/ref/ - Refugee Camp

International

Mode: Reply
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 4096

Files

Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3

E-mail
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
How many of these movements are actually real and not just meme shit.
>>221
Pretty much just Kosovo.
>Cascadia and Long Island independence, but no Texas, California, or a dozen other states
>Inner Mongolia independence instead of unification with the rest of Mongolia
>Calling East Turkestan "Xinjiang Uyghur"
>Israel still exists, but is just smaller and is made up of the mainly Arab parts
>African borders are still just arbitrarily-drawn lines, just with a few extra countries
>The fact that the amount of European countries has tripled rather than being halved
>A ton of other things
Cursed map.
>>224
>Inner Mongolia
Does a "Inner mongolia" movement actually even exist? There are barely any people in Mongolia, their population is smaller than even the smallest European countries.
>>225
There are more Mongols in Inner Mongolia than in Mongolia itself, but it's still like 80% Han Chinese.
Only now I started paying more attention to the whole map and man this is some retarded shit.
Who even made this thing?
>Chile split in half with nothing connecting the halves
>Tibet somehow larger than china
>Clusterfuck around Pakistan and Afghanistan
>Two Azerbaijans
>Macedonia not split in half because of Albanians
>Kaliningrad
>Snow elves
>Iberian peninsula clusterfuck
>Anything between the north of France and the north of Italy
>Actually most of Europe is retarded
>>222
Honestly it's not even a "movement" anymore since they're their own country, and anyone who thinks it will change is retarded.
Serbia gave up on Kosovo over 10years ago, Serbs don't even like Serbs that come from other elsewhere. Kosovo is used by our politicians for free votes since it's easy to talk about it but do nothing.
t. Kosovo Serb
>>227
I didn't even notice the Azerbaijan and Kaliningrad thing, but I hate it now that I have.

>Honestly it's not even a "movement" anymore since they're their own country, and anyone who thinks it will change is retarded.
>Serbia gave up on Kosovo over 10years ago, Serbs don't even like Serbs that come from other elsewhere. Kosovo is used by our politicians for free votes since it's easy to talk about it but do nothing.
>t. Kosovo Serb
I should have known better than to try and stir shit up about Kosovo on Bunkerchan in the same way as on /int/.
>>227
unirnocally this map is a fucking eu4 map where you give all nations national unrest +30 and wait 20 years.
I support separating your recyclables.
(181.59 KB 1500x1000 IMG_20190616_091038.jpg)
>>222
>Forgetting Catalonia and the Basque country
Smh
(48.43 KB 650x650 united in independence.jpg)
>>233
I would never forget about our Catalan brothers and sisters.
>>233
Fool, pan-iberianism is the only way forward for a complete national shitshow like spain
>>227
SERBIAN ARTILLERY IS LED BY GOD
>>236
>ARTILLERY
Grenade
>>220
Pakistan and it's hemorrhages should be brought back into a secular India
I suport catalan separatism because I'm a catalan and Spain fucking sucks.
>>239
Added this in for you, anon.
(141.37 KB 2000x894 1480630949073.png)
>>238
>not being added to Serbia
There's a saying "From Serbia to Tokyo"
>>239
You shouldn't. Much like the Flemish nationalists here, Catalan separatists are distracting attention from the socio-economic movements that really matter. Fun fact: when Puigdemont was residing in Belgium, he established contacts with the ultraliberal Flemish-nationalist party N-VA and gave lectures about "breaking socialist hegemony".
That sure as hell isn't where Mount Athos is and there's no real "separatist movement" there. It's populated entirely by unarmed geriatric priests.

North of where Athos actually is, there's a minor pseudo-separatist movement that Greek politicians sometimes use to fearmonger about the Muslim Turkish threat though.
>>241
Based
>>247
That's pretty interesting. Is the culture of theirs or something quite different from that of the rest of greece?
>A frissia taking up litterally all of the coast of the netherlands and then some more.
Southholland and further south hasnt been frissian in centuries, and northern holland for about half as long.

