books? (I don't think so, as long as it's a united front, not popular front.)

I agree that nationalists would be a threat to us if in power, but the colonial State (or State dominated by a racist ethnic majority, or whatever) is also a threat to us. Either way we're in jeopardy, it's not like preventing the nationalists from winning would protect us.

I still think the united front strategy is the way to go, because it's the only strategy that gives us hope of influencing the movement in an anarchist direction, the only strategy that gives us hope of eliminating ANY state (a nationalist one, or colonial one). Abstaining from the movement guarantees this won't occur, as there will be no anarchists around to push it in that direction.

Just to clarify, are you against united front as a political strategy? Was the Bolshevik united front with the provisional government a mistake? (It seemed to work out well for them.) Should the CNT not only have rejected a popular front but a united front, too?

Most definitely, we oppose the united front strategy! That was, in fact, the central issue of dispute between the Bolsheviks and the left communists within the Communist International in the early 1920s. The united front strategy is a strategy utilized by parties or political organizations (e.g. of anarchists) which don't label themselves "parties". All pro-revolutionaries should familiarize themselves with this history, as it is extremely important. At a minimum, read the interventions of the KAPD (German left communist party) on the issue at the 3rd Congress of the CI (1921).

EDIT/ADD: the interventions of the KAPD at the 3rd Congress of the CI

You surely suuuurely are joking? Posting Schopenhauer On Woman videos to back up a crass point about women occasionally lying?

Sorry to post about an older statement but it might relevant to the overall discussion

I think this "naive" statement of an "anarchist society" is something of a testament to the weakness of at least this version of "anarchism" relative to nationalism.

I think Freddy Perl and a variety of "radical anthropologists" have made strong arguments that pure culturally pure "nations" are a myth that arose with the modern nation state. Specifically, any area of the world will involve a patch-work of multidimensional cultures. In any area where one group is dominant, some subgroup is going to be present with a different culture and different tendencies. Moreover, modern multidimensional capitalism guarantees that this tendency only increases - today more and more individuals have multiple cultural and subcultural memberships.

In this context "regional self-determination" is ridiculous. All connection are not some exclusive region but a multitude of groups. The thing, a multitude of councils and co-ordination bodies can certainly handle such a situation as long as these are simply coordination and not means of imposing decisions.

Now, Fallback makes a good point that nationalism is not an articulated ideology but rather a series a contradictory amalgem of beliefs and prejudices.

But point is that this makes it especially pernicious. The vagueness of nationalism allows a mass of dazed followers to argue using ideas whose implications they haven't even thought out - "I don't see what's wrong with being pround to be [An American/White/Chinese/etc]". Terms like "national liberation" may not have a fully articulated meaning to those who use them but these terms still allow these folks to kind of "orbit" in a nationalist direction.

Nationalism involves a vague mysticism of "blood and soil" or "the red, white and blue" but this mysticism tends to move towards a cross-alliance as the other posters ably describe.

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

I think revolutionaries can "work with unions" by providing strike and similar direct aid for workers. Unfortunately, the tendency of just about any union is to want to impose its control and not merely get autonomous aid. So the degree you can "work with unions" is limited.
The main difference is that nationalist causes are suspect in and of themselves. Nationalists as a rule reify the concept of their "nation" and seek to create a purified language and culture that is oppressive to even those group of individuals who are closest to sharing the culture.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only political tendency on the left that regards itself as "revolutionary" and supports the united front strategy is Trotskyism. It is really a central component of traditional Leninism. As such, you won't find much support for it amongst anarchists and "ultra-left" Marxists.

On the united front being a bad strategy, thanks for informing me what this isn't as widely accepted as I thought. I still think it's a good strategy, though. I've heard it praised by a handful of platformISH-anarchists, but I'm not sure if it's a usual position of platformists or not.

Yeah, I agree with that.

