Nationalism as the Enemy of Human Liberation

        Let me second everything that Alan Spector has posted, and draw
the following conclusions:

        1.  Because the modern world-system is ineluctably capitalist, the
end result of almost every national liberation from imperialist powers is
the resumption of oppression of local working people by national capitalists,
quite often in collusion, immediately or eventually, with the corporations
and states of core capitalist nations.  In exceptional cases, the
oppression is accomplished by national Stalinists, as in North Korea or
the former Kampuchea.  And then we have Cuba, which I would like to think
has preserved at least some of its socialist integrity and (there's that
ugly word again) humanism.  But the main point is that in a capitalist
world-system, when core imperial powers kill or cause the killing of, for
example, more than two million human beings in French and then American
Vietnam, the result is just what Alan reports.  What did those two million
Vietnamese die for?  Was their sacrifice worth what it gained?

        2.  Nationalism can be a means to a higher end, but since, in
almost 60 years of bitter post-war (post-1945) experience, the higher end
is almost always swiftly strangled by the logic of the world-system, why
should we see it as any more than a temporary expedient?  Not to mention
the usefulness of nationalism as a tool of racist and ethnic oppression of
one people, e.g., Kurds or Tibetans or Sioux, by another, e.g., Turks or
Han Chinese or "Americans."  In fact, to quote Alan, nationalism is
routinely the enemy of human liberation.

        3.  It follows that in the "longue duree" the best hope for human
liberation lies in the emergence of a trans-national confederation of
working people everywhere, struggling in concert to overthrow and supplant
the capitalist world-system with a democratic global commonwealth.  Such a
great deed can be done only when the dragon is gravely wounded by its own
internal contradictions.  But that time draws near, and meanwhile are
"working people everywhere" ready with a sure and terrible sword to strike
off its head?  I doubt it.  On the contrary, most of them are preoccupied,
perhaps understandably so, with national and segmental grievances, and
(in the case of smart-set intellectuals) by the postmodernist idolatry of
"difference" (vive la difference!), all of it relished by wise
establishments everywhere on the grand old Roman principle of "divide et
impera."

        I submit that the top half of the hourglass is almost empty, and
the time is at hand, has long been at hand, for progressive sociologists
and everybody else on the Left to shift their focus from analysis and
criticism to synthesis and utopistics.  What's wrong is painfully obvious,
although there is plenty of room for disagreement about the relative
importance of this and that and the other thing.  The question remains,
what's right?  And how in hell are we going to get there?

        Warren



On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Alan Spector wrote:

