[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1774539315292.webp (30.16 KB, 401x589, 1774539236823.webp)

 

>The inability to achieve on an international scale what has been achieved, or is in the process of being achieved, on the national level-partial or complete elimination of capital competition-permits the continuation of class antagonisms in all countries despite the elimination or restriction of private capital formation. To state it the other way around: because nationalization of capital leaves class relations intact, there is no way of escaping competition on the international scene. Just as control over the means of production assures the maintenance of class divisions, so does control over the national state, which includes control over its means of production. The defense of the nation and its growing strength becomes the defense and reproduction of new ruling groups. The “love for the socialist fatherland” in Communist countries, the desire for a “stake in the country,” as exemplified in the existence of “socialist” governments in welfare-economies, as well as national self-determination in hitherto dominated countries, signifies the existence and rise of new ruling classes bound to the existence of the national state.

>WHILE a positive attitude toward nationalism betrays a lack of interest in socialism, the socialist position on nationalism is obviously ineffective in countries fighting for national existence as well as in those countries oppressing other nations. If only by default, a consistent anti-nationalist position seems to support imperialism. However, imperialism functions for reasons of its own, quite independently of socialist attitudes toward nationalism. Furthermore, socialists are not required for the launching of struggles for national autonomy as the various “liberation” movements in the wake of the second World War have shown. Contrary to earlier expectations, nationalism could not be utilized to further socialist aims, nor was it a successful strategy to hasten the demise of capitalism. On the contrary, nationalism destroyed socialism by using it for nationalist ends.

>It is not the function of socialism to support nationalism, even though the latter battles imperialism. But to fight imperialism without simultaneously discouraging nationalism means to fight some imperialists and to support others, for nationalism is necessarily imperialist – or illusory. To support Arab nationalism is to oppose Jewish nationalism, and to support the latter is to fight the former, for it is not possible to support nationalism without also supporting national rivalries, imperialism, and war. To be a good Indian nationalist is to combat Pakistan; to be a true Pakistani is to despise India. Both these newly “liberated” nations are readying themselves to fight over disputed territory and subject their development to the double distortion of capitalist war economies.

>And so it goes on: the “liberation” of Cyprus from British rule only tends to open a new struggle for Cyprus between Greeks and Turks and does not lift Western control from either Turkey or Greece. Poland’s “liberation” from Russian rule may well spell war with Germany for the “liberation” of German provinces now ruled by Poland and this, again, to new Polish struggles for the “liberation” of territory lost to Germany. Real national independence of Czechoslovakia would, no doubt, reopen the fight for the Sudetenland and this, in turn, the struggle for Czechoslovakia’s independence and perhaps for that of the Slovaks from the Czechs. With whom to side? With the Algerians against the French? With the Jews? With the Arabs? With both? Where shall the Jews go to make room for the Arabs? What shall the Arab refugees do to cease being a “nuisance” to the Jews? What to do with a million French “colons” who face, when Algerian liberation is accomplished, expropriation and expulsion? Such questions can be raised with reference to every part of the world, and will generally be answered by Jews siding with Jews, Arabs with Arabs, Algerians with Algerians, French with French, Poles with Poles and so forth-and thus they will remain unanswered and unanswerable. However Utopian the quest for international solidarity may appear in this melee of national and imperialist antagonisms, no other road seems open to escape fratricidal struggles and to attain a rational world society.

>ALTHOUGH socialists sympathies are with the oppressed, they relate not to emerging nationalism but to the particular plight of twice-oppressed people who face both a native and foreign ruling class. Their national aspirations are in part “socialist” aspirations, as they include the illusory hope of impoverished populations that they can improve their conditions through national independence. Yet national self-determination has not emancipated the laboring classes in the advanced nations. It will not do so now in Asia and Africa. National revolutions, as in Algeria for instance, promise little for the lower classes save indulging on more equal terms in national prejudices. No doubt, this means something to the Algerians, who have suffered from a particularly arrogant colonial system. But the possible results of Algerian independence are deducible from those in Tunisia and Morocco, where existing social relations have not been changed and the conditions of the exploited classes have not improved to any significant extent.

>Unless socialism is altogether a mirage, it will rise again as an international movement – or not at all. In any case, and on the basis of past experience, those interested in the rebirth of socialism must stress its internationalism most of all. While it is impossible for a socialist to become a nationalist, he is nevertheless an anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist. However, his fight against colonialism does not imply adherence to the principle of national self-determination, but expresses his desire for a non-exploitative, international socialist society. While socialists cannot identify themselves with national struggles, they can as socialists oppose both nationalism and imperialism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1959/09/nationalism.htm

Thoughts?

