Is it beneficial for Marxists to support national liberation movements?

How can we determine if a country is suffering under imperialism or not?

I think Scotland IS suffering under imperialism, because London does not respect their specific concerns and because many Scots are employed by English businesses and are subjugated by English financial institutions.

But I don't support Scottish national liberation because it would be a bourgeois liberation like in Ireland, where economic imperialism is preserved. And it would also open the way to further oppression of non-Scots in Scotland.

What if the oppressed nation (Iraqi Kurds) is attached to the vanguard of capital (the USA) while the oppressor (Iraq) is oftentimes opposed to this vanguard?

Economic extraction of net value would be start. I mean there is plenty of theory out there trying to define it. Can you not buy cheap Third World products in Scottish stores? Can you not find Scottish soldiers in Afghanistan and the such? If anything Scotland is an imperialist country itself.
That's just regular capitalism. For it to be imperialism there would have to be some sort of violent system in place securing England's extraction of value out of Scotland. I don't think this is sufficient to constitute imperialism. Surely Scotland has been historically oppressed, granted.

Maoist here.

White Americans are a nation under Jewish occupation and it is our duty as Marxist-Leninists to support the overthrow of ZOG Occupied Government. White Americans form the bulk of America's rural working classes and are thus the most revolutionary group in modern America.

I don't like that definition at all.

You can find cheap Third Word products in Russia and Iran, but these countries are definitely victims of imperialism.

Isn't the presence of British (English) cops and soldiers in Scotland securing English extraction of Scottish value? Again, many or most Scots are employed in English businesses.

I'm not so sure how the current nation of Iraq is so opposed to capital, but obviously we should support national liberation of the Kurds although I'm not educated on the topic of the Iraqi kurds in terms of their level of oppression since Saddam was ousted. It becomes a problem when some imperialist power uses a NatLib movement to carve up another nation (the whole Rojava predicament).

In general I'm with Mao on this who says that we shouldn't approach this extremly dogmatic and axiomatic but analyze the specific situation economically and dialectical.

Iran is generally more pro-Iran than pro-Washington/Riyadh, but their situation is ambivalent. Much like China, they sometimes collaborate with imperialists and sometimes reject imperialism.

Problem is that Kurds in Iraq, substantially more than Kurds in Syria, are aligned toward the US. Recently the US began directly arming Iraqi Kurds without the permission of Baghdad, and the Kurds of Iraq have historically sided with Turkey over the PKK whenever they came into conflict.

While in theory we should support Iraqi Kurdish national liberation, it seems like an independent Iraqi Kurdistan would enable imperialism on a broader scale.

But at the same time Iraqi Kurdistan is still effectively colonized by Arabs from Baghdad, and their surplus value (mostly through oil) is being used to enrich the rest of the country. Independent Iraq would probably sell their oil reserves to Western companies.

Do Iranians and Russians run sweatshops in the Third World? I'm pretty sure the economic relations of Scotland as a part of the UK towards such things are far far more entangled and perpetuating as the ones of Russia and Iran. The thing is that Russia and Iran operate mostly by exporting fossil fuels, while most European countries, depleted of resources since century, live off exploitation (in the imperialist sense) as their sole source of wealth. It's a significant part of their economy.
How? Examples? I'm sure you can find tons of rich Scottish bourgeoisie making money with rather shitty businesses in England too. How many businessman from Angola run exploitive businesses in the UK, on the other hand? Imperialism demands that exploitive economic relations are a one-way-street.

That is why I said we should be critical of the nationalists and reactionaries in the national liberation movement. We should give support to the socialists who actually want to implement change and not just regime change.
Mostly right, that is why I said it depends on the context. In the context you give, the smart choice is liberation from imperial interests. We should be careful of Catalonia's independence due to ethnonationalists but the Basques are pretty based
youtube.com/watch?v=kfSqrNoYQhw

But I don't see where you draw the line. Many individual Indians and Africans have become fabulously wealthy thanks to imperial collaboration, and Indian companies like Tata (owner of Jaguar and Land Rover) operating in the West and exploiting many Westerners.

Absolutely not
A great example is ireland and the IRA, many IRA factions claim to be socialist and that they were fighting for a socialist ireland.
Well, ireland became an independent capitalist state and the leftist IRA factions puffed out of existences, being an independent capitalist state is the same thing as not being independent at all but nationalists are happy when porky has the same birth certificate as them. The fight for an independent and socialist ireland was a sham from the first day, why not fight for a socialist uk or for socialism on its colonies? They didn't care because they were nationalists first and the socialism was a piece of paper with staples.

Also Blacks and Natives.

lol out loud
smh my head
tfw when

This is a drastic simplification of the IRA. The IRA did not puff out of existence because Northern Ireland achieved more independence, they disarmed because they had lost their popular support and recruitment base and started to attract desperate and sick people (like the proxy bombers and mass shooters), were fighting a perpetual guerrilla war which was stalemated , and finally managed to force the British government, whose negotiations were almost always on a dismissive, highly British "we will win" slant, to negotiate in a way that was positive for the fighters and their goals. The Republic of Ireland was ALREADY relatively free of British control, so I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "Ireland became independent and the left disappeared".

We should, our own. Dont think of the national the way the nationalist does, think of it as the people who believe theyre on your nation and those that forcibly get treated like they are. Its great to struggle for the liberation of your people, its just ultimately this can only be done through communism and internationalism.

The nations or workers organized along national lines will probs be the ones who vote to form the worldwide federation/ military alliance. Telling people not to care about their nation is a nonstarter. Instead convince them their nation succeeds only by adopting proletarian internationalism and shedding obsolete tyrannical customs. We dont need any more natlibs in isolatoon anymore. The material conditions are here

We must uncritically support all national liberation movements even if they're reactionary. This is the reality of anti-imperialism.

Depends. The ETA is definitely worth supporting though. Also balkanizing states is fun also.

If its like ISIS, no.
If it's for independence and democratic self rule, yes.

fpbp also read Fanon

I used to support them but it's all useless shit, all of them fall into the same neoliberal trash.

I would only support nationalism if it was for socialist purposes mainly

What is unhcr.org/en-au/1951-refugee-convention.html ?? Assuming a post-independence Scotland would ratify it, then yes, they would be obliged on the basis of having signed up to a damn treaty.

rojava