> Any time the capitalists fight among themselves, there are mixed results. On 
>the one hand, it does weaken their "core", as Steve and Ken correctly point 
>out. They are correct to encourage support for anti-imperialist struggles. 
>That is no small matter.  It opens up OPPORTUNITIES for ridding the world of 
>their murderous system.
>
> But OPPORTUNITIES are only that---opportunities. When the capitalists fight 
>among themselves, they also kill many millions of innocent people.
>
> And it often just replaces one oppressor with another. From the USSR to 
>Algeria to Congo, nationalism has been the enemy of human liberation. Even 
>nationalism directed against imperialism. Before I get jumped on by those who 
>mistakenly would assert that I am, by default, supporting the nationalism of 
>the oppressor, let me make clear that nationalist STRUGGLES against 
>imperialism have the important aspect of working class and other oppressed 
>people of one nation fighting against their oppression by the capitalists of 
>another nation. That's fine! That's terrific! We need to, and many of us 
>certainly given much effort to help, support that wholeheartedly, as we oppose 
>the imperialist wars.
>
> But there is a second aspect, which seems to always become primary---local 
>capitalists proceed to oppress the population, and furthermore, sometimes the 
>same and sometimes ANOTHER group of capitalists/imperialists from other 
>nations come along and oppress the population.  In fact, in just about every 
>case. Even the struggle of the Vietnamese against the U.S., perhaps the most 
>profound struggle of its type of the past fifty years--even in that case, 
>Vietnam has devolved into a capitalist state, where over 90% of the property 
>is in private hands and the Vietnamese leaders are desperately trying to 
>auction off the cheap labor of the Vietnamese working class to whichever 
>imperialist would like to invest there.
>
> Nationalist struggles against imperialism have two aspects: the aspect of 
>working class people struggling against oppression must be supported. The 
>aspect of Nationalism, itself, is the negative aspect. Nationalism, itself, as 
>an ideology, does not have two aspects. At least, not today. It is the 
>negative aspect of the nationalist struggles against imperialism. Surely, from 
>Algeria to Iran, that should be clear now.
>
> This is not some abstract point. It is especially important,  now that there 
>seems to be struggle within the "core" imperialist powers. It is important to 
>NOT side with France/Germany, or even "the U.N.", which may be out of the 
>complete control of the U.S. imperialists, but which is still primarily under 
>the control of SOME imperialists. This is a real question throughout Asia, 
>Africa, and Latin America, where nationalist movements there are sometimes 
>being aided by Euro-imperialists in their effort to undercut U.S. imperialism. 
>As we focus opposition against U.S. imperialism, we should never do anything 
>to build illusions about the Euro-imperialists. That, unfortunately, is what 
>is happening to some extent in the peace movement.
>
> Lest I be accused of being an ideological "purist" who cares more for 
>philosophy than for the well-being of real humans, I would only point out that 
>one can find empirical evidence of the major suffering of people after a 
>bloody war, when they have merely exchanged one set of imperialists for 
>another. In any case, I would never say that we should oppose, or abstain from 
>struggles against imperialism because they are not "fully Marxist". We should 
>participate in all kinds of reform struggles. But if we don't want to keep 
>going around in circles, we had better sharply critique the reformist aspect 
>of those struggles as we build on the opportunities that those struggles open 
>up. To fail to critique the reformist, and nationalist, aspects opens the door 
>to new rounds of oppression.
>
>
> As to this comment:
>
> "I haven't heard too many voices from the post-colonial world claim that 
>formal independence was of no matter, just because the US et al continue to 
>dominate their economies."
>
> I would suggest the following:
>
> Of course it was important that those struggles took place. Just as we 
>participated in the struggles to end apartheid in South Africa and rejoiced 
>when it was dismantled. But we need to temper that enthusiasm. Many of the 
>"voices" we hear are those of intellectuals. The voices of many of the 
>rank-and-file workers and other oppressed people are muffled, either by 
>nationalists such as in Iran, or by the massive poverty and disease that 
>crushes so many in South Africa, and in that bastion of anti-imperialist 
>history, Ethiopia. In both those places, and many others, a case could be made 
>that the people are no better off materially, having exchanged one set of 
>rulers for another.  And yes, it was important that those anti-imperialist, 
>anti-racist struggles took place, and that we support them, because valuable 
>lessons were learned.
>
> My concern is that sometimes, the wrong lessons are learned, when people lose 
>their critical edge towards critiquing the new capitalist rulers, including, 
>of course, "core" powers that appear to oppose one imperialism because they 
>wish to replace it with another.
>
> Alan Spector
>
> ===================================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Threehegemons@aol.com>
> To: <spectors@netnitco.net>; <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:09 AM
> Subject: Re: Hitler in the context of his times.
>
>
> > In a message dated 3/14/2003 12:20:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
>spectors@netnitco.net writes:
> >
> > I haven't heard too many voices from the post-colonial world claim that 
>formal independence was of no matter, just because the US et al continue to 
>dominate their economies. And the nostalgia with which the center-right (and 
>even some liberals) in the US look at colonialism speak loads about what was 
>lost.  The independence struggles permanently shattered the notion that 
>humanity is divided between those who act and those who are taken care of and 
>infantilized.  This was crucial.
> >
> > Ken Richards is right that it was the core's descent into self-destructive 
>chaos ('World War II') that provided the context for this victory.  However, 
>Hitler does not deserve some sort of special credit for this, anymore than the 
>allies who produced the Versaille treaty (which helped lead to the unbalances 
>that led to WWII).
> >
> > Steven Sherman
> >
> > > No, all it did was pave the way for the US to take over the role of 
>imperialist superstar. The misery and deaths in the neo-colonial world has 
>been just as terrible as it was before. The independence was often in name 
>only, with economies and politics and military still dominated by imperialist 
>powers. And while there were some temporary material gains, conditions in 
>Africa today, as well as much of Asia and Latin America are not particularly 
>better than when France and England directly ruled them......
> > >
> > > Let's not get into choosing which imperialist is kinder and
> > > gentler
> > >