Umm uh WESTERN MARXIST uh BAD, ugh, read Losurdo

>both sides bad
k, thanks for the input

>>2755644
Tiktok brain response

>>2755637
>The defense of the nation and its growing strength becomes the defense and reproduction of new ruling groups. The “love for the socialist fatherland” in Communist countries, the desire for a “stake in the country,” as exemplified in the existence of “socialist” governments in welfare-economies, as well as national self-determination in hitherto dominated countries, signifies the existence and rise of new ruling classes bound to the existence of the national state.
>…it is impossible for a socialist to become a nationalist… his fight against colonialism does not imply adherence to the principle of national self-determination, but expresses his desire for a non-exploitative, international socialist society. While socialists cannot identify themselves with national struggles, they can as socialists oppose both nationalism and imperialism.
I don't even need to check the link to know this guy is a Trotskyist.
>to fight imperialism without simultaneously discouraging nationalism means to fight some imperialists and to support others, for nationalism is necessarily imperialist
>With whom to side? With the Algerians against the French? With the Jews? With the Arabs? With both? Where shall the Jews go to make room for the Arabs? What shall the Arab refugees do to cease being a “nuisance” to the Jews? What to do with a million French “colons” who face, when Algerian liberation is accomplished, expropriation and expulsion?
Behold, the whitest man alive asks the big-brain question nobody has ever thought of: "if you fight for liberation and expel your oppressors, doesn't that just make YOU the real imperialist??"

>>2755695
And he's right.

Death to nationalism.

>>2755695
Not a trot

>he is nevertheless an anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist.
>his fight against colonialism does not imply adherence to the principle of national self-determination

In practice, the burden of this always falls on the exploited nations and never on the workers of the metropole. These alliances of workers with their national bourgeoisie are not out of ideological affinity, but out of necessity, considering the workers in the countries that provide the manpower and weaponry to subjugate them are not willing to adhere to revolutionary defeatism.

>Unless socialism is altogether a mirage, it will rise again as an international movement
>OR NOT AT ALL

I'm perfectly content with the prospect of zealots and idealists being discouraged from participating in the communist movement.

>What to do with a million French “colons” who face, when Algerian liberation is accomplished, expropriation and expulsion?

Funny how he puts "colons" in quote marks here. The pied noir were vile people, no different from the avarage rhodesian or israeli. These are not proletariat in need of political awakening, these are people who openly rejected being proletariats in order to serve as a militant occupying force; they are arguably more reactionary than the avarage capitalist, and their actions will testify to that.

>>2755695
You should check the link, he offers a critique of Trotskyism (albeit one you may disagree with)

>>2755695
Since I'm sure I'll be asked to spell it out, my thoughts on this is that this guy and the position expressed here is a fossil of pre-Lenin pro-imperialist revisionism totally irrelevant to any conversation post-1917, let alone post-70s. Hardly even worth parodying, let alone a response.

>>2755707
>>2755722
This article is from a Trotskyist journal. The man can spit all the weak "critiques" he'd like, that's exactly what he is and that's exactly the position he's expressing. If he (and y'all) want to do some cute posturing about that and pretend to be distinct, that's your prerogative, but I'm gonna call these politics what they are.

>>2755736
Accusing him of trotskyism is maybe the funniest position you could invent for him, maybe aside from stalinism

>>2755690
whatever, I will keep cheerleading for palestinian nationalists and iranian missiles blowing up imperialist assets
when leftcoms in the imperial core finally manage to pull off a revolution I will also cheerlead for them :)
until then i dont really care about their anti-campist whining

>>2755755
Interesting that you're always in the position of cheerleader

>>2755695
He is not a Trot, he said that Stalin was an authentic descendant of Lenin(in an anti-leninist way)

Nationalism is like religion. The masses may be nationalist just like they may be religious; the vanguard must not be, but it must also not be nihilist. The vanguardist must study nationalist and religious institutions to learn how to neutralize them in specific issues and how to coopt them in some other issues; about this, Gramsci. It may be inevitable and is not catastrophic for a socialist vanguard to lean into religion or nationalism in order to take power; as long as it is a conscious instrumental use and the leaders' thought is not mixed with actual religious and nationalist confusion, taking power is the first priority. Once power is taken, a secondary superstructural struggle between the old and the new symbolic order must be carried out, using State power to create a socialist culture out of the contradictions of the pre-socialist one.

