Re: Fw: Annan blames Ethiopia... (fwd)

Alan, we agree on the basics!

Mine 

Alan Spector wrote:

>I don't want to get into an argument with Mine, Andy, Lenin or anyone
>else
>as to whether the anti-imperialist/"national liberation" struggles in the
>early part of the 20th century were an effective ("instrumental") way to
>tactically weaken the military power of some imperialists. Perhaps they
>were.

>But at this point, (nearly 100 years after Lenin wrote "Imperialism-the
>Highest State of Capitalism")  given the 100 year long  concrete record
>of
>that strategy, from Algeria to Turkey to Zimbabwe, we see that
>capitalism,
>whether run by imperialists or locals, ends up oppressing the workers and
>peasants. Consider even the most grassroots, mass-led struggle that
>occured
>in recent times, the heroic war of the Vietnamese people against the
>mighty
>U.S.,  which resulted in the defeat of the U.S.  Now, something like 90%
>of
>the property in Vietnam is in private hands and it gets worse daily.
>There
<will have to be anothe revolution to uproot the new capitalist class.

In addition to the inevitable sell-out by the local capitalists, there is
also the reality that different sectors of big imperialists will attempt to
make alliances with the leaders of the "nation liberation"
military-political leaders.  In the 1800's, the U.S. supported the
"liberation" struggles in South America against Spain. More recently, we see
the beginings of new imperialist alliances that will probably be anti-US,
but still anti-working class.  Among the possibilities are some important
sections of the capitalist classes in: Iraq, Iran, Ethiopia (which is why
the U.S. is suddenly critiquing their old allies there), South Africa,
Russia, China, India, Japan, Germany (some powerful countries), even Mexico,
Brazil, Italy and France. It is not clear how this process will ultimately
congeal, and who will ally with whom, but suffice it to say, that whatever
anti-U.S. alliance does develop,  it will be hostile to the U.S., will
support anti-U.S. movements among neo-colonies that are currently part of
the U.S. economic empire, and will attempt to replace the U.S. as the
exploiter and oppressor of those people.

Andy brings up a good point: "What if there is a mass movement for
'self-determination'?  Even in that case, one has to be clear about just
what constitutes a "mass movement."   Are we obligated to lend political
support to the program of the Peruvian Communist Party ("Sendero"), or FARC
in  Colombia, FMLN in Central America, the "Independentistas" in Puerto
Rico, the IRA in Northern Ireland?  Chavez in Venezuela?

While the military struggle against imperialists is commendable, it is not
clear that the political program of those groups is necessarily supported by
the majority of workers and peasants.  And even if it is, don't genuine
anti-capitalists, Marxists, revolutionaries, communists, etc. have a
responsibility to openly critique the pro-capitalists who are leading the
working class into a battle between two different groups of capitalists?
Aren't they/we supposed to struggle with people, or just "agree with them?"

=====================
As a friend from Africa once said to me: "What is there "Marxist" or
communist about the phrase "SELF-determination?"  "SELF? --That is the
opposite of collective, unselfish, internationalist struggle."

============
Now an important final point, before some readers misunderstand the position
stated above:

It is absolutely necessary for anti-capitalists, Marxists, revolutionaries,
communists, etc. to participate in the national liberation struggles. Of
course! Just as they would participate in a strike for higher wages, or a
protest against police brutality/terror, or prison abuses, or abusive,
sexist practices and culture, or anti-working class testing in schools, or
even higher tuition in colleges.  All these struggles are limited. Even
worse, we know that if the capitalists are forced to make concessions in
those reform struggles, they will find a way to deepen the exploitation and
oppression of another section of the working class to pay for those
concessions. And if the reform movement does not address the oppression of
those other workers, then it does, in some way, become complicitous in the
intensified oppression of those other workers (the history of labor
movements in North America and Europe gives plenty of evidence of that.) .
BUT NEVERTHELESS,  PARTICIPATION IN THOSE STRUGGLES IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who dedicated years of effort to try to
force the United States to militarily withdraw from Vietnam, even though I
had serious misgivings about the political leadership of the Vietnamese
Communists.

So maybe this seems like splitting hairs, but in the context of struggling
with every ounce of energy against the particular forms of capitalist
oppression, including imperialist aggression, it is still necessary to
critique the political program of these reformist movements, even at the
risk of being called "an ally of the oppressor" or even "a CIA agent."  The
proof of someone's commitment is their actions, day by day, year after year,
not in whether they offer paper statements of political support for every
reformist or nationalist group engaged in struggle.  It is in the course of
these actions that the serious forces will be sorted out from the
opportunists.

In any case, I probably won't post anything else on this (for a while) since
my concern is that people understand the ideas posted above, not necessarily
that everyone will be convinced by my restating them again and again.

Alan Spector    (no S at the end; it's just the way the email name was set
up)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mine Aysen Doyran <md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu>
    To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
    Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 1:07 AM
    Subject: Re: Fw: Annan blames Ethiopia...


    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