The Right of Nations to Self Determination

268 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 3 2011 16:25

S.A,

I think you are being very deterministic about both anti-imperialism and revolution.

AsI said in 212, you are right, that anti-imperialist struggles nearly always fail to cause permanent damage to international capitalism, but there is nothing in their nature which makes this predictable from the outset, and nothing which automatically prevents them from making imperialism weaker in the short term. Zionism and the US system for managing and controlling Middle East oil is correctly worried about the consequences if they cannot successfully manage the Arab Spring, and even moderate islamist governments in Tunisia, Egypt, etc will no longer be available as de facto supporters of the US and Zionism.

Imperialism is why capitalism has been able to globalise its operations and create an inter-continental division between producers and consumers; the network of tax havens run from the City of London is based upon imperialism, past and present. Anti-imperialist struggles keep setting imperialism new challenges all the time and, like capitalism and class struggle, its in the nature of imperialism to produce its own gravediggers. WHat we haven't had yet is prolonged concerted action and the reason why this has been so difficult is how imperialism divides as it expands, just like a cancer.

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Nov 3 2011 17:34
Pengwern wrote:
By the end of the Second World War, Lenin's concept of workers in the imperialist heartland joining with workers in the colony on the basis of anti-imperialism was dead and buried where it mattered - the Algerian Communists joined the Islamic Party and others in an Algerian Front for the Defence and Respect of Liberty and from 1952 was fully committed to independence, while the PCF still supported France’s claim that Algeria was part of France.

So, I can't see the problem in distancing ourselves from imperialist polemics about self-determination and counterposing an internationalism based on liberation from ALL aspects of the imperialist relationship.

Thanks for the historical account, really such a change from Alex's monotonous style. That story shows the amount of damage Stalinism did.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 3 2011 19:33

NR, yes it does show up Stalinism, but my point is really that it shows there was a significant gap in time between Lenin's line on the need to fight imperialism on two fronts, with which I wholly concur, and the 1968+ New Left's support for the post - WWII national liberation struggles.

What, for the purposes of this thread, was really important about these struggles was that, in theoretical terms, they had to grapple with colonial and post-colonial realities which had not been revealed to Lenin's generation, mostly because they were, as I have already mentioned, largely absent from how imperialism and the struggle against it had played out in Europe.

As we know now, the absence of a theoretical framework which was up to the task of reflecting colonial and post-colonial realities caused the emergence of a whole new spectrum, from black Marxists through to Maoists and LIberation Theologists. Rather than grapple with these and with the analytical tasks, the European and North American Left adopted a soggy 'support everyone in struggle' response which kept itself ignorant of the debates taking place on other continents via such mental gymnastics as 'critical but unconditional support'. Only VIctor Kiernan made a concerted attempt to take in this new landscape in the light of what Marx and Lenin, Kautsky and others had said in the past.

When many of these struggles were outmanoevred by imperialism, because ti coincided with working class defeats in the imperialist heartlands, a lot on the Left simply walked away from the issue, feeling confused and maybe a bit resentful that, for instance, someone we used to call 'Comrade Robert' was starving his own people and being denounced by everyone as a tyrant. I think this resentment still shows in some of the contributions on this thread.

There have been Marxist analyses of imperialism published over the past 20 years, but they all seem to be about geopolitics, world economics and such like. Alex Callinicos' "Imperialism and Global Political Economy' is perhaps the most recent of these. None of them deal with anti-imperialist struggle, which leaves the field open to the post-colonialist writers; the anthropologists of the 21st century.

I think this thread has more or less run its course, but it leaves me thinking that to move forward we need to look again at Marx, at Lenin, at Kautsky, at Luxembourg , at Kiernan and at analyses coming from the colonised themselves.

Thanks for all the Fish!

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Nov 3 2011 21:08

Pengwern,

Thanks for the triple emphasis.

