tpaine posted:thats what i imagine most of you retards listen to. i bet its on deadkens youtube favs
post your book lmao
lol
blinkandwheeze posted:swampman posted:c_man posted:yeah its not like the ideas of universal rights have ever formed the backbone of an emancipatory struggle
i defy you to name one universal right
the right of nations to self determination. hope this helps, swampguy!
What about the nation of Israel? Or for that matter the Southern nation, the CSA? Of course you can argue that these governments don't represent their true constituents but as soon as you're willing to accept that the whole notion dissolves into posturing just like all talk of rights.
Lessons posted:Oh and this isn't just edge cases like the CSA either, like who gives a fuck about the self-determination of France to be a closed ethnic state that keeps out swarthy undesirables?
imo its weird how everyone holds european countries to the same standard as the settler states on immigration.
Lessons posted:What about the nation of Israel? Or for that matter the Southern nation, the CSA? Of course you can argue that these governments don't represent their true constituents but as soon as you're willing to accept that the whole notion dissolves into posturing just like all talk of rights.
i don't see why any of this is unique to "rights" talk
Lessons posted:Oh and this isn't just edge cases like the CSA either, like who gives a fuck about the self-determination of France to be a closed ethnic state that keeps out swarthy undesirables?
i mean of course there's the distinction between the right of nations to self-determination & self-determination itself, as it exists as a political reality. regarding the latter, in lenin's words, the communist movement must decide the latter question exclusively on its merits in each particular case in conformity with the interests of social development as a whole and with the interests of the proletarian class struggle for socialism. also according to lenin, the bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression. you can support the general right of secession while advocating singularly the secession of oppressed nations in accordance with their conformity to the interests of social development
like if the right of nations to self-determination is as lenin puts it the right to secede, the right of a nation to form an independent nation-state, i am not sure what relevance france has to this question, france already exists as an independent nation-state. so like, yeah, who gives a fuck? france isn't a singular ethnic state, the swarthy undesirables are in most cases already going to exist as particular nations within france, as oppressed nationalities. if france were to adopt a set of policies that made this oppression intolerable regarding these nations, it would be advantageous to promote their secession.
upholding the right of nations to self-determination carries no obligation to support ethno-nationalist policies, secessionist movements should be judged on the merits in each particular case. but it does carry the obligation to oppose annexationist imperialist aggression, whether independent nation-states exist in conformity with the interests of social development or not & the seizure & occupation by foreign aggressors should be opposed in spite of any pretext of humanitarian intervention
you might see this as posturing, sure, but mostly i think its weird that this blanket dismissal of rights based political principles comes from presenting some form of revolutionary marxism as an alternative, when revolutionary marxism holds this specifically rights based tenant as a central principle
If you want to know why Marxists are critical of the concept of rights in general that's a completely different issue and you should just go read Critique of the Gotha Programme
Edited by Lessons ()
blinkandwheeze posted:also i dont think israel is very relevant to this b.c the zionist state is a vehicle of european colonialism & is based intrinsically in this process of annexation & the denial of the right
It's relevant and actually the thigns you're talking about here are irrelevant. If you say "nations (or peoples) have a right to self-determination" then, well, Israel is a nation and Jews are a people (or group of peoples) so they have a right to self-determination. Palestine is also a nation and Palestinians are also a people, so they have an equal right to self-determination, and between equal rights force decides.
Lessons posted:Also you're shoehorning American ideas of racial nationalism into a French context where it doesn't actually work.
yeah i wasn't particularly clear on that sorry, what i meant by saying that if the conditions of oppressed nationalities within were made intolerable is if they were made intolerable to the degree that there would be organization around the question of national self-determination and secession, which is pretty far from conditions in the french context
but like the principles of this right of self-determination do apply equally to all parties, that is, it defends the principle of principle from foreign annexation to all parties. like a consistent marxist-leninist position under these principles would be to assess the the self-determination of oppressed nations as revolutionary but to object to the imperialist annexation of separatist movements generally because they fall under the aegis of this right. like sure there is nothing here that isn't already covered by the political/ideological notions of anti-imperialism but like isnt that just tautological because the right of nations to self-determination is fundamental to these notions
like of course i get that marxists are critical of the concept of rights generally but like do you think lenin or stalin or the vast majority of at least marxist-leninists writing on the national question are bad marxists for asserting this right
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()
conec posted:tpaine posted:
conec posted:
hehe
http://i.imgur.com/lCbQerj.jpg 180g
reissue
As for Lenin and Stalin, I mean, I dont think a right to self-determination is a useful concept whether you're a Marxist or not, it has nothing to do with being a "bad marxist". What I would criticize more generally among MLs is the related tendency to uncritically support what they view as defense of national sovereignty in e.g. Syria.
