Do you support independence of indigenous peoples in the Earth? Including european nations living in modern Russia, like Mari, Udmurts, Nenets, etc., or Indians in modern America?
Do you think it's consistent with global anarchism or communism or not?
Do you support independence of indigenous peoples in the Earth? Including european nations living in modern Russia...
Do you support independence of indigenous peoples in the Earth? Including european nations living in modern Russia, like Mari, Udmurts, Nenets, etc., or Indians in modern America?
No. Indigenous idpol is spooky as fuck.
Personally as I see it, decolonization has some of its own problems. Specifically is that it falls deeply into the religion spook. Unless it is a Socialist cause first and foremost I feel like it's just nationalists (this is why i wasn't too hasty to support the kurds in R*java)
Decolonisation is overwhelmingly reactionary garbage. Socialism must necessarily be universalist, or it isn't socialism.
Of course, the nationalist spook is mainly for the part of "Hey millions of people happen to be living here, but they're white! Let's force generations of people to be forced off this land because my great great grandfather took a piss here in the year of our lord 1776"
For places such as Greenland I can give a bit of a pass for, just because they've basically been abused but thankfully the natives there don't plan on forcing anyone off their island
I'm for the self-determination of nations. Most indigenous people never had any statist ideas, so giving them states would be quite weird unless they advocate for it themselves. However I believe that indigenous people should get their own autonomous region. Russia did a decent job with the Sibirians and respected their rights.
The only indigenous people that reached a level of statism were the meso-americans, and they don't exist anymore as a nation.
The problem is capitalism, not ethnicity.
Nothing is less consistent with global socialism and communism than fragmenting society along several different ethnic and cultural lines and making social cohesion and public initiative something challenging and, with time, very tribalistic.
Even under capitalism this is a bad idea. Some starry eyed liberal dipshit may advocate for indigenous independence thinking about the oppressed natives finally living in pre-capitalist egalitarian bliss and before you realise that place is a tax heaven or a capital magnet fostered by cheap labour, and both sides get fucked.
You are totally abusing the word enlightenment here. Imperialism isn't enlightenment but reactionary. >>>/leftpol/
Socialism is international, and therefore necessarily a commonwealth. You are not fragmanting society along cultural lines just if you give nations the option to govern themselves.
I agree with you, comrade, and I'm happy to read this, someone in this board stil thinks.
Internationalism is not antinationalism, but common class struggle of peoples of every nation.
Internationalism certainly is antinationalist. They're two opposites, in name even, dude.
Antinationalist in the sense that it opposes nationalism, not in the sense that it rejects the existence of nations itself.
If you think univeralism = imperialism, then you have to go back >>>Holla Forums
Internationalism isn't opposition to nationalism as such, but to national chauvinism - view that nations should fight with each other, and people in every nation should cooperate with their ruling elites to archive their national supremacy.
Modern rightists appropriated world 'nationalism' for describing chauvinism, and that's why today it's seen so negatively on the left. Remeber that anarchists, communists, from XIX-century, were also nationalists usually.
Nationalism isn't necessarily idea of abandoning class struggle. Contrary to it - national struggle should be a class struggle against national borugeoise. Peoples of the world, unite! - as we can paraphrase sentence from Manifesto.
Socialist internationalism implies different communities living under the same assumptions regarding how our material lives are to managed. So a degree of cohesion is necessary, and that is not attainable if complete sovereignty is given to every tribe that wants to claim it. Even in the best, "socialism won!" scenario this is a gateway for capitalist restoration, and in modern circumstances it just divides the proletariat and the public sector in their hability to challenge and engage with global capitalism.
So no, your pseudo-primitivist ethno-nationalism ios not Socialist internationalism. It's the opposite.
If your version of universalism is destruction of indigenious cultures and colonization, so yes, it is imperialism.
