/ref/ - Refugee Camp

International

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(1.38 MB 11470x6407 separatists movements.png)
Anonymous Refugee 08/26/2019 (Mon) 04:00:57 No. 220
Do you support any separatist movements? which ones? on the other hand, do you support reunification movements or globalist/cosmopolitan movements? Which places would you like to see become a single nation?
>>220
Rebellion is only justifiable as a last resort, if abuse has become so intolerable that it just must be done. Otherwise what's the point of splitting up the species into various warring fiefdoms? Obsession with small nations and balkanization is the pastime of the emotionally underdeveloped. Unite all Workingmen under one banner.
>>419
>Also all languages should be replaced with just one
Lol yeah let's just make the world as boring as fucking possible. Fuck no, mobility should be seriously limited.
>>435
>>439
I wonder how many brain cells Stalinoids and Anarkiddies have lost just repeating "Centralization good" and "No, decentralization good" over and over again. Vague bullshit that means nothing. As for me, I'd prefer to see all the world's federations turned into Unitary States, and have all of them united under one fairly strong Confederation.
>>442
>Lol yeah let's just make the world as boring as fucking possible. Fuck no, mobility should be seriously limited.
Language barriers are a serious burden on humanity. First off, it creates miscommunication and limits what people can and can’t read. Also it costs billions each year to teach people foreign languages.
>>419
Haha no.
>>447
why not?
>>448
Lenin said that under socialism the interests of the nationalities will merge into a single whole—does it not follow from this that it is time to put an end to the national republics and regions in the interests of
internationalism? Lenin said in 1913, in his controversy with the Bundists, that the slogan of national culture is a bourgeois slogan—does it not follow from this that it is time to put an end to the national cultures of the peoples of the USSR in the interests of . . . internationalism?

Lenin said that national oppression and national barriers are destroyed under socialism—does it not follow from this that it is time to put a stop to the policy of taking into account the specific national features of the peoples of the USSR and to go over to the policy of assimilation in the interests of . . . internationalism?

And so on and so forth.

There can be no doubt that this deviation on the national question, disguised, moreover, by a mask of internationalism and by the name of Lenin, is the most subtle and therefore the most dangerous species of Great-Russian nationalism.

Firstly, Lenin never said that national differences must disappear and that national languages must merge into one common language within the borders of a single state before the victory of socialism on a world scale. On the contrary, Lenin said something that was the very opposite of this, namely, that "national and state differences among peoples and countries ... . will continue to exist for a very, very long time even after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established on a world scale" (Original Comment: JVS: My italics) (Vol. XXV, p. 227). How can anyone refer to Lenin and forget about this fundamental statement of his?

True, Mr. Kautsky, an ex-Marxist and now a renegade and reformist, asserts something that is the very opposite of what Lenin teaches us. Despite Lenin, he asserts that the victory of the proletarian revolution in the Austro-German federal state in the middle of the last century would have led to the formation of a single, common German language and to the Germanisation of the Czechs, because "the mere force of unshackled intercourse, the mere force of modern culture of which the Germans were the vehicles, without any forcible Germanisation, would have converted into Germans the backward Czech petty bourgeois, peasants and proletarians who had nothing to gain from their decayed nationality" (see Preface to the German edition of Revolution and Counter-revolution).

It goes without saying that such a "conception" is in full accord with Kautsky's social-chauvinism. It was these views of Kautsky's that I combated in 1925 in my speech at the University of the Peoples of the East. (Original Footnote: This refers to the address delivered at a meeting of students of the Communist University of the Toilers of the East, May 18, 1925 (see J. V. Stalin, "The Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East," Works, Vol. 7, pp. 141-42)
>>448
But can this anti-Marxist chatter of an arrogant German social-chauvinist have any positive significance for us Marxists, who want to remain consistent internationalists?

Who is right, Kautsky or Lenin?

