:ira: There is a major difference between colonized nationalism and coloniser nationalism. One is the right to national self determination, the other is the right to oppress others
The national question is more complex with the decolonization context and anti-imperial context, because opposing the nationalism of the oppressed group supports the dominance of their rulers and their reactionary nationalism. These are two different things which we both call by "nationalism", one is the self-determination ideology, the other is the reactionary nationalist chauvinism. Their relationship is dialectical.
There is a lot of nuance to this and there are limits and varied conditions. The goal however is the destruction of the power structure of national oppression in all cases.
The works I recommend include:
Lenin "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (which answers Luxemburg on this topic directly and is not long)
This is probably gonna be a hot take, but I believe that everyone has the right the nation, even the descendants of colonizers. I mean like yeah if you’re first generation and literally having to kill indigenous people to secure a nation there for yourself, then you have zero fucking right to do that because you’re negatively impacting someone else’s right to self determination. Like having a nation in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, it’s just when it extends beyond patriotism and starts moving into chauvinist and oppressive territory that it becomes a problem. Like as soon you start taking away someone else’s right to live in their own nation peacefully, then you’re crossing the line from good thing to bad thing. At least that’s my understanding, feel free to publicly execute me if I did a bad, I’m a settler and my understanding of racial/national issues comes solely from a materialist world view lol
Isn't nationalism just always bad? It's fundamentally exclusionary & hostile with no positive aspects as far as I'm aware.
You should read up on black nationalism and the theory surrounding it. It shouldn't be seen as a black equivalent to white nationalism.
Fair enough
:ira: There is a major difference between colonized nationalism and coloniser nationalism. One is the right to national self determination, the other is the right to oppress others
The national question is more complex with the decolonization context and anti-imperial context, because opposing the nationalism of the oppressed group supports the dominance of their rulers and their reactionary nationalism. These are two different things which we both call by "nationalism", one is the self-determination ideology, the other is the reactionary nationalist chauvinism. Their relationship is dialectical.
There is a lot of nuance to this and there are limits and varied conditions. The goal however is the destruction of the power structure of national oppression in all cases.
The works I recommend include:
Lenin "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (which answers Luxemburg on this topic directly and is not long)
Stalin "Marxism and the National Question"
Fanon "The Wretched of the Earth"
:uncle-ho:
This is probably gonna be a hot take, but I believe that everyone has the right the nation, even the descendants of colonizers. I mean like yeah if you’re first generation and literally having to kill indigenous people to secure a nation there for yourself, then you have zero fucking right to do that because you’re negatively impacting someone else’s right to self determination. Like having a nation in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, it’s just when it extends beyond patriotism and starts moving into chauvinist and oppressive territory that it becomes a problem. Like as soon you start taking away someone else’s right to live in their own nation peacefully, then you’re crossing the line from good thing to bad thing. At least that’s my understanding, feel free to publicly execute me if I did a bad, I’m a settler and my understanding of racial/national issues comes solely from a materialist world view lol