|
I'm like a billion steps behind, intellectually, on this conversation, but I'm really eager to catch up. Can someone explain to me like I'm an idiot (I am) what "the right to self-determination" means? I'm assuming it doesn't mean cutting off all ties and throwing these supposed nations to the wolves with no benefit of participation in government or speech, but you'd think that's the case from some of the posts here.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
GlitchThief posted:I'm like a billion steps behind, intellectually, on this conversation, but I'm really eager to catch up. Can someone explain to me like I'm an idiot (I am) what "the right to self-determination" means? I'm assuming it doesn't mean cutting off all ties and throwing these supposed nations to the wolves with no benefit of participation in government or speech, but you'd think that's the case from some of the posts here. They would form their own governments that are structured in the way they like. religious councils, soviets, congress 2.0, whatever. so they would be participating in their own government
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
urby has the right idea with the soviet of nationalities example, though. or a system like with the supreme councils of union republics with greater devolution
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
GlitchThief posted:I'm like a billion steps behind, intellectually, on this conversation, but I'm really eager to catch up. Can someone explain to me like I'm an idiot (I am) what "the right to self-determination" means? I'm assuming it doesn't mean cutting off all ties and throwing these supposed nations to the wolves with no benefit of participation in government or speech, but you'd think that's the case from some of the posts here. It's a concept in international law that nations have a right to decide whether they remain integrated in another state, or become independent, and what their form of government will be. The concept of a nation is very poorly defined, but as the concept mostly came up in decolonization, the former administrative divisions imperialist powers imposed on their subjects were more or less the accepted baseline. Liberation movements outside of that context are much less clear-cut, and territorial integrity has largely been favored over self-determination. For example, if Quebec voted to secede from Canada, and Canada refused to respect that decision, an argument could be made that they wouldn't be in violation of international law by doing so. National liberation movements in the United States have hence tended to frame the struggles of minority groups against exploitation and discrimination as struggles against "internal colonization", and propose that certain areas where they form the plurality or majority should become independent countries to protect against that colonization. After that, material forces will determine the path they take, by which I mean anything goes. The previous posts by Urbandale assume some kind of (con)federal entity, or supranational organization, much in the same way the USSR was. Ormi fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
I don't know, I've probably been with Platypus so long that I'm linked to the idea that you can't really do anything in an instant; it has to come through convincing folks that you can do it. I've been watching Kshama Sawant (Socialist Alternative) and her activities with the city council to get some headway on how to proceed with everyone else. Yeah, it's Trotskyist, but it's the farthest anyone's gotten in a long time
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Reminder: So there's a problem with stating the obvious fact that Southern Blacks have been used as slaves and oppressed like gently caress for generations, and that means they aren't as socially or politically aware about their conditions? Yet another reason why your little balkanized Utopia would turn out lovely without the new communist government going all out to educate the people of the United States in class consciousness and other political and social matters. What happens when your nations of socially conservative blacks and hispanics decide they want gay marriage to be illegal and start making anti-trans laws? Also, what happens when rich blacks and hispanics who own the means of production use racism as they always have, to keep their working class divided and unable to pose a threat to their interests? The Saurus fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:They would form their own governments that are structured in the way they like. religious councils, soviets, congress 2.0, whatever. so they would be participating in their own government So you would allow the bourgeois and anti-leftist interests in these other "nations" to take control on the basis that different skin colours makes people so incredibly different that they couldn't possibly be in the same worker's state and government together. RELIGIOUS COUNCILS jesus loving christ
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:So you would allow the bourgeois and anti-leftist interests in these other "nations" to take control on the basis that different skin colours makes people so incredibly different that they couldn't possibly be in the same worker's state and government together. while I understand where urbandale is coming from, I don't support breaking up the US into ethnic based nations. I don't think he necessarily believes that either - it's more of a desire for more autonomous control of their communities. he can speak for himself tho... don't want to put words into anyone's mouth. my main issue with that is it starts to break down if you allowed that in the places that are listed as "american" ethnicity, for instance. I think you'd end up with things like gay marriage being banned in large swathes of the country - gay people are not an ethnic minority. not to mention it doesn't even begin to tackle class issues, and possibly exacerbates them. edit: i also really disagree that black people are not socially or politically aware of their condition. that's crazy dude
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
more reading material
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
poo poo, I should have googled first. Not every day that one of my questions is word-for-word the name of a section out of Lenin's work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
cool, thank you
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:edit: i also really disagree that black people are not socially or politically aware of their condition. that's crazy dude I think that some older blacks in the South specifically are less politically or socially aware, that would be a minority (heh) of the black population throughout the United States. Like I said, it's absolutely nothing to do with them being black, it's the fact that they and their ancestors were brought up in crushing slavery and oppression that deliberately kept them ignorant. http://twitter.com/CNNValencia/status/619530654393483265 The Saurus fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:So there's a problem with stating the obvious fact that Southern Blacks have been used as slaves and oppressed like gently caress for generations, and that means they aren't as socially or politically aware about their conditions? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Also, what happens when rich blacks and hispanics who own the means of production use racism as they always have, to keep their working class divided and unable to pose a threat to their interests? here's a fun exercise: name a black or hispanic or latinx person who owns the means of production in the united states