You and your ilk uses the word universalism to pretend that imperialism doesn't exist and that the deportation of Palestinians or whatever is somehow universalism. Your "universalism" is not unlike liberal univeralism who believe that everything should be commodified and sold, even cultures. Proper universalism would accept the struggles of oppressed peoples in their own fight for self-determination and their own right for a dialectic development.
yeah, each commune will get a lot of autonomy, so they'll get to live as they wish, as long as the commune is structured democratically. I also support making a bigger emphasis on native languages and knowledge of their past not dying out.
You do realize there is unity in struggle right? Some African tribe fighting for national liberation doesn't invalidate the struggle of the working class in the West.
How the fuck would you have attained "cohesion" (right-wing talking point btw) in the USSR in the 50s with a modern industrialized socialist society and some Sibirian natives? Rip them out of their natural enviroment?
How are you faggots even leftists? If you read any far-right publications (e.g. Arktos), you would know that they use the exact same arguments you're making against universalism, justifying it on the basis on Indigenous Europeans resisting colonisation and imperialism. Leftism is universalist, whether the universal category being class or a universal humanitas. If you're not a universalist, you're not a leftist.
This is the same bullshit muh culture that right-wing nationalists in the EU and within developed countries use, except that in this case the people are brown enough to be deemed "oppressed"
by silly liberal common wisdom instead of bigoted.
Polish anarchist transgender queer commie. It's impossible to be more leftist in my situation. I'm most extreme left as I can. And stll, I don't see a point in abandoning national struggle.
Honest question, either brainlet or confused. What does this word mean for indigenous-rights groups/decolonizing activists? Like do they want to create a better space for indigenous people? Forced affirmative action where they would be at the helm of head institutes? Seriously, what is the end-goal after you decolonize a country that had has been colonized after 300 years ago?
Do you even recognize that national liberation is not equivalent for advocating völkisch primitvism like Varg? It's merely the right of a group to develop on their own. You are making quite a racist assumption that these savages are naturally primitivist and are not interested in development on their own terms.
Ouch. Read a book.
Sameness of the arguments does not mean the sameness of proposed solution and the content.
Right, you're an anarchist, but you're for nationalism. You have to go back >>>Holla Forums
There is unity in struggle if you struggle under the same circumstances. Nationalism only divides the struggle and puts proletariat against proletariat, both fighting over which side gets the best treatment of global capitalism by sacrificing their own rights. It's labour competitiveness elevated to national level, and the only thing that can do away with that is people unifying under the same institutions and the same laws that it can be solved.
Saying we can struggle together separated is like saying we don't need unions, only "workers solidarity!".
Oh boy. You're going to be so triggered when you read Marx.
You have to pretend that we're talking about mass deportations now in order to have something to fall back on. Grow the fuck up.
Just because I have gender or national identity, not mean I'm idpolist. You're oversensitive.
Srsly, read Marx, plz.
The existence of a nation is not an identity. It's a historically constituted group with economic cohesion and a similar psychological make up.
It's not we who said this - you said this.
National Identity is nonsense.
Just because you live in counry where racial identity is more politically important than national identity, does not mean it's applies anywhere in the world. Nations are real and have material reasons to exist.
If you think you have no national identity, try to live in situaton and under government that supress your culture, language and identity. You'll quickly find it.
That's literally the point you're all making, that we can divide along new lines and keep a structured, collective struggle against a non-national entity.
Which is an argument for different peoples and different groups living within the same political frameworks, you fucking dummy
This is completely fucking wrong by the way, and ahistorical as fuck. Nations are constructs, national identities are constructs, there's no metaphysical identity keeping people together in sovereign communities, only historical convergence of factors.
Also saying that anyone who is aware of his/her nationality is national syndycalist, is saying than Catalan comrades from revolutionaty, anti-independence fraction of CNT are national syndycalists because they publish a newspaper in Catalan language.
No they don't you reactionary idiot. They're entirely imagined. It "is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion". Read Benedict Anderson.
