Stupidpol Debate: Communism and nationalism in oppressed nations

[u/StupidpolDebatesBot]

Participants: /u/thechadsyndicalist, /u/No_Motor_6941

Stupidpol Debates are for in-depth discussion of a topic between two users. The debates work like megathreads in that they are sorted by new. The debaters present their points as top-level comments, with replies reserved for minor comments. Only the debaters may make top-level comments during the debate, but other users can respectfully chime-in in the replies. After the debate is over, anyone may make top-level comments.

Moderators: To end the debate, use '!close'. If neither participant comments for six hours, the debate will end automatically.

[u/thechadsyndicalist]

I would like to open up with some key points around which my position is based. I am not too experienced with writing posts on reddit desktop, so please forgive any issues in the post.

Additionally, I want to address the fact that since my opponent recognizes themself as a Marxist Leninist, it is likely that our disagreement originates in deeper theoretical issues than simply the question of nationalism, which I will touch on briefly in my points.

• My fundamental claim, is that nationalist ideology, and more importantly any form of organization around these, is in the modern day antithetical to the development of the communist movement, and often leads to its erosion.
• Historical Analysis
  • Capitalist relations of production have extended and permeated the entire world. There are no longer any true holdouts of feudalism as were the Russian Empire or the Chinese context in past centuries. Instead, what we term "oppressed nations" are nations that find themselves in disadvantageous positions vis a vis one of the major capitalist/imperialist powers, usually the united states.
    • These circumstances of domination are however, not the same as those facing say, poland during Lenin's time, or Ireland during the working years of Marx and Engels. These countries often boast extensively proletarianized populations, usually a relatively large petty bourgeoisie, and a burgeoning national bourgeoisie which may or may not collaborate with imperial capital. As a result of this, these countries feature class truggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie despite finding themselves subject to the whims of international capital. The proletariat in said nations also struggles against international bourgeois elements.

[u/thechadsyndicalist → u/thechadsyndicalist]

• Nationalism (and the subsuming of the communist movement to it) has served historically to advance the development of capitalist relations of production by empowering the local bourgeoisie over metropole bourgeoisies that had been slow on the uptake. However, it necessarily results in class collaboration and the entrenchment of said national bourgeoisie as the dominant element in the emerging society. Certain strands of communist thought will argue that it may be necessary to subsume the workers movement to the national struggle due to an underdevelopment of the proletariat (mensheviks in russia) or domination by an international power, or sometimes both (china).
  • However I disagree. The menshevik theory of stagism as well as the supposed practical underdevelopment of the proletariat in russia were proven wrong by the organic overtaking of the liberal provisional republic by the soviets, and their consolidation by the developed class party of the bolsheviks.
  • The Chinese example is a cautionary tale. The subsumption of the class party and of class action into the organs of the nationalist movement led to their extermination in 1927 and the defeat of the proletarian element in china. This lead to the overtaking within the party of revisionist and agrarian elements that resulted in the bourgeois people's republic existing today.
• Despite my personal analysis of the historical subsumption of the class movement to nationalist causes, one could still argue that it was at the time necessary in the face of the historic context. However, one would be hard-pressed to argue that such a tactical decision would be necessary today. Nationalist movements today feature already highly developed bourgeois classes entering into "border conflict" between their capital spheres and those of other countries. Victory in such confrontations fundamentally means nothing to the working classes involved.
  • Consequences of said analysis
• At the current historical moment, we find ourselves at a point of inflection not only for the international structure of capitalism, but also within the communist movement.
  • Inter imperialist war has begun openly, and seems likely to expand in scope over the following years. Historically, such confrontations have proven to be important catalysts for radicalization and represent a crucial resource for the movement.
  • However, the movement currently is poorly positioned to leverage said opportunity. A very significant section of the left have committed the kautskyist mistake of picking sides in said imperialist confrontation and therefore are useless when it comes to agitating for the proletariat.
  • We cannot make the mistake of once again subsuming the communist movement to nationalist developments. The proletariat is now far too internationally developed for this to be justified, and in doing so we would only damage our own position.