Point 1: By the end of the Second World War, Lenin's concept of workers in the imperialist heartland joining with workers in the colony on the basis of anti-imperialism was dead and buried where it mattered - the Algerian Communists joined the Islamic Party and others in an Algerian Front for the Defence and Respect of Liberty and from 1952 was fully committed to independence, while the PCF still supported France’s claim that Algeria was part of France.

End of WW2? Way before that, comrade. Try before WW2, with the PCF in France supporting the popular front, and its Vietnamese supporters organizing to break the strikes and workers councils in Vietnam in 1937 in order to keep Vietnam French. Of course, one of the ideological constructs excusing that collaboration was the mumbo-jumbo about national liberation and the necessity of the national bourgeois democratic etc etc etc revolution.

And... do you think the PCF's decision re Algeria was based on the interests, the needs, the chauvinism of the French working class? Or was it based on something else, say the interests of the fSU in maintaining "good relations" with France, and the PCF showing itself to be a responsible partner of the French bourgeoisie ready to answer once again the call to govern in a popular front? Was it not simply a different iteration of the very same collaboration with "national capitaists," with a section of the bourgeoisie advocated by those maintaining that the Algerian struggle was not a class struggle but one for "national liberation"?

Point 2. At one and the same time, you say I'm right in my assessment about the alleged "destabilizing impact" about "anti-imperialist" struggles [-- my view: slim and none], but that I'm being "deterministic" if I say such struggles do not, cannot, and will not destabilize capitalism. OK, I've been called worse. But it's a determinism based on the alignment of class forces, which the entire previous history expresses in that repetition compulsion of failure.

If that's determinism, then the repeated tub-thumping for anti-imperialism is basically a neurotic twitch, a tic-- a compulsion based on archaic responses, serving as a ritual to ward off reality .

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 3 2011 22:05

A.S, I think the PCF's decision, as in the revelations in the book "Where were you, brother?" (about the failure of the British TU movement and Labour Party to ally with anti-imperialist struggle in British colonies, lay in the negative effects of imperialism, usually in the form of La Mission Civilatrice , on the consciousness of French workers who were in and around the PCF. That in turn is part of the longer-term tragedy of emigration to Algeria - the hundreds of thousands of dirt poor peasants and workers from Spain, Malta and Italy (only 20% came from France) who went to find a better life in Algeria in the late nineteenth century just as millions from other parts of Europe went to the USA. WIthout that exodus, relieving the tensions in Europe, we might well have have continent-wide revolution.

The other main factor was the Comintern, which was still widely given too much respect by workers in Europe.

To call it collaborationist is easy but unsubstantiated.

As I have pointed out, the Algerian Communists went into a broad alliance with other forces, partly because of their rejection by the PCF and partly because the Algerian working class was more evident in France than in Algeria, where the peasants and agricultural labourers predominated. The class struggle wouldn't have been able to get to first base if the PCA had tried to get an alliance together purely on that basis.

That seems to be the part of imperialist reality that you just don't get - that combined and uneven development throughout most of the twentieth century produced colonised peoples in which there was, typically, a small proletarian minority. Plantation economies were the main exception.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Nov 3 2011 23:34

I certainly do understand that uneven and combined development-- not just throughout the 20th centuries, but throughout the 19th, and the late 18th produced colonies with a typically small proletarian minority. And so? So what? The issue again isn't one of numbers but of specific position in the economy; the question is what class represents the specific organization of labor capable of transforming an economy based on the production of value [unless of course you don't think the imperialized areas are actually "value-producing" in which case you're going to have a really hard time convincing anyone of the centrality of these colonies to capital accumulation]-- anyway where was I? Oh yeah... transforming the economy from one based on the production of value to one based on the emancipation of labor so it can create and satisfy human needs.

I know that's high falutin' language, so let me put it this way-- what class can really transform relations between city and countryside, industry and agriculture so that human labor remedies the perpetuation of hunger.

