DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Endnotes has started publishing weekly correspondence on the Ukrainian situation from someone sympathetic to socialism. They have also published an interesting Manifesto against the war.
pgb: “The unity of nations is defined by what they have in common as against other groups, and not by their internal homogeneity.”
This seems like a contradiction to me. If what makes national unity is a perception of a shared characteristic / characteristics then the most unified nation would be one where the most people share that characteristic i.e one that has a high amount of internal homogeneity.
“you may have missed the fact that many workers identify with a nation state as citizens, not as mere subjects”
Not at all. It is because of the fact that most workers identify with the nation state that we are having this conversation, not in spite of it.
“Class identity etc. did not prevent English, French or German workers from seeing Britain, France and Germany as in some sense “their country” in World Wars I and II. Tragic it surely was, but it’s an historical fact.”
Well yes, but I’m not sure how this goes against the argument that nationalism is not a concept that socialists should be using or promoting.
“But it is an ideal yet to be realized, and therefore has limited relevance to what’s going on now in Ukraine where what you call “illusory ideas” of nationalism are very much real in the minds of those who hold them and thus help explain why Ukrainian workers, including many ethnic Russians, fight in the name of “their country” against a primordial nationalist like Putin.”
Yes, nationalism does explain why some Ukrainians and Russains are putting their life on the line. Illusionary ideas (religion / nationalism / race etc) do play a real role in the world, I don’t know how anyone could deny that.
Actually I think it’s a bit cheap to play the moral high ground or to try to offer advice to people in Ukraine right now. No-one there is going to see our words anyhow. The question is how do we, as a small minority with little influence, respond to what is going on there. I think playing the flag waving game is counter-productive to our aims. I also think that saying that not “taking sides”, or criticising the Ukrainian state, strengthens the Putin regime (as Kliman and friends did in that article) is a touch melodramatic and also overestimates the influence we have in the world.
“Thanks for the reference to gegen-kapital. It’s very long and I haven’t had time to read it yet.”
It is a little long. If you’re short on time just jump to the section on self-determination.
Why on earth would anyone read, let alone quote the Daily Mail?
Because it confirms and validates their already existing beliefs / prejudices / hopes. There’s no other reason anyone else would look at it, except for a laugh.
As we are talking about national self-determination perhaps it would be good to remind people of this article. PGB it would be good to know what you think about it, and how relevant it is to the Ukraine conflict.
https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/en/since-you-mentioned-us/
From what I read, it’s still a work in progress.
Forum type discussions can still take place, just not in quite the same format as before. To view discussions, log in then select “recent content” from the menu and choose “discussions”.
To start a new thread choose “submit content” from the bottom of the menu and then “discussion” from the content types.
PGB wrote:You suggest that when Ukrainian workers defend their patch of dirt (as above), what they are really doing is “defending the state”. Given your particular theory of the state, I guess that’s a fair assumption. But do you believe that this is what Ukrainian workers defending their patch actually believe? Or even think about?
What someone thinks about their situation and what the situation actually is are two separate things.
PGB wrote:If you (DJP, ALB) find the “right to self-determination an incoherent concept” why not change it to “the self determination of peoples”? […] they are merely asserting their right to live in a place which they regard as their own, and having the right to choose their own government rather than having one imposed on them by Putin
The “self-determination of peoples” is what is meant by the “national self-determination” so no that doesn’t solve the problem.
The idea of national self-determination is incoherent because the world doesn’t split into nice defined geographical areas where everyone within them forms a nice distinct group that share the same interests, identities or desires. Wherever the boundaries of a nation are presumed to be, that area will include people that do not belong to the national group (no matter how long they have lived there, the Roma is a good example).
I am working from the principle that “working people have no country”. People may regard the place they grew up as “their own” and think the nation-state is something they have chosen and that exists to allow them to express their interests. But both of these ideas are illusionary.
That said, of course I can sympathise with those that want to fight in the face of an invasion. The trouble is, the outcome of this will not be freedom for working people and the longer this goes on the more the suffering will be.
Shame he didn’t know or mentioned the SPGB re-publishing of State and the Socialist Revolution, keeping Martov’s idea circulating.
I doubt he knew about it, but why would he? Unfortunately, outside of party channels it doesn’t seem to have been publicised anywhere (try searching on Amazon for it for example) and would have suffered from being a staple-bound pamphlet rather than a spined book.
The so-called “right to national self-determination” is an incoherent concept as it assumes the pre-existence of a “nation” when whether nations exist and what they might be is precisely the point at issue.
Yes this is exactly it. How can you claim that a nation exists and has specific geographic boundaries without presuming what you need to prove? You could say something like “the Scottish nation is those people that are subject to the coercive force of the Scottish state”, but that doesn’t give a definition of what is usually meant by a “nation”. The only way you can define a nation is by drawing on some kind of shared story, but the only kinds of stories that make sense for nation building are ones that ultimately resolve themselves in some kind of blood and soil narrative – the opposite of what is required for socialism. Once you start drawing lines in the sand and promoting stories about which people are *from* this place and which are simply *in* it you end up with a recipe for forced rellocations and genocide, as the history of “national self-determination” in post-colonial Africa has shown.
DJP, in your comments on Andrew Kliman’s piece in MHI, you say: “My view is that it is in the interests of the people living in Ukraine that the conflict stop right away by whatever means necessary even if this means the Ukrainian state losing territory and influence”.
You represent this as a socialist view. But how is it different from a pacifist view?
As far as I understand it, pacifism is the view that you shouldn’t use physical force in *any* situation (perhaps there is an exemption for self-defence in cases of attacks on one’s own body?). So if you say what I said above, and that only, then it could be read a pacifist response. But the socialist case, or what I take to be one, doesn’t say *just* that – the case is that a socialist majority should seek to take control of the armed forces of the state and, if necessary, use these to secure a the socialist revolution against recalcitrant pro-capitalist forces. “Peaceably if we may, forcibly if we must” as the saying the goes.
A socialist revolution isn’t a possible result of resistance to the invasion of Ukraine. It’s understandable that people will want to forcibly defend themselves against attacks on their lives and homes, but one needs to remain as clear-headed as possible and a clear-headed analysis means making a clear separation between the people that live in Ukraine (and not all of them are subjects of the Ukrainian state) and the Ukrainian state. An inforced mass-suicide in defence of the state is not something that furthers the movement for socialism in any way. And calls for escalation or prolongation of the conflict are just calls for mass suicide on a wider scale.
FWIW I tried to have a dialogue with Kliman about that recent MHI editorial, nothing much came of it though. For those interested it’s in the comments under the article:
Editorial: Ukraine Fights for National Self-Determination Against Russian Imperialism
We never met in person, but it was a pleasure to work alongside him when we worked on the website together. Condolences to all that knew him.
*We would like to know your thoughts on these ideas. We also refer you to “Unite the Left to Defend Ukraine,” an appeal by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, whose campaign your organization can join.*
Will there be a public reply? Something along the lines of this perhaps?
https://critisticuffs.org/texts/stop-conflating-ukraine-and-its-inhabitants
Terrible commentary here from the Marxist-Humanist Initiative. Hadn’t realised they fall for that “national self-determination” stuff so much. (If they care about that then surely they should be calling for independence for Dombas as well as the victory for Ukraine at the same time)
Editorial: Ukraine Fights for National Self-Determination Against Russian Imperialism