This is just an insult that should not fall among the comrades
First off I didn't advocate for nationalism but let me make this clear: Nationalism is very capitalistic in imperialist countries, as they profit from imperialism and have a historical past to draw from, while nationalism in oppressed countries is less capitalistic as they were oppressed by capitalism.
What are you trying to say? Marx himself supported the 1848 revolution and Engels wrote a piece about indigenous struggles. Are you one of these guys that read "Wage Labor and Capital" and then pretend to be a theory wiz?
Most oppressed nations don't have their own bourgeoisie. They struggle against colonizers and imperialist accomplices. You invalidate this as illegitimate which is, dare I say, undialectic.
Considering this is what happened and what actually happens right fucking now which you indirectly apologize for speaks volumes.
Language that we're using, our customs and traditions are imagined? I'm not saying that traditions are sacred and should be treated uncritically, but they are sometimes just nice. It's cool to have your own language or traditions that you can show to others.
And? Read something else than Stirner just once. Stalin defined it like this correctly.
Just keep showing us how you're not a leftist. And even to acknowledge your point, sharing culture with someone doesn't make your community any less imagined.
Of course it's nothing metaphisical, since when we're talking about metaphycis? Stirner said this to ciriticize hegelian concept of "national spirit", not to say that there's no nation in the Earth. BTW he was racist as fuck.
What's the fucking point whether or not something is a "spook"? Are you denying that capitalist commodification totally errupted and corrupted cultural life?
Not all traditions are bourgeois. Right wing nationalists are supporters of bourgeois traditionalism, I'm supporter of working class traditions and history. It's completely different approach to topic.
The material reasons for nations to exist was the bourgeois search for home markets in the 18th and 19th century and the unification of economic networks in the period of colonization, both necessities which no longer exist.
The nation has outlived its purpose, and a transnational grouping is necessary. Dividing the nation even further is reactionary.
You do know that a few centuries ago you couldn't walk to what would be two different states in today's european countries without feeling like you've stepped in another world, right? Dialects were mutually incomprehensible, administration was local, the people spent their entire lives without stepping away from their cities and with their own traditions. What changed this was decades of mass education within carefully constructed "national identities". This wasn't an spontaneous process. Which means culture, language and identity are historical constructs, not organic principles according to which we have to organize our society.
So basically, you're whining about a process that has happened thousands of times and is vital to the integration of different peoples into largers political frameworks, which, in turn, is vital for economic and historical advancement.
Decolonization is literally Holla Forums. As an indigenous northern European, our far-right have used the exact same arguments to claim that brown and yellow people need to go away.
READ A FUCKING BOOK. A nation state is not the same as a nation.
I'm not calling anything a spook you illiterate retard. I'm talking about Benedict Anderson.
It's the same thing.
No, they're entirely different philosophical concepts. But just keep showing to everyone how your parents force-fed you paint chips as a child. I hope that's your shitposting flag.
Of course it's form of chauvinism that can't be acceptable at any level, but don't you think that indigenious peoples have right to their culture and self-deretmination, when it isn't separatist or chauvinist? Ie. I like my language and I'm not happy that state under which I live is trying to force us to forget it.
I'm not saying you're advocating nationalism in the chauvinistic sense of 20th century political movements, but you are advocating nationalism in the sense of creating new nations from segments of old ones. That's the meaning I'm using here.
I'm saying that you're probably going to collapse, cry, have an identity crisis and become some esoteric type of anarchist once you read what Marx said about the colonization of India, that Marx and Engels both welcomed the american takeover of Mexican lands as progressive, that Marx wanted the victory of Prussia in the Franco-Prussian war and so on all because that meant more lands and more people under the cohesion of a historically more advanced system (which, I'm sure, is a very bigoted idea to you), and so on and so on.
Marxism has a strong tradition of believing in the consolidation of larger and larger groupings with absolutely no fucks given to muh people. There are some particular circumstances under which national liberation is necessary, but most of the time it isn't.