This being said, I don't agree at all that nationalization leaves class relations intact (the difference between the administrative bureaucracy and the workers may be analog but is not the same as the difference between owner and worker). I also don't believe the elimination of competition is a goal of socialism…

>>2755759
its not interesting, if (it won't) there was a revolution in the small irrelevant country where I live it will simply follow the same destiny all revolutions from 20th century followed, it will get either crushed or forced to capitulate in some manner by western imperialism
so thats why I wish western leftcoms good luck while also supporting peripheral nations and nation-states that resist and apply pressure on the imperialist hegemon and its vassals, I need both of them to succeed for revolution here to not end up like Cuba

/leftypol/ is not ready for this redpill (red is in the socialist sense), expect 88 replies full of cope, they will do anything except think maybe they were misguided for a minute and start to care about class struggle.

>>2755719
>The pied noir were vile people, no different from the avarage rhodesian or israeli. These are not proletariat in need of political awakening, these are people who openly rejected being proletariats in order to serve as a militant occupying force; they are arguably more reactionary than the avarage capitalist, and their actions will testify to that.
It's absolutely true, most pied noirs were vile people, fucking hell Eric Zemmour is one of them. I have some fondness for Albert Camus, but he was a pearl among the shitpile, and he had sketchy political opinions, I mostly liked him for his thoughts on life when I was in high school, "what it means to live", blahblahblah…

But now, let's get serious, what happened in Algeria since it gained its national independence? Some crude nationalism for a few decades, then another brutal civil war against Islamist fuckheads in the 1990s, then more crude nationalism and a beef with Morocco over a part of the Sahara desert.
Tell me where is the revolutionary class struggle in there. It's been more than 60 years. Where is the emancipated proletariat in Algeria and why are there so many Algerians expats in France since the first civil war started? Why don't they come back? It's a beautiful country! Why don't they enjoy self-determination?
Maybe because Paul Mattick had a point.

mattick is cool sometimes but its kinda crazy how blind he is to the material conditions difference in developing vs developed countries and universalizes his personal experience. yeah HIS country could do a rev without all the stuff that sucks but its extremely stupid to critique/reject a backwards nation when he cant even organize proles in his own

>>2756416
second time ive seen a post like this today, where people blame communists for getting murdered. pretty shitty and not analysis, does not connect the theory with the practice or the history just asserts that the theory must be wrong because the opposition was physically stronger. obviously retarded

>>2756416

>But now, let's get serious, what happened in Algeria since it gained its national independence? … where is the revolutionary class struggle in there. It's been more than 60 years. Where is the emancipated proletariat in Algeria and why are there so many Algerians expats in France since the first civil war started?

It's clear that the socialist faction was defeated, idk what to tell you, that's a thing that has been happening for almost 200 years now. Algeria is a stagnated country, with a bloated and corrupt governament controlled by their military which are mostly loyal to their own private interests.

But your focus on this conveniently leaves out the crux of the issue: the algerian proletariat was betrayed by the international proletariat before they were betrayed by their national bourgeoisie, which caused them to seek an alliance said bourgeoisie in the first place.

Again, the burden of revolutionary defeatism is on the metropolitan workers, and when they fail their task, people from the colonies and periphery are left to fend for themselves as best as they can.

>>2756537

>just asserts that the theory must be wrong because the opposition was physically stronger.

I have to disagree with you here; if your political project is revolutionary, meaning the overthrow of the ruling class, than you'll always start from a disadvantage. Good theory and revolutionary practice takes that into account, and works to transform that disadvantage.

You can't just bitch and moan that you lost because your opponent was stronger, or had more money, or was better organized; that's just externalizing your own shortcomings at transforming reality.

Putting in other words: if all you have is infantry, and you try to fight an enemy that has tanks, you can't just rush them in the open and expect it to work, and then blaming your failure on them having a tank. You knew they had that, and you didn't adjust your approach accordingly.

Your defeat is primarily a result of your failure to adapt to the reality of the conflict, not of your opponent's attempts at winning.

>>2756626
>Your defeat is primarily a result of your failure to adapt to the reality of the conflict
which is entirely separate from a condemnation of nationalism as the final cause of failure


Unique IPs: 13
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ Return / Go to top /