If Kautsky is right, then how are we to explain the fact that relatively backward nationalities like the Byelorussians and Ukrainians, who are closer to the Great-Russians than the Czechs are to the Germans, have not become Russified as a result of the victory of the proletarian revolution in the USSR, but, on the contrary, have been regenerated and have developed as independent nations? How are we to explain the fact that nations like the Turkmenians, Kirghizians, Uzbeks, Tajiks (not to speak of the Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanians,- and others), in spite of their backwardness, far from becoming Russified as a result of the victory of socialism in the USSR, have, on the contrary, been regenerated and have developed into independent nations? Is it not evident that our worthy deviators, in their hunt after a sham internationalism, have fallen into the clutches of Kautskyan social-chanvinism? Is it not evident that in advocating a single, common language within the borders of a single state, within the borders of the USSR, they are, in essence, striving to restore the privileges of the formerly predominant language, namely, the Great-Russian language?

What has this to do with internationalism?

Secondly, Lenin never said that the abolition of national oppression and the merging of the interests of nationalities into one whole is tantamount to the abolition of national differences. We have abolished national oppression. We have abolished national privileges and have established national equality of rights. We have abolished state frontiers in the old sense of the term, frontier posts and customs barriers between the nationalities of the USSR We have established the unity of the economic and political interests of the peoples of the USSR But does this mean that we have thereby abolished national differences, national languages, culture, manner of life, etc.? Obviously it does not mean this. But if national differences, languages, culture, manner of life, etc.; have remained, is it not evident that the demand for the abolition of the national republics and regions in the present historical period is a reactionary demand directed against the interests of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Do our deviators understand that to abolish the national republics at the present time means depriving the vast masses of the peoples of the USSR of the possibility of receiving education in their native languages, depriving them of the possibility of having schools, courts, administration, public and other organisations and institutions in their native languages, depriving them of the possibility of being drawn into the work of socialist construction? Is it not evident that in their hunt after a sham internationalism our deviators have fallen into the clutches of the reactionary Great-Russian chauvinists and have forgotten, completely forgotten, the slogan of the cultural revolution in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat which applies equally to all the peoples of the USSR; both Great-Russian and non-Great-Russian?
>>448
Thirdly, Lenin never said that the slogan of developing national culture under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a reactionary slogan. On the contrary, Lenin always stood for helping the peoples of the USSR to develop their national cultures. It was under the guidance of none other than Lenin that at the Tenth Congress of the Party, the resolution on the national question was drafted and adopted, in which it is plainly stated that: "The Party's task is to help the labouring masses of the non-Great Russian peoples to catch up with Central Russia, which has gone in front, to help them:

a) to develop and strengthen Soviet statehood among them in forms corresponding to the national conditions and manner of life of these peoples;

b) to develop and strengthen among them courts administrations, economic and government bodies functioning in their native language and staffed with local people familiar with the manner of life and mentality of the local inhabitants;

c) to develop among them press, schools, theatres, clubs, and cultural and educational institutions in general, functioning in the native languages;

d) to set up and develop a wide network of general-educational and trade and technical courses and schools, functioning in the native languages." (Original Footnote: See Resolutions and Decisions of CPSU Congresses, Confrences and Centrla Committee Plenums; Part 1, 1953, p.559).

Is it not obvious that Lenin stood wholly and entirely for the slogan of developing national culture under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Is it not obvious that to deny the slogan of national culture under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat means denying the necessity of raising the cultural level of the non-Great-Russian peoples of the USSR, denying the necessity of compulsory universal education for these peoples, means putting these peoples into spiritual bondage to the reactionary nationalists?

Lenin did indeed qualify the slogan of national culture under the rule of the bourgeoisie as a reactionary slogan. But could it be otherwise?

What is national culture under the rule of the national bourgeoisie? It is culture that is bourgeois in content and national in form, having the object of doping the masses with the poison of nationalism and of strengthening the rule of the bourgeoisie.

What is national culture under the dictatorship of the proletariat? It is culture that is socialist in content and national in form, having the object of educating the masses in the spirit of socialism and internationalism.

How is it possible to confuse these two fundamentally different things without breaking with Marxism?

Is it not obvious that in combating the slogan of national culture under the bourgeois order, Lenin was striving at the bourgeois content of national culture and not at its national form?
>>448

It would be foolish to suppose that Lenin regarded socialist culture as non-national, as not having a particular national form. The Bundists did at one time actually ascribe this nonsense to Lenin. But it is known from the works of Lenin that he protested sharply against this slander, and emphatically dissociated himself from this nonsense. Have our worthy deviators really followed in the footsteps of the Bundists?