As for the PCF-- the historical evidence indicate you're wrong as CPs all over the world, in colonies as well as advanced countries sought accommodation with their own colonizers.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but look at the role of the SACP in the negotiations with the SA National Party, and Slovo's own "breakthrough" of a sunset agreement on a transitional government.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 4 2011 00:12

As someone who has never been remotely close to joining a CP, I don't have to or intend to defend them, and they went through a quite horrible Stalinist period which equates to all but one of your issues. The exception is the RSA and Slovo was nowhere near the smoking gun on that one - the entire ANC leadership was culpable by focusing on the constitutional talks rather than the economic ones, and leaving the latter to Mbeki, who was genuinely corrupt.

Your 'who you gonna call?' argument about colonies is purely theoretical, as if Marx had never stepped down from showing how capitalism worked to get down & dirty with the business of making things happen - politics.

Scenario - ranged against you, there are 400,000 French soldiers and half a miliion Pieds Noir, many in militias, backed by a government with a Chief of police in its capital city who goes on to become a convicted war criminal. You are in the leadership of the Algerian Communist Party and the French are bombing Algerian villages from the skies and their naval guns. Most of the weapons available to defend the natives are with the Islamic party one way or the other.

You find your voice in the meeting 'Its not about numbers, comrades - we need to transform society'.

The others look at one another - quizzically!

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Nov 4 2011 00:39

ANC is a coalition. SACP joined the coalition, and Slovo became head of the MK, the armed struggle section of the coalition. Nobody's exempting anybody, least of all me exempting the ANC. I'm the one, remember, saying "Uh... national liberation is not the final goal. It's a moment in the struggle. One that needs to be, will be, eclipsed.

Same scenario-- you find your voice: "I'm with you, comrades. We'll destabilize capitalism." The same people look around with the same quizzical looks on there faces.

Of course I wouldn't say that in a meeting with militants from other organizations when the subject is clandestine activities.

But most def-- the situation you describe is problematic, extremely difficult-- as was the situation in Kenya, Angola, Vietnam.

Yet the issue we must confront is what has been the legacy of this subordination of class struggle to "national liberation."

So what has that legacy been? Does it offer an prospect of different, better outcomes in the future? The honest answers to these questions are "not too good" and "not at all."

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 4 2011 10:15

My point boils down to empahy, S.A. Solidarity without empathy is empty rhetoric.

In 1994 Joe Slovo said "Socialism can come later when I have discovered it" and by 2000 he was arguing that there was nothing incompatible between socialism and the market.

My question is this - because of this, do we just dump him and everything he said and wrote before 1994 in the other thread called "From radical to right wing", or do we trace his development (degeneration) in terms of the struggle in SA, the enormous pressures on it from an international capitalism which had, since the 1970s, gained the power to manipulate and even smash any country's economy. The amount of individual and collective arm-twisting, bribery and threats involved must have been colossal; William Gumede's book "Thabo Mkebi and the Fight for the Soul of the ANC" shows this. In the end, class struggle was subordinated to national liberation, as a result of which the South African people did not get liberated from anything except a white majority government, but your god-like analysis does not go anywhere near explaining that.

Quote:
the situation you describe is problematic, extremely difficult-- as was the situation in Kenya, Angola, Vietnam

Exactly! Unless we understand the real prospects & real risks involved and incorporate those into our retrospective assessments we are just being dogmatic. The legacy stands differently at any one moment in time and after 30 years of neo-liberalism the legacy is at a low point, but we have a theory of capitalist crisis and a very real capitalist crisis which they are not able to shake off.

But the legacy will be worthless if we do not learn from it.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 4 2011 11:37

S.A, two ways in which your emphasis is spot on:

1 The ANC and SACP both neglected their mass base as they got sucked into endless beguiling negotiations with people and forces much more practiced in the dark arts of conference rooms than they were, who divided them with a certain ease.