But I don't think regional self-determination is ridiculous, although I can agree it's more complicated and flexible than strict and absolute regional autonomy. And I'm intrigued by what you've touched upon here... the multitude of councils which will overlap but not entirely align geographically. Can you talk more about this, and what it means, in concrete terms, with examples or whatever? Or do you know of an article on this topic? I'd like to be able to better envision and understand what you're getting at here

admin: crud has had another derailing post removed, and another temporary ban. Don't derail threads, or you will end up with a permanent ban

How is what I wrote above not clear?

Why would individuals with a multitude of connections with multiple geographical areas be restricted to a single geographical area?

Planning for either simple or complex projects requires the cooperation of multiple areas. A railroad going between two areas would require the cooperation of both areas. If we had a strict geographically nested hierarchy of councils, this rail road would require the attention of the "regional council" but such a regional council would be huge and unwieldy and have a thousand different projects that it would have to consider. So we'd have to have a semi-autonomous "transportation council". I could come up with a multitude of similar instances. In my actually experience with Occupy Oakland, there are a multitude of ad-hoc group that take actions and get general approval for those actions.

I mean, "regional autonomy", "regional self-determination" and similar phrase all seem like just "glittering generalities" - phrases that sounds good but whose meaning is unclear (in capitalist society, such phrases are usually code-words for various state-like-entities sharing their power - that is not what we want). In a communist society, just about all the social groups that would be "out there" would be able to act autonomously in the sense that they could act without specific orders, simply knowing what others wanted in general. But there wouldn't be any reason for these groups to be restricted to specific geographical areas.

OK?

You've made it clear now, thank you. What you describe doesn't contradict what I had in mind when I said regional self-determination, which is partly where the confusion came in.

This text was written by a comrade in BR yesterday which is relevant to the discussion of feminism/oppression and how it is crucial to class struggle: worth a read!

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/nov2011/iden-n11.shtml

Read what these quasi fascist racist misogynistic Trotskyite scum have to say on the matter ^

Yes women lie about being raped. Yes men rape women. The issue is more complex, as shitty as it is, but, it shouldn't be an "opportunity" for liberal and radical feminists to push their world view.

If you actually read 'On Women" it applies in many situations, I gave one I was personally involved in where I was used by a girlfriend to exact revenge on some guy (via a lie). It happens, my point was (concerning rape at OWS events) don't go beating the shit out of the guy because he's been accused. What I said was completely taken out of context and I was banned for it. This is CRUD by the way. I fully expect to be banned again and this post removed to the memory hole.

I only sort of skimmed through it, and I don't know any of the events, or people to which it refers to, but it seemed OK. Why do you label them as "quasi fascist racist misogynistic [Trotskyite] scum"?

Devrim

CRUD, I dont know where to start with you. I literally do not know where to start. Why is the fact a small number of women (a number that no doubt pales in comparison) lie about being raped such a central issue for you? Why, if one takes rape seriously, are is one derided as either a 'liberal' or a 'radical feminist'? Because a girlfriend fucked you over once? fucking hell man....

I tell ya what, there are some nice bosses in the world, why don't we just carry on with capitalism. There are some nasty black guys out there too, so lets screw anti-racism.

I have read 'On Woman' and I don't think it applies to my life at all.....

I don't know what happened at OWS about a guy being accused of rape so I can't comment (and I don't trust you to give me any useful information on the case i hand). But here in Britain there was a rape in an occupy camp in Glasgow, and it was fucking harrowing.

I can't get quite as indignant as other people about CRUD's posts. He's pushed his point further than is reasonable, yes, in a very insensitive way, but I can understand why his personal experience leads him to want to make the point he makes.

Having said that it would be admirable if he would recognise that the point isn't quite as crucial, in context, as he might feel.

It's hard to be sarcastic online. I found that the other day and the author basically agrees with my points concerning identity politics which makes him a misogynistic, racist liberal reformist!

(^ sarcasm^)