Lessons posted:Conversely I don't think you actually need the concept at all to oppose imperialism or even that it's particularly useful there in a modern context, outside of Palestine the world is largely decolonized and imperialist aggression isn't actually directed at annexation anymore
like regarding the question of israel i think you answer yourself here, palestine is a colonized & subject to imperialist annexation. sure, in an abstract sense i think at least historically the jewish people have been an oppressed nationality under various circumstances & should like any other nation have this right, but the form zionism has taken (& i think it's likely that this form is inherent to the ideological construction of zionism itself) is completely against the principles of this right, it was born not simply out of national secession but colonial expropriation & the rigorously enforced denial of the right of nations to self-determine, it was conceived through colonialism & annexation, these qualities are inherent processes of the zionist state, israel is representative of the colonial system that the right of self-determination is conceived in opposition to. if the right of nations to self-determination means the freedom from annexation than the right of palestinian self-determination is the expulsion of the zionist state that is the vehicle of this annexation
and like okay, i roughly agree with you that imperialism functions in a way that means the right of nations to self-determination does not hold much particular relevance, at the very least in no way comparable to the way it did in 1914 or whatever. but i don't think the question here is the relevance it has to whatever contemporary forms of imperialist aggression, of course imperialism is an elaborate & dynamic force that can't be reduced to a singular form of aggression, but i don't think that's the question here, what is the question is whether this is a universally applicable right, which i think it is & that freedom from annexation on a general level is the practical expression of this
obviously self-determination is not exclusively a principle regarding freedom from foreign annexation but i think this freedom is pretty clearly the fundamental underpinning of national self-determination, that a nation-state should exists autonomously within a specific static national border is because of this freedom. & yeah, after the wave of decolonization throughout the 20th century this isnt a right that has any particular salience in most current conditions but i think that's because it's already enshrined as a foundational principle of the post-colonial nation states
but i also don't think it is an entirely irrelevant principle, i mean i wouldn't be talking about it otherwise, because aside from the protection of the palestinian peoples from zionist colonialism it is also the foundational principle of the revolutionary politics of oppressed national groups throughout north america & cases like kurdish liberation, & also i think why marxism-leninism is able to hold political salience among groupings of first nation & indigenous peoples
i think you're right that there is a gross & uncritical tendency among marxist-leninists to uphold comprador bourgeois nationalist states like syria under the principles of national sovereignty but i also don't think the right has to carry any particular obligation beyond the resolute opposition to foreign occupation under the pretext of humanitarian intervention. obviously i don't think that's sufficient, imperialism is dynamic & requires struggle on every front but i think it's a pretty necessary underpinning
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()
blinkandwheeze posted:like sure there is nothing here that isn't already covered by the political/ideological notions of anti-imperialism but like isnt that just tautological because the right of nations to self-determination is fundamental to these notions
yes
blinkandwheeze posted:i just got a mustang upvote for that post so on principle i am doing a 180 & ceding all points to lessons.
i think its really funny/sad how readily people allow the opposition to not only dictate the terms of the debate, but also the outcome
Edited by c_man ()
c_man posted:blinkandwheeze posted:like sure there is nothing here that isn't already covered by the political/ideological notions of anti-imperialism but like isnt that just tautological because the right of nations to self-determination is fundamental to these notions
yes
blinkandwheeze posted:i just got a mustang upvote for that post so on principle i am doing a 180 & ceding all points to lessons.
i think its really funny/sad how readily people allow the opposition to not only dictate the terms of the debate, but also the outcome
Its that, or my projection of the opposition - what's the difference? I agree in spirit (don't give a fuck, speak the truth), but arguments are like a meal, and for most people to be able to consume them they need to be to the point. Retreading the Austrian school of economics or Milton Friedman doesn't do anybody any good if these aren't uniquely what creates the libertarian identity. (Oh you've spent 3,500 words debunking the Austrian school? Well, I'm a follower of Nozick...)
For me, its their worship of the market as a mechanism (as well as private ownership obviously) - but as you can see, libertarians are slimy creatures that don't seem to have any real stable target to shoot at.
I appreciate the sincerity in your posts c_man.
Edited by Themselves ()
Themselves posted:(Oh you've spent 3,500 words debunking the Austrian school? Well, I'm a follower of Nozick...)
i think the key here is to remember that you're generally not going to convince the person you're arguing with but maybe you can convince some other people that there's something to what you're saying.