2 It seems to be in the nature of long-term guerilla struggle for the economic to be sidelined in favour of political objectives and this cost the struggle dear in South Africa.

Taken together, these points help understand why the ANC Charter, which would have taken the class struggle further, was sidelined.

But my overall point from this is that what went wrong went wrong at a very late stage, in the 1990s, and that this cannot be taken as evidence of a more basic weakness inherent in the whole idea of anti-imperialist liberation struggles, which is what you seem to argue.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 4 2011 12:25

Aha! I've found it this morning - "Where Were You Brother? - an account of Trade Union imperialism", written in 1978 for War on Want by Don Thomson and Rodney Larson. It has blood on the cover and deals with TUs in both Britain and the US.

The abject failure of the working class organisations in the western imperialist heartlands to communicate effectively with and support workers on the other continents is essential to understanding why the class struggle element in liberation struggles has often failed to fight its weight.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Nov 4 2011 12:55
Quote:
But my overall point from this is that what went wrong went wrong at a very late stage, in the 1990s, and that this cannot be taken as evidence of a more basic weakness inherent in the whole idea of anti-imperialist liberation struggles, which is what you seem to argue.

Well, I think that when something goes wrong, while the "wrongness" may be expressed sometimes later, its origin is in fact in the origin, the actual make-up, the very organization of the agent.

Look at the history of the MNR in Bolivia [and now the MAS].

If, as you admit, the anti-imperialist struggles do not do what you think they might do, destabilize capitalism, then we have to examine what they actually do do- and that turns out to be the restoration of capitalism, the stabilization of capitalism.

The legacy is what it is. Of course 30 years of capitalism "takes its toll" but that "taking" only exposes the limitations, and inabilities of "national liberation" or anti imperialism to accomplish either.

But the critical factor regarding the so-called "positive aspects" of "national liberation" was the existence of the Soviet Union. That's what provided the "muscle" behind anti-imperialism-- that's what allowed the Vietnamese to take control of the battlefield. I might even claim that it was the residue of the proletarian revolution in Russia that "subsidized" anti-imperialism, which shows you how strong the proletarian revolution can be, despite years of undermining and attacks.

Anyway, the Soviet Union no longer exists, and all the "hope" for anti-imperialism amounts to nostalgia, and nostalgia for something that was inadequate to its own dreams.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 4 2011 13:54
S. Artesian wrote:
Quote:
But my overall point from this is that what went wrong went wrong at a very late stage, in the 1990s, and that this cannot be taken as evidence of a more basic weakness inherent in the whole idea of anti-imperialist liberation struggles, which is what you seem to argue.

Well, I think that when something goes wrong, while the "wrongness" may be expressed sometimes later, its origin is in fact in the origin, the actual make-up, the very organization of the agent.

Look at the history of the MNR in Bolivia [and now the MAS].

If, as you admit, the anti-imperialist struggles do not do what you think they might do, destabilize capitalism, then we have to examine what they actually do do- and that turns out to be the restoration of capitalism, the stabilization of capitalism.

The legacy is what it is. Of course 30 years of capitalism "takes its toll" but that "taking" only exposes the limitations, and inabilities of "national liberation" or anti imperialism to accomplish either.

But the critical factor regarding the so-called "positive aspects" of "national liberation" was the existence of the Soviet Union. That's what provided the "muscle" behind anti-imperialism-- that's what allowed the Vietnamese to take control of the battlefield. I might even claim that it was the residue of the proletarian revolution in Russia that "subsidized" anti-imperialism, which shows you how strong the proletarian revolution can be, despite years of undermining and attacks.

Anyway, the Soviet Union no longer exists, and all the "hope" for anti-imperialism amounts to nostalgia, and nostalgia for something that was inadequate to its own dreams.

I am now very clear on where you are coming from on this and see no prospect of convincing you otherwise. I think a careful study of the relation between the Soviet Union's foreign interventions and the progress of the struggles into which they inserted themselves is in order, but a new thread would be better for that.

