In many of the third world nationalist struggles, nationalists and socialists allied for instrumental reaons to fight against imperialism. This is what happened in Turkey after the occupation of the Ottoman Empire by the British. I too think that this is a legitimate struggle given the "concrete" circumstances of those societies. After the nation-state was established, however, socialists and nationalists departed. What happened was that socialists were excluded from the regime by both national and international bourgeois allies. Unions were outlawed, and socialist parties were closed in the name of national unity In that respect, I tend to agree with both Andy and Spectors. We have too look at which aspects of self-determination we are talking about, and its possible uses and abuses. but the idea does not seem terribly problematic to me.
peace,
Mine
Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
I agree with Alan about the dangers of adopting glittering generalities
like "self-determination." Words like "democracy" and "freedom" face the
same problem, since capitalists use those words, too. Any claim of
self-determination has to be judged against the concrete situation. If
white supremacists in Idaho make a claim of self-determination (to
establish a white-only Christian state) then I think that both Alan and I
would not see this as a legitimate claim. But if Indian nations in North
America make a similar claim, and it is popularly supported, I would be
apt to join the struggle, even if there was no socialist revolution tied
to it. This is why I argue that nationalist movements have to be judged in
context. Just as we cannot accept every claim of self-determination, we
cannot condemn every nationalist struggle. I think it cuts both ways.Andrew Austin
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Spectors wrote:
>What is "self-determination?" Seriously. Is it rule by capitalist rulers
>from your own ethnic group? Is that a "step" towards total liberation? I
>agree that the struggle against imperialist invaders/exploiters is part of
>the struggle against capitalism, and that people who abstain from that
>struggle in order to pretend to strive for a utopian dream in the future are
>making a mistake. But that does not mean endorsing the specific slogan
>"self-determination." It is an abstraction that opens the door to calling
>for Kosovar Albanian "self-determination" and supporting NATO bombing, for
>example (which, by the way, Andy Austin was a strong critic of that NATO
>bombing, so I'm not criticizing him.)
>
>But "self-determination" as a positive slogan? That's also what the TPLF
>(Tigrayan political leadership) in Ethiopia is using as an excuse to set up
>segregated regions.
>\
>Just some thoughts,
>
>Alan Spector
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
>To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
>Date: Monday, April 10, 2000 9:57 AM
>Subject: Re: Fw: Annan blames Ethiopia...
>
>
>>
>>There are at least two struggles that occur in capitalist colonial
>>situations. One is the struggle of the working classes to overthrow
>>capitalist rule and replace it with a democratic system. The other is to
>>overthrow colonial rule and achieve a measure of self-determination. The
>>Oromo people have the right not to be enslaved by external oppressors.
>>Would one suggest that African Americans should not have been emancipated
>>from slavery because they are now wage-laborers? To be sure, these
>>struggles are linked, just as they are linked with other struggles of age
>>and gender, but this is why the immediate struggle for self-determination
>>cannot be sacrificed to an ideal vision of the future - especially because
>>self-determinism is part of concretely achieving that vision.
>>
>>Andrew Austin
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Mine Aysen Doyran
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222