this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2025
27 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
4635 readers
38 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I believe Marx (or Lenin?) also drew a line between Scottish and Irish independence based on politics and history.
Scottish independence as not being something to support as Marxists because they have usually participated as the running dogs of British imperialism and benefited more from the UK setup. Due to that, there's reactionary political independence movement in Scotland (at least at the time) for the sake of national bourgeoisie domination. There is no real threat to Capital.
Irish independence is more in line with something Marxists can support because they have undergone, and are still facing the effects of, colonization, without much benefit from British imperialism. As a result, the material conditions in Ireland are more likely to support socialist revolution. So there are elements open to progressive movement and can be supported.
I don't know if I answered your specific question, and I may be misremembering those details even, but maybe if you apply that then you can answer your own question. Obviously, what they said isn't dogma and things change so best we can do is try to understand the analysis behind the decision and reapply it to contemporary conditions.
I do think it's important to consider history and current politics in whether to support a movement because it will carry consequences. I'm not going to support independence movements for the sake of "independence", that's how you end up with Color Revolutions, Free Tibet™, Xinjiang separatists, etc. Most notably, of course, that's also how you end up with the United States. The national independence of the oppressor is not equivalent to the national independence of the oppressed, essentially. If a place has undergone colonization in the Global South and is seeking independence, I will be more sympathetic. A small group in Europe? Maybe not.
Who supports the movement internationally says a lot about the movement too. If the US is vomiting propaganda in favor of a movement, then that at least makes me suspicious of the intentions of supporting the movement. There may be honest people on the ground with good intentions, who truly want independence for some good reasons, but once the thing is accomplished it is out of their hands so we can't just go based on that alone. Bevins goes into that pretty well in If We Burn, which is somewhat relevant to this subject generally.
That being said, I am more sympathetic of Basque independentists.