Can I take it that your view of the Spanish CIvil War also sees the USSR as the root of everything progressive within it?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Nov 4 2011 18:58
Quote:
I am now very clear on where you are coming from on this and see no prospect of convincing you otherwise. I think a careful study of the relation between the Soviet Union's foreign interventions and the progress of the struggles into which they inserted themselves is in order, but a new thread would be better for that.

Can I take it that your view of the Spanish CIvil War also sees the USSR as the root of everything progressive within it?

You have a remarkable facility for not understanding my point, which is that in the case of Vietnam, or Cuba, or even the aid to the SACP, the Soviet Union provided certain amounts of aid in certain situations to protect its own interests, which encapsulated what you call "progressiveness" in what had to become a reversal of that "progress"-- and that one reason the fSU did these things was to prevent a class-conscious proletarian struggle from spreading throughout the world and destabilizing it, the Soviet Union.

So yeah, support Cuba and give it economic aid when it expels the bourgeoisie and then play your role, as the official CP as a vector for controlling and preventing proletarian revolution in Bolivia, Chile, Argentina etc.

And eventually what happens in Bolivia, Chile, Argentina follows the pattern of what happen in Spain 1936-1939, Vietnam 1937 and 1945-- the workers are gutted.

The "progressive" aspects of the Spanish Revolution were the actions of self-organization taken by the workers and the rural poor, most often outside the offices, and opposed to the offices, of the popular front. Nothing about the fSU's intervention in Spain is "progressive" in that revolution was the only thing that would constitute progress.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 4 2011 20:51

S.A, I apologise for my facility. I am new to this forum and don't have the experience of you and knowledge of your politics that older hands have, so I have just responded to you (and to everyone else on this thread) on the basis of their most recent post.

Having said that, your references to the Soviet Union's contribution to anti-imperialist struggles in post 253 are implying something quite different to those in 255. The first puts the USSR down as a positive force, the end of which also ended all hope of anti-imperialism without tis sponsor; the second puts the USSR in the dock.

Do you want to take this discussion further here or start a new thread called 'the Soviet Union and anti-imperialism'?

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 4 2011 21:45

S.A, what I'm advocating is Marx's own method for analysing the USSR and anti-imperialism liberation movements:

We have to start from a general abstract definition more or less applicable to all forms of society (Marx used the example of ‘a population’), proceed to less and less complex abstractions (in the case of Marx’s example, ‘classes’, ‘means of production’, etc.) until we arrive to the simplest determination. Then we start the journey back until we arrive to the real, concrete definition (a population), but now seen as a ‘rich aggregate of many determinations and relations’

Start the thread, you know it makes sense!

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Nov 5 2011 20:53

No, I have no intention of starting a new thread on the "Russian question." My point is simply that the contribution of the fSU was at one and the same time, inseparably a threat to capitalism and a means of stabilizing capitalism-- which is what the fSU accomplished with the popular fronts, the national liberation movements etc.

That's not going to happen anymore; there are no remnants of the Russian Revolution that have any weight in Russia's actions.

Tell me, when was the last time there was a national liberation struggle that "destabilized" capitalism? And why then and not since then?

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 5 2011 22:54

S.A, in my post 242, I wrote:

Quote:
Zionism and the US system for managing and controlling Middle East oil is correctly worried about the consequences if they cannot successfully manage the Arab Spring, and even moderate islamist governments in Tunisia, Egypt, etc will no longer be available as de facto supporters of the US and Zionism.

Imperialism is why capitalism has been able to globalise its operations and create an inter-continental division between producers and consumers; the network of tax havens run from the City of London is based upon imperialism, past and present. Anti-imperialist struggles keep setting imperialism new challenges all the time and, like capitalism and class struggle, its in the nature of imperialism to produce its own gravediggers. WHat we haven't had yet is prolonged concerted action and the reason why this has been so difficult is how imperialism divides as it expands, just like a cancer.