You just said most oppressed nations don't have a bourgeoisie, as if bourgeoisies are consistent historical entities and not developed from circumstances, and you dare call someone undialectic?
Algiers, Vietnam, Israel didn't have bourgeoisies until a while ago either, dipshit.
You're a baby.
You have absolutely nothing to say, and it's showing.
a nation isn't the same as a nation
As far as I know Anderson talks about nationalism, but that's not what I'm talking about. In fact, nationalism is the departure of the traditional concept of nations as a transhistorical concept. Nations and universalism is not mutually exclusive, as it is proven by the entire middle ages. Nationalism as an identitarian factor is quite recent. I'm starting to suspect you are talking out of your ass.
If your genes weren't native to your nation, you need to go home. Arabs belong in the Middle East and Africans belong in Africa.
Well, and that says a lot, doesn't it
I don't accept that your position can ever be free of chauvinism or separatism. You would not be making these claims if you did not see yourself as separate from that state.
That has nothing to do with the self-determination of nations.
How is this an argument?
Yes. Therefore the national liberation of Vietnam was wrong, which was achieved both by the evolving national bourgeoisie and the working class as their interests aligned in the fight against colonialism? You are confirming my argument here.
I kinda think it's cool but it just devolves into liberalism from what I understand. That's what the decolonization movement here is mostly having for the end-goal with the exception of the social democrats and the "more socialist than social democrats" folks
Are you so incapable of keeping track of an argument that you forgot what this thread is about?
It says a lot, but you have to think a little.
It's an argument in the sense that it proves your claim was wrong etc
It wasn't wrong, it was pointless, but it was validated by the fact that it was not merely a nativist movement but the dislocation of a space from a capitalist to a socialist bloc. I support this in the same way I'd support Britain erasing feudal remnants in the 19th century. This of course is no longer the geopolitical circumstances of the world, where the only transnational entity is that of global capitalism.
Bruh, I’m all for allowing people to protect their culture, but if that culture includes reactionary elements then they shouldn’t be tolerated. Plenty of indigenous peoples practiced slavery, are you going to protect their right to enslave people because it’s their culture?
How often were you dropped as a kid my dude?
You claimed I advocated for the creation of "new nations" which I don't. It's a strawman.
Are you equating state with nation again? Jesus Christ.
I made the argument that bourgeoisie is not developed from circumstances? What? That was the entire basis for my argument against imperialism.
See, this kind of attitude is simply dangerous. You can not on one hand advocate for universal progressivism and at the same time oppose progressive movements on the basis of being a national liberation movement. Countries under modern (!) imperialism are cut out from the accumulation-reinvestment cycle, which is the basis of capitalist development. See, this is where your argument deconstructs itself: Once your assumption of anti-colonialism being inherently anti-modern falls flat (which, again, is racist), you have no reason to oppose national self-determination anymore. Beside, considering that a proletarian movement never managed to seize power outside of the framework of a national liberation, the burden of proof isn't really on me in this case.
No. Indigenous rights in the US are supposed to be about actual human dignity, i.e. not having crude oil pumped into their homelands because no one cares about them.
these false flags keep getting worse and worse
reminder that the concept of "decolonization" is a colonialist one and if you support it you are a colonialist
Buddy, I support the indopendence of every people!
Do you think being in a gender and sexual minority makes you more leftist than other people? Fucking anarkiddies man.
Ethno nationalism, of any sort except Zionism is bad.
Also actual imperialism (conquering other countries) isn't bad in itself, the problem is imposing exploitative, racist and segregationist policies. Nothing wrong with cosmopolitan, integrationist empires that recognize and treat the conquered peoples as fellow citizens and encourage assimilation.
The colonized natives of the European colonial empires should have fought for full integration/citizenship and not separation/independence, just like black people did in America and South Africa.
The deportation of Arabs/Palestinians is a consequence of Jewish Israelis self-determination which inherently means the exclusion of non-jews.