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
edit: a joke that wasn't even accurate!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:here's a fun exercise: name a black or hispanic or latinx person who owns the means of production in the united states Willie Wilson http://www.williewilson2016.com/ Daniel Pena https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVrHuEkULpM video is a pro-watch btw he is hilarious
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:So there's a problem with stating the obvious fact that Southern Blacks have been used as slaves and oppressed like gently caress for generations, and that means they aren't as socially or politically aware about their conditions? this is an amazing way to try to spin using the phrase "dumb black people"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:this is an amazing way to try to spin using the phrase "dumb black people" thanks, it's also true tho if i was a racist who thought all black people are dumb, i wouldn't need to say "dumb black people" i'd just say "black people", the dumb would be superfluous we wouldn't even be talking about this right now if someone hadn't tried to use an Ad Hominem attack against me to shut down Rudatron's incredibly good posts because you're unable to argue with him on the basis of the merits of your viewpoint The Saurus fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:thanks, it's also true tho ya but you're coming across not great my dude. scale it back
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:ya but you're coming across not great my dude. scale it back okay will do fam thanks for the advice at least i'm not supporting donald trump anymore 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
GlitchThief posted:I'm like a billion steps behind, intellectually, on this conversation, but I'm really eager to catch up. Can someone explain to me like I'm an idiot (I am) what "the right to self-determination" means? I'm assuming it doesn't mean cutting off all ties and throwing these supposed nations to the wolves with no benefit of participation in government or speech, but you'd think that's the case from some of the posts here. Karl Barks posted:They would form their own governments that are structured in the way they like. religious councils, soviets, congress 2.0, whatever. so they would be participating in their own government it just means that chican@s, as a nation, get to decide how they are going to live from now on. maybe they participate in the new and improved socialist US government or maybe they don't. their destiny is no longer made by whites from washington. people talking about how this definitely means balknization are responding from a position of knee-jerk fear of their own potential loss from this arrangement. again, i am aware of no chican@ nationalist org that advocates the formation of a new and wholy separate state called aztlan, and yet people already jumped beyond that step to forced emigration with this trail of tears chat. Ormi posted:It's a concept in international law that nations have a right to decide whether they remain integrated in another state, or become independent, and what their form of government will be. The concept of a nation is very poorly defined, but as the concept mostly came up in decolonization, the former administrative divisions imperialist powers imposed on their subjects were more or less the accepted baseline. Liberation movements outside of that context are much less clear-cut, and territorial integrity has largely been favored over self-determination. For example, if Quebec voted to secede from Canada, and Canada refused to respect that decision, an argument could be made that they wouldn't be in violation of international law by doing so. National liberation movements in the United States have hence tended to frame the struggles of minority groups against exploitation and discrimination as struggles against "internal colonization", and propose that certain areas where they form the plurality or majority should become independent countries to protect against that colonization. After that, material forces will determine the path they take, by which I mean anything goes. The previous posts by Urbandale assume some kind of (con)federal entity, or supranational organization, much in the same way the USSR was. i agree with most of your post except for the idea that the nation is poorly defined. lots of marxists wrote lots of things on the concept. this is the big one, and influenced most of the later anglo+francophone africa and east asian decolonization movements Weeping Wound posted:I don't know, I've probably been with Platypus so long that I'm linked to the idea that you can't really do anything in an instant; it has to come through convincing folks that you can do it. I've been watching Kshama Sawant (Socialist Alternative) and her activities with the city council to get some headway on how to proceed with everyone else. platypus explicitly calls itself a combat organization against the organized left, and also does nothing but organize reading groups. im friends with people inside the org, but im not surprised when they tell me they cant do things - thats the attitude that organization has towards activity entirely, not just fruitless days of action. most members havent done anything other than sit at conference or go to a protest. Karl Barks posted:while I understand where urbandale is coming from, I don't support breaking up the US into ethnic based nations. I don't think he necessarily believes that either - it's more of a desire for more autonomous control of their communities. he can speak for himself tho... don't want to put words into anyone's mouth. the US is already multiple nations, we arent turning it into one. i highly recommend reading the link for more involved theoretical work on the subject. also, we do not advocate self-determination for all nations, just those oppressed for their nationhood. for example, theres hella poor whites, but they arent oppresseed because theyre white, theyre just poor. Homework Explainer posted:here's a fun exercise: name a black or hispanic or latinx person who owns the means of production in the united states im certainly not claiming chican@s and black people dont own businesses. the contention is that the remain oppressed along national lines. whether they side with the people, forming what mao called the national bourgeoisie, or the sellouts, what mao called the comprador bourgeoisie, is the important part imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Urbandale posted:im certainly not claiming chican@s and black people dont own businesses. the contention is that the remain oppressed along national lines. whether they side with the people, forming what mao called the national bourgeoisie, or the sellouts, what mao called the comprador bourgeoisie, is the important part imo. i was just asking saurus to see if he'd even correctly apprehended what ownership of the mop entails in the 21st century
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
pretty funny for literal stalinists (hi homework explainer) to be calling out the US for having oppressed nations How much "national self determination" did the non-Russian nations of the USSR have? Did Stalin allow them to choose to secede and reinstate a bourgeois parliamentary government because of the importance of national identity and separating people based on it? What happened to the new soviet man? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_people