And it is still happening, even though the USSR is no more!

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Nov 6 2011 03:22

Saying it's so doesn't make it so. I asked you where and when was the last national liberation struggle that destabilized capitalism? Instead of an answer, you give me an ideology.

Which of course is an answer in itself.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 6 2011 15:42
Quote:
Saying it's so doesn't make it so

That is precisely why I didn't just answer "The Arab Spring, 2011" but explained why it should be considered a national liberation struggle. You damn me if I do and damn me if I don't.

Your job is not to wriggle but to explain why the Arab Spring is not a national liberation struggle or even bigger than that. Maybe you think that because there is no longer formal colonialism at work in the region that we can dismiss the US bases which litter the region and claim that this is not imperialism in its neo-colonial manifestation. Maybe you think that Saudi Arabia sending troops to Bahrain to keep the Sunni minority regime in power had nothing to do with the Saudi role as a regional US agent protecting the US fleet's base there.

You explain to me - I don't know how you are going to do it - why this is something which looks like imperialism but isn't imperialism.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Nov 6 2011 16:31

I'm not wriggling. What do you think makes Egypt or Tunisia or Yemen a "national liberation struggle." This gets us back to the original issue. What is the economic, class basis for such a struggle. Tell us exactly what class relations are at stake in a national liberation struggle, and how they differ from the class relations involved in a struggle against capitalism?

You think because an advanced internationally powerful capitalism has specific interests in an area, that any and every struggle that erupts there must be a struggle for "national liberation"?

What is occurring in Egypt, Tunisia etc are the opening manifestations of a class struggle, not against "imperialism" as such, as an occupier, or as a looter, or as a banker, but against capitalism, its local expression which is simultaneously and expression of the international arrangement, as a mode of accumulation.

Look back at these struggles and check the impacts of overall economic growth, of price changes for foodstuffs [not necessarily wheat, but more importantly meat], of the conditions of agriculture.

Just because all these things are linked to the world market that doesn't mean the rebellions triggered are triggered by or against "imperialism" as opposed, distinct, separated from capitalism.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 6 2011 22:02

S.A, here is my initial thinking -

Quote:
What do you think makes Egypt or Tunisia or Yemen a "national liberation struggle." This gets us back to the original issue. What is the economic, class basis for such a struggle. Tell us exactly what class relations are at stake in a national liberation struggle, and how they differ from the class relations involved in a struggle against capitalism?

Class relations in Eqypt (I've read nothing significant on the other two you cite) exist within a state capitalist society strengthened by corporate structures, welfarism and popularism. Salwa Ismail, in "Rethinking islamic politics", shows the emergence, after Nasser, of a significant but not autonomous bourgeois layer based on its relations with the state, a working class in the traditional, western sense and 'semi-autonomous communities' which emerged after the 1970s around informal, unregulated housing neighbourhoods, with their own informal economies and welfare provision, usually around Mosques; most of these were in Cairo and, to a lesser extent, in the other bug cities. Until recently the islamists had enjoyed much success in these neighbourhoods and, I assume, still do. The rebellion of 2011 involved both the traditional working class, young dissident middle class people and people, including islamists of various types, from the 'semi autonomous' communities beyond the state.

As a state capitalist society which, like Pakistan, has a large army which almost doubles as a bureaucracy and police force, Egypt's very essence has been based on the relationship of its ruling elite with the USA. The dependance of a state capitalist society on the USA and other western powers for arms, police and repressive technology and more general aid is what tells us that the struggle against that regime, though it begins with a confrontation with only a part of the state apparatus, has to progress to a struggle with the army and to the imperial hegemon, which stands within and behind that army, in control of the Suez canal and ensuring that the power of the Egyptian people cannot be brought to bear to challenge imperial authority, including the security of its other regional agents.

