Given my ventures into seperatist areas in Europe, I was left with this question. Does a national liberation movement need to ‘tick the left wing boxes’ so to say for ML’s to consider their support, or is support given regardless of political stances?

One movement in particular that caused this question to arise is the Flemish independence movement which is almost entirely filled with right wing nationalists. I do not support their movement. But why? If they wanted to be independent, should I be against that based on their politics? Is that a valid thing to do?

The same thing can be asked with regards to the Basque movement. Should I support them because of their wish to independence regardless of their more left leaning ideologies? Or should the politics be entirely irrelevant in this?

What do you think?

  • King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml
    9·
    18 days ago

    Sorry I’m late to the party here.

    Anyway, the point of Marxist-Leninists supporting national liberation is because it is usually progressively advancing the relations of capitalist production via anti-imperialism. Of course there are times, like in Vietnam or Cuba, where the national liberation is led by a socialist revolutionary force, which is good.

    But of course not all national liberation movements are progressive. For example, the Flemish independence movement, if successful, would most likely integrate itself back into some form of imperial system (if not the EU). Ergo it doesn’t have to be supported. But it doesn’t matter what they believe ideologically unless it’s explicitly tied to socialism or anti-imperialism.

    For instance, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was a right wing capitalist, but Lenin and the USSR supported the Turkish national revolution because it was preventing the colonization of Anatolia by the British and French. Stalin had similar reasons for supporting Chiang Kai-Shek’s Kuomintang during the 2nd Sino-Japanese war (although both of these cases also has elements of progressive capitalist elements, given the backwards state of the two countries at the time which made socialist revolution improbable without the advancement of capitalist relations. Althoigh of course the CPC managed to defy the odds there).

    There’s also the issue of supremacism. For instance this Flemish movement, or settler movements like the Boers/Afrikans in South Africa. They both seek independence, not because they face oppression or exploitation, but because they believe they hold too little power in the country and want their own country to make “pure” or whatever. See also, Uygerstan independence groups, the anti-ussr independence movements, etc.

    But, since there are so many, I’d say it’s mostly fine to lean on the side of consistent pro-independance. I.e, Scottish and Welsh independence is probably less progressive than northern Irish independence, but they’re no reactionary either. Really the only time national independence movements are reactionary are when they seek independence from socialist experiments, sometimes seeing capitalism as part of their “heritage.” (I.e, Ukraine). That or when they seek to split an anti-imperialist country via supremacism, like Croatian Nationalism in Yugoslavia. But otherwise theres not much to lose by supporting, say, Quebecois independence, or Catalan/Basque independence and such