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
i'm not a stalinist you boring dweeb
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
you loving love the USSR though and constantly defend it. their national policy was nothing close to what the pslp wants
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Urbandale posted:the US is already multiple nations, we arent turning it into one. i highly recommend reading the link for more involved theoretical work on the subject. okay, I read through the stalin piece. He says "This community is not racial, nor is it tribal." in the first section. and the features of a nation: Thus, a common territory is one of the characteristic features of a nation. Thus, a common economic life, economic cohesion, is one of the characteristic features of a nation. Thus, a common psychological make-up, which manifests itself in a common culture, is one of the characteristic features of a nation. which he says means A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. in fact he says: It must be emphasized that none of the above characteristics taken separately is sufficient to define a nation. More than that, it is sufficient for a single one of these characteristics to be lacking and the nation ceases to be a nation. what are you dividing these nations within the US by? I'm not trying to argue in bad faith - just trying to ask questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:you loving love the USSR though I'm getting tired of reading this in every thread Homework Explainer posts in. Can you please show the evidence or just shut the gently caress up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
GlitchThief posted:I'm getting tired of reading this in every thread Homework Explainer posts in. Can you please show the evidence or just shut the gently caress up? check his post history if you care that much, the evidence is more than ample. I have better things to do than trawl through goons posting history in some pathetic "GOTCHA" like other people on this forum
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
i dont really see how its relevant to the thread, but stalin was never head of state in the USSR, and the national policy they more or less followed was set by lenin and the rest of the central committee of the party until reversed by Khrushchev. Karl Barks posted:okay, I read through the stalin piece. He says "This community is not racial, nor is it tribal." in the first section. and the features of a nation: im not sure i understand the bolded part, but are you asking what the argument is for blacks, chican@s, etc to be considered separate nations based on stalin's criteria?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:check his post history if you care that much, the evidence is more than ample. I have better things to do than trawl through goons posting history in some pathetic "GOTCHA" like other people on this forum weak. pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
A bold strategy, Saurus, just keep doubling down. Sooner or later you'll hit critical mass and everyone will be forced to agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Urbandale posted:i dont really see how its relevant to the thread, but stalin was never head of state in the USSR, and the national policy he followed was set by lenin and the rest of the central committee of the party. i'm saying it doesn't seem like you have the same definition of a nation as stalin does, which you cited. so what is your definition of a nation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:check his post history if you care that much, the evidence is more than ample. I have better things to do than trawl through goons posting history in some pathetic "GOTCHA" like other people on this forum why you so angry
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
i dont actually disagree with stalin's definition tbh
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:why you so angry people keep bullying me and i'm lashing out 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Urbandale posted:i agree with most of your post except for the idea that the nation is poorly defined. lots of marxists wrote lots of things on the concept. this is the big one, and influenced most of the later anglo+francophone africa and east asian decolonization movements i would say that stalin's definition is so vague as to justify either territorial integrity or self-determination, focusing on different qualifiers as convenient. like, for example, biafra. a historically constituted territory, culture and language, check. independent economic cohesion? debatable, and the nigerian government debated their control over the niger delta vigorously. quebécois independence raises the question of the eastern townships, montreal and nord-du-quebéc. the same problems arise in pretty much every single separatist conflict in the world, which is why internationalists are very hesitant to actually codify definitions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Urbandale posted:i dont actually disagree with stalin's definition tbh okay, but black and mexican groups don't seem to meet those criteria in the US
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
ill try and clear this up a bit. what i said was that there were many ideas for national liberation of oppressed nations inside the united states. i mentioned two specific examples, the black panther party's revolutionary intercommunalism and the CPUSA's black belt thesis. im more of a fan of the black belt thesis, as was mentioned previously, but the panther theory doesnt rely on stalin except through a number of steps removed - it pulls more from fanon and mao, and doesnt actually include territory as a hallmark of a nation. later discussion was on different possible forms of representation and governance for these liberated nations - whether they'd be federated inside the us or not, etc. thats largely talking about state formation, not inherently nations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:okay, but black and mexican groups don't seem to meet those criteria in the US sure they do - there is a chican@ nation and a chican@ diaspora, just as there is a black nation and diaspora inside the US. the black belt is the common territory(or aztlan), and slavery and an apartheid prison system form the basis of the claim of shared economy(or the forced draft into things like the bracero program for cheap agricultural labor). i dunno if anyone would deny theres a unique black or chican@ culture inside the US either. Urbandale fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
Urbandale posted:platypus explicitly calls itself a combat organization against the organized left, and also does nothing but organize reading groups. im friends with people inside the org, but im not surprised when they tell me they cant do things - thats the attitude that organization has towards activity entirely, not just fruitless days of action. most members havent done anything other than sit at conference or go to a protest. yeah, it's basically that. total opposite of what RevCom does. I just need to yell at some people to figure out what I want to do because honestly yelling at the computer comes up with lovely results
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:41
|
|