If you're a true materialist, you should want to eliminate nations and ethnicities altogether. They're completely imaginary. The only real differences between groups of people are genetic.
I'm 1/4 Native American, and I'm fucking glad we were colonized. We were Chinks who didn't even know what paper or writing was.
There are no genetic differences between people. All differences can be accounted for by environmental factors.
Colonization has been only a good thing for the European working-class, allowing temporary freedom from the oppressive feudal and, later, capitalist chains of the Old World. (The key word being settler colonies like America and the South African Boers. The Zaporozhian Cossacks can be considered an "Eastern" equivalent. Australia could've been like this, but the British crushed all attempts at this with their crackdown of the Eureka revolt.)
Colonials actually lived longer lifespans, owned their own property, and generally were better off than people who worked as serfs or wage slaves. And, colonial societies were generally far more democratic until industrialization or/and population growth led to class inequalities developing.
Also, European/Western civilization is the only civilization that can have a society based on worker's self-management and direct-democracy. Democracy was born in the west, as well as worker-oriented socialism. The "socialism" of the east naturally devolves into strongman rule or bureaucratic messes.
The natives only numbered a hundred thousand in the North American continent in its entirety, since smallpox killed them off long before English settlement of the East Coast. They essentially hogged land away from millions of settlers with their inefficient land-use. Basically, the natives deserved to get moved to reservations, and, if that land wasn't enough for them, then they are to blame for not using contemporary agricultural techniques.
Indigenous idpol is trash and indigenous peoples, at least in America, need to be assimilated, their shit-flinging cultures removed in favor of superior, more developed ones.
I'm fine with preserving, say, Mayan culture though. They actually did create a civilization of some worth. Though, I wouldn't put them in the same lot as hunter-gatherers and semi-agricultural societies.
I'd love to see this, actually
miss me with that reactionary shit
Local bottom up governance would remove the need for this. Ethnostates are the modern equivalent of putting up a new king to rule over your tribe, just a long that speaks the same language as you.
I don't give a fuck about either, and I live in a fucking Poland were children are brainwashed from the getgo to be spooped nationalist catholics with free market characteristics
This should be the only post in this thread.
Cultures change. People kill each other. Get over it.
Being polish makes you more leftist? Fucking anarkiddies man
Whenever subcomediante marcos goes on about mother nature as in the native's religion trying to exrtract socialism out of it I vomit a little.
This. How the fuck do you define "indigenous" anyways? Like I was born and raised where I live, am I not indigenous because my ancestors don't go back far enough for someone else's liking? How many generations does it take before I deserve a plot of land over someone else? And anytime you say that those "native" to a land deserve it, you approach literal Nazism when it comes to europe as a lot of northern europeans are historically the first to settle and live there.
Polish people tend to be right wing.
Are you saying nomadic cultures cannot be advanced?
Nomads are different from hunter-gatherers. Often, they rely on pastoralism.
A good portion of frontier European cultures like the Boers, Cossacks, and Western Americans are semi-nomadic as well as, of course, the Steppe cultures of central Asia and the Bedouins of the Middle East.
Even those steppe cultures still had much higher populations than Native American societies and often only occur in lands too arid for most agriculture.
though my primary field of reference is maori and aboriginal people in Australia and (through very handwavey inference) Canada.
NZ is perhaps the most interesting because the Maori electorates almost always go Labour or otherwise left-leaning (the Maori party died for not doing this) so having special parliamentary seats for indigenous groups is an electorally advantageous thing for my political views.
I guess creating independent Indian states would fuck with the USA which might be fun, but on the whole it's not really a goer.
look buddy if america gets to destroy british culture then i want to destroy someone else's culture.
people who call themselves anarchists are really red liberals who uncritically support any movement, including idpol, calling itself leftist, due to their nonexistent grasp of theory. the fact that they buy into all the decolonization garbage isn't exactly surprising. leftcoms are 100% right about this crap.
I'm a Communalist. Not a leftcom.