Also frisian seperatism hardly exists
>>246
have you got the article but in english or spanish?
(45.61 KB 960x720 bavarian soviet republic.png)
i'd prefer the creation of an alp republic over current germany, including at least bavaria, baden-wurttemberg and austria
i don't know about the swiss, they're suspect
sadly those are all reactionary shitholes but culturally they're a lot closer than bavaria with other german states
>>246
>Pagina niet gevonden
I've always been suspicious of separatist movements, because they're so often just petty-bourgeois anti-fiscalism. But now I've come to conclude that they should be supported strictly on a case-by-case basis : if they're likely to result in better things, then they should be. Otherwise not. There is no one size fits all solution.
Same thing with "globalism". I'm all for globalist socialism.
(60.52 KB 1000x528 Barcelona's university.jpg)
>>326
yeah, Puigdemon is a liberal, but I don't think that that makes the whole movement liberal, pic kinda related it's a painting in Barcelona's main university, and in most manifestations I have gone aproximatelly half of the flags are socialist.
>>327
Meh, there can be socialist flags in reactionary demonstrations. A hammer and sickle drawing means nothing. Point remains that 1) splitting up Europe even further into weak regions that can be made to compete against each other is just playing into the hands of the bourgeoisie and will distract from class issues. 2) there is literally no non-nationalist argument for Catalan separatism - why not fight for socialism on a Spanish or, even better, European level? Catalonia is not a colony unfairly exploited by Spain as some kind of imperialist power.
>>327
Els independentistes catalans son, majoritarïament, de esquerres, però aixo no significa que siguin marxistes, son d'esquerres degut a que reaccionen al estat espanyol. Si, per posar un exemple, hagués governat un partit de esquerres, de pensament marxista, i no haguesi permès al govern català (lliderat per Puigdemont, un dretà que l'ùnica diferència que té amb el PP és que és un nacionalista català, a veure quina constitució ens metia en una catalunya independent, segurament no hi hauria ni sanitat pùblica), ara mateix els independentistes catalans estarien en el mateix espai polític que els indenpendentistes flamencs y la alt-right, al mateix temps que no serien tant forts com ho son ara, perque, ho tens que admitir, el independentisme es una reacciò cap a la crisi y la péssima gestiò del PP en quant a matèria econòmica, tant i que en Catalunya la major part de la crisi i de les retallades va ser dirigida per CiU, independentistes.

A més, el independentisme te las seves arrels no en que son reprimits, d'aixo rès, te las seves arrels en que no tenen la voluntat de pagar a altres comunitats autonomes, com ho podria ser Extremadura o Andalusia, per que aquestes es puguin desenvolupar. Això fa que aquest independentisme sigui semblant no al independentisme vietnamita o argelí, però que es sembli al independentisme bàltic o de les diverses repùbliques yugoslaves.

>Catalan independentists are, mostly, leftists, but this doesn't mean they're marxists, they're leftists because they react to the spanish state. If, to put an example, Spain had a leftist party, of marxist thought, and it didn't let the catalan goverment (which leader is/was Puigdemont, a rightist which only difference that he have with PeePee is that he is a catalan nationalist, who would know what kind of constitution he would make for a independent catalonia, maybe he wouldn't even give us free healthcare), right now the independentists would be at the same politic spectre than flemish nationalists or the alt-right, at the same time that they wouldn't be so strong as they are now, because they're a reaction to the lame goverment of PeePee, even when most of cuts in goverment spending in Catalonia was done by CiU, separatists.

>Even then, catalan independentism has its roots not in that they are repressed, but because they don't have the will to pay for less developed communities like Extremadura or Andalusia. This makes catalan independentism more closely to Baltic independentism or independentism of the diverse yugoslav republics than to vietnamese independentism or argelian independentism.
>>335
Good post. This is the only consistent left-wing approach to the Catalan nationalists.
Lenin formulated it really simply: whether and up to what point you should (as a Marxist) support a nationalist movement, fully depends on the interests it serves. If it just serves the interests of a region's or country's national bourgeoisie there is no reason to support it.
>>220
>no csa
virgin
>>351
oh yeah state flags are a thing
Nah i am a woke demsoc
(173.04 KB 763x1000 spray paint.jpg)
I wish independence for Scotland
(114.49 KB 900x675 scotref2.png)
>>384
I remember back then when there was a referendum and we were pretty hyped about scottish independence. And then they went and voted no.
(163.63 KB 1280x720 Scotland.jpg)
>>397
well I watched some videos and there was cheating involved
(175.56 KB 1200x900 Ireland.jpg)
anglos should really fuck off from Scotland and Ireland tbh
>>399
>burger has "MUH FREEDUMS" ideology drilled into his head
Like pottery.
https://youtu.be/3eRxPDLYM9Q
(688.56 KB 1800x2172 Shaolin-monk-4fc636b4beac6_hires.jpg)
>>402
not judging people by their flag is a step in wise direction
>>220
a highly centralized one world government is a good idea. Also all languages should be replaced with just one.
>>309
Let's at least not call it globalism, but internationalism.

>>419
Centralization is strategically retarded.
>>435
>Centralization is strategically retarded.
No it isn’t, the more centralization the more unified a place is. Centralization removes separates tendencies.
>>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!

Delete
Report/Ban

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)


no cookies?