The local bourgeoisie is of no political account. In this case, as in others, the challenge of the Arab Spring to capitalism comes precisely via a challenge to imperialism and it is a challenge to capitalism as an international system, not to the non-existent authority of a local bourgeoisie.

This deals also with your second paragraph: -

Quote:
You think because an advanced internationally powerful capitalism has specific interests in an area, that any and every struggle that erupts there must be a struggle for "national liberation"?

As you now know, this is not my argument. My argument is based on the class relations and the state capitalist nature of the Egyptian nation. LIberating that country from a state capitalism which is directly and politically dependant on its imperial master is absolutely anti-imperialist in nature.

Quote:
"imperialism" as such, as an occupier, or as a looter, or as a banker

This is a very limited conception of imperialism. In much of Africa, imperialism in the modern era is precisely about maintaining state capitalist regimes, which typically have a non-autonomous local bourgeois sector more or less dependant for its class position on its relation to the state. In these instances, the question of the state and its overthrow is a frontal attack on capitalism as imperialism.

Quote:
Look back at these struggles and check the impacts of overall economic growth, of price changes for foodstuffs [not necessarily wheat, but more importantly meat], of the conditions of agriculture.

You are referring to recent triggers here. The question of the fundamental nature of the 21st century struggle in the Middle East is different.

Quote:
Just because all these things are linked to the world market that doesn't mean the rebellions triggered are triggered by or against "imperialism" as opposed, distinct, separated from capitalism.

I agree, but, as I have argued, capitalism is not a geo-political force - it acts on individual parts of the world via the relationship of imperialist states with their client states. Whenever these client states are state capitalist, it is international capital, acting via imperialism and imperialism's structures, which is primarily at stake; the interests of a dependant local rentier class or other types of bourgeois elite are of marginal significance.

Its imperialism, S.A. !The struggle against it is currently both national and regional across the Middle East and parts of the Magreb. The nature of these states also demands that the small working class allies with other popular forces, including some islamist forces, but, to go back to earlier arguments on this thread, there is no need at all to ally with the weak bourgeoisie..

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Nov 7 2011 19:56

Pengwern, I have found an article by Kautsky dealing with the Czech issue, here. I haven't read it all yet, but he is merciless for the Czech social-democrats' nationalism (complaining that German workers are oppressing the Czech workers, etc.). Already in 1881 Kautsky had written an article called 'Die nationale Bewegung in Böhmen'. If I remember correctly, after the world war, Kautsky even had to oppose Czech nationalists who tried to use his prestige for the greater Czech glory!

(this is only to refute the thought that such issues were unfamiliar to 'euro-centric' marxists. Kautsky wrote articles on everything from struggles in Cameroon and Paraguay to India and already in 1885 even New-Guinea!).

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 7 2011 19:58

Thanks, Noa, but my German is not what it used to be and the old German script tells me that even my bilingual daughter would not appreciate the telephone call. Her grandmother was the daughter of the NSDAP leader in a German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia and some time ago told me how, although she afterwards hated what she had been part of, retained her view that the Czechs had oppressed the German community.

In my view, this is all part of the way in which Britain and France created Eastern European 'nations' at the Paris negotiations with borders which made sense to western European imperialism but which did not fit ethnic reality on the ground - hence one of the crucial problems with national liberation movements since is the 'territorial integrity' they inherit from a previous form of imperialism.

If you can find a translation into ENglish I would like to see it.

Pengwern's picture
Pengwern
Offline
Joined: 18-10-11
Nov 15 2011 17:58

S.A, my post 263 is still waiting for your response!

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Nov 17 2011 01:19

That's because I have nothing to say to it. You've presented your position, which is that "anti-imperialist" struggles destabilize capitalism. My response is "not too much, and not for too long" and in the long run it is the "anti-imperialist" struggle that is absorbed, integrated into capitalism.

Kind of all I can say about it.

jordan13
Offline
Joined: 23-11-11
Nov 23 2011 11:20

i dont agree #1 says