After all that has been said, what is left of the arguments of our deviators?

Nothing, except juggling with the flag of inter-nationalism and slander against Lenin.

Those who are deviating towards Great-Russian chauvinism are profoundly mistaken in believing that the period of building socialism in the USSR is the period of the collapse and abolition of national cultures. The very opposite is the case. In point of fact, the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the building of socialism in the USSR is a period of the flowering of national cultures that are socialist in content and national in form for under the Soviet system, the nations themselves are not the ordinary "modern" nations, but socialist nations just as in content their national cultures are not the ordinary bourgeois cultures, but socialist cultures.

They apparently fail to understand that national cultures are bound to develop with new strength with the introduction and firm establishment of compulsory universal elementary education in the native languages. They fail to understand that only if the national cultures are developed will it be possible really to draw the backward nationalities into the work of socialist construction.

They fail to understand that it is just this that is the basis of the Leninist policy of helping and promoting the development of the national cultures of the peoples of the USSR.
It may seem strange that we who stand for the future merging of national cultures into one common (both in form and content) culture, with one common language, should at the same time stand for the flowering of national cultures at the present moment, in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But there is nothing strange about it. The national cultures must be allowed to develop and unfold, to reveal all their potentialities, in order to create the conditions for merging them into one common culture with one common language in the period of the victory of social-ism all over the world. The flowering of cultures that are national in form and socialist in content under the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country for the purpose of merging them into one common socialist (both in form and content) culture, with one common language, when the proletariat is victorious all over the world and when socialism becomes the way of life—it is just this that constitutes the dialectics of the Leninist presentation of the question of national culture.

It may be said that such a presentation of the question is "contradictory." But is there not the same "contradictoriness" in our presentation of the question of the state? We stand for the withering away of the state. At the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the mightiest and strongest state power that has ever existed. The highest development of state power with the object of preparing the conditions for the withering away of state-power—such is the Marxist formula. Is this "contradictory"? Yes, it is "contradictory." But this contradiction is bound up with life, and it fully reflects Marx's dialectics.

Or, for example, Lenin's presentation of the question of the right of nations to self-determination, including the right to secession. Lenin sometimes depicted the thesis on national self-determination in the guise of the simple formula: "disunion for union." Think of it—disunion for union. It even sounds like a paradox. And yet, this "contradictory', formula reflects that living truth of Marx's dialectics which enables the Bolsheviks to capture the most impregnable fortresses in the sphere of the national question.

The same may be said about the formula relating to national culture: the flowering of national cultures (and languages) in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country with the object of preparing the conditions for their withering away and merging into one common socialist culture (and into one common language) in the period of the victory of socialism all over the world.

Anyone who fails to understand this peculiar feature and "contradiction" of our transition period, anyone who fails to understand these dialectics of the historical processes, is dead as far as Marxism is concerned.

