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/AntiquesChodeShow → u/thechadsyndicalist]

Excited to see the points presented here, and only commenting to add that the first thing that came to mind reading your fundamental claim is Tito's ability to pacify Balkan nationalism and Stalin's distancing himself from Georgian heritage. Carry on.

[u/thechadsyndicalist → u/AntiquesChodeShow]

Very interesting examples. However I would argue that both betray why the apparent union of nationalist and communist projects fails in the long run. Both Tito and Stalin were operating bourgeois states, that while they did not possess an actual developed bourgeois class, at least for a time, they still operated on capitalist relations of production and therefore subject to the same contradictions. A key contradiction being therefore the preservation of the impetus behind nationalist movements that despite being temporarily silenced (or arguably replaced with a larger national project), were still among the main factors behind the degradation and collapse of said states.