The misfortune of our deviators is that they do not understand, and do not wish to understand, Marx's dialectics.
>>460
>>461
>>462
>>463
>>464
>>465
Back then their was a much large communication lag time and no where near the present amount of international communication and travel. The merging of nations which at the turn of the twentieth century was impossible, is now easy.
Does not address the necessary develepmental steps of free people rather than imperialist assimilation by dominant culture which internet and travel today promotes.
>>419
Sounds grim
bump
>>233
>>233
>>233
Visca Catalunya lliure i socialista!
>>238
>brought back
>pajeetland
stop
>>419
>Also all languages should be replaced with just one.
Good idea tbh.
WEXITTTTT
>>419
>language imperialism
we've invented something new
we did it reddit
>>764
You will never escape India
Jai Hind
>>767
Maybe if we let them leave, they'll just enact austerity measures in peace to the point where they all starve and choke to death on all their carbon emissions. Then we can just move back in and resettle.
>>767
>WEXITTTTT
eggsplain
>>775
Alberta's plan to form a fake country in order to seperate from the already invalid state of Canada.
>>777
>Alberta
Isn't that the place where rats are banned?
>>777
is that the hick region of the canadias?
>>777
Isn't that the place where they throw coins at strippers?
>>784
Yeah, t's one those rural gulf oil monarchies.
>>778
>>789
I don't want to know.
(484.52 KB 500x460 Alberta strippers.png)
>>792
Seems like my kinda place.
>>220 falta dunbass ahi
>>220 No because the one in my country are just spooked garbage funded by the US which would immediately turn on each other once the money went away.
I support the reunification of the Spanish empire only if it's "communist" and Cuba gets to lead. There's not really a movement for that though so it's just a meme :/ Any "reuinify the Spanish / Portuguese / Iberian / French / Roman Empire" movements are just larpers or too minor to be relevant
>>222 >Forgetting Bougainville and Chiapas smh
>>238 do you actually think India is secular in demonstration?
>>769 Arre kutte aggar tunne indian identity ki baat karni thi to wo banchod phrase to na use kar. Absolute salla
>>220 I support California independence even if it'll never happen
>>220 Aussie: Christmas Island N. Amer: state of Jefferson, Cascadia, Upstate NY, California, Chiapas, Quebec Euro: united Ireland, Catalonia Middle east: Kurdistan Asia: Tibet I'm forgetting so many others.
>>1267 Tibet?
(33.23 KB 575x336 communist calexit.jpg)
>>1266 Well not with that attitude.
>>1270 Not him, but China is imperialist too and once the US empire falls we'll have a new enemy
>>1286 Might as well be posting with the CIA flag
>>220 >separatist movements >USA >none except for some Canadian meme >not even Southern States seems legit
>>1285 It will never happen, 90% of the time Separatism fails. The only example this century, Montenegro only exists because NATO.
(25.49 KB 425x349 jefferson flag.jpg)
(634.08 KB 1503x1122 pth7oo7tbu4z.png)
>>1266 Do you support State of Jefferson?
>>1345 >double cross Hmm...
>>1331 >It will never happen, 90% of the time Separatism fails. Vive le Québec libre. :^) >The only example this century, Montenegro only exists because NATO. Are we just ignoring East Timor and South Sudan, then? >>1345 The State of Jefferson is a meme, just one of the many attempts to divide us up even more. It's already bad enough that Baja and Alta are now occupied by two different countries, but what's even worse is that Baja has been split into two states and Alta has had 6 illegitimate states carved out of it. The last thing we need is a 7th.
(5.23 MB 9739x9793 AKG5406531.jpg)
>>222 >>714 Hopefully Catalan independence movement was a socialist / communist movement in Catalonia and not a bourgeois nationalist movement VISCA CATALUNYA LLIURE I COMUNISTA! ¡Y VIVA CANARIAS LIBRE Y DESCOLONIZADA!
(1.47 MB 1874x7479 Turanic Socialist Union.jpg)
I didn't sleep so I made this, it's memey but literally my utopia. Although I left out a lot of the proper political stuff, it should give you an idea. Of course the ultimate end goal should be no borders whatsoever, but imho that should be accomplished through careful gradual unification of countries into less "defined" ones rather than instant revolution because in the latter case fascists are practically guaranteed to gain popular appeal since most people are racist assholes obsessed with wealth and shit. >inb4 autism It is clay wars tier, but eh. Actually, speaking of clay wars, which board here would be the one to do clay wars on if it was to be done here?
>>1345 you ain't splitting California
>Basque Country >Catalonia >Sealand, coz memes >Aztlán, if at all possible >New Afrika, if at all possible >Appalachia, if at all possible >Alaska >New England >Puerto Rico >Flanders >Wallonia >Greenland
>>794 Yikes, nigga
Unless they're single actual communities (not imagined ones) against state entities, no. Separatist movements are almost always bourgeois in foundation. We see this everywhere with Rojava as a very recent example in which while ideologically they espouse certain anti-capitalist ideas and so on, they are fundamentally bourgeois and will abandon their ideas for assistance by corporate entities because what comes first to them is not the proletariat but their fantasy nation idea.

Delete
Report

no cookies?