GenZedong

National liberation is not the same thing as separatism. Sometimes separatism and national liberation are at odds with each other. The separation of the USSR's national republics from the union was not liberation, it was the opposite. Same for the Yugoslav republics. It exposed those republics to imperialist subjugation and neo-colonial plundering. On the other hand, the success of the Scottish national separatist movement in the UK for instance would severely weaken one of the main imperialist powers and would open up possibilities for more a more progressive path for a Scotland free of the British monarchy.

There is no one size fits all answer. Whether or not you should support this or that separatist movement depends entirely on the circumstances and the context. Would the success of said separatist movement represent a real liberation or merely a balkanization in the interests of greater imperialist powers? In my opinion this matters more than whether the separatists themselves are right wing or left wing.

Think of it like the difference between intentions and actual consequences. It doesn't matter that your intentions are good if your actions have objectively bad consequences, and conversely, people with bad intentions can end up doing things which have good consequences in the broader context, even if they did those things for the wrong reasons. We always say Marxism is not about moral judgements, it's about looking at the world with a sober materialist analysis. You should not look for an intrinsic moral value to separatist movements but instead consider their real material effects on the world. Who benefits?

》 or is support given regardless of political stances?

Definitely not, we have many examples of "national liberation struggles" being used by the US to weakening their enemies and destroy them, the most recent case is the SDF in Syria, or the uyghur separatists.

Tbh, in the case of the european movements, i support them only because it weakens the imperial core, just like i would support a secessionist movement in the US.

I think material conditions should determine whether a nation needs to be liberated or not.

It's not a liberation if they aren't oppressed, nor is it a liberation if the "liberators" are just going to oppress them in the same way.

If something is obviously a reactionary movement, it shouldn't be supported. Personally I didn't ever support Rojava bc they were obviously a proxy for US imperialism in West Asia, and in general the idea of an ethnostate in a historically multi ethnic area doesn't really sit well with me. I have only felt vindicated in that position with recent events in Syria, almost a decade after forming my own opinion not to support them.

Now, if the right wing group is stirring up trouble in a bourgeois reactionary state that has no real worker movement, I think "let them fight" can be a fine conclusion, but that isn't support for either group. It can also cause new issues down the line, look at how reactionaries taking over Ukraine played out for the average Ukrainian.

If a legitimately colonized or oppressed group is fighting for national liberation, I generally support it as long as they aren't allies of a NATO country.

It's a myth that Marxism-Leninism says "thou shalt support every national liberation struggle." If you read Foundations of Leninism it is pretty unambiguously clear that support for national liberation struggles should always be put into the global context of whether doing so supports the overall goals of dismantling imperialism and the global capitalist system or if it hinders it. If you read the book it is quite explicit that we should not support national liberal struggles that go against overall geopolitical interests; i.e. if that national liberation struggle is led and supported by big bourgeois imperialist powers and is being used to facilitate their own interests and so it would set the proletariat back to support it on the global stage. The point is that "national liberation" shouldn't be treated as some sort of eternal unquestionable moral principle. You should put it into the global context. I don't know very much about the specific cases you mention, but it is in no way inherently contradictory to Marxism-Leninism to question supporting a particular national liberation struggle. It depends upon their reasoning.

The primary impediment to socialism being Imperialism I think the line between good and not good is "does this hurt the empire."

Would a Reactionary Flemish state do anything to harm nato or global capital? Im guessing not. Would the remaining Dutch state be more open to socialism if they were free of reactionary Flemish people? again I doubt it.

Because a free basque would likely be anti-imperial even when it was independent it should be supported.

Another interesting case is Quebec. I think they should be supported not because they will do anything great on their own but because Canada is a horrible and arrogant nation and deserves to suffer and be taken down a peg.

One thing that always confused me with the Flemish independence thing is the use of Catalan flags at their rallies. Because they are at times and outright fascist party and the Catalan independence movement isn't exactly that.

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.

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

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?

I'm not Flemish, and i assume you aren't either so the stance I'd take is let the Flemish sort it out. Do the majority of them want to do this? To secede and form their own nation without vast popular support seems a bit silly. But if the vast majority of people there wanted to do it they can i guess. If they have shitty policies after the fact then critisize that part, and oppose them, but i couldnt care less if theyre independent or not.

I guess in short, a lot of the times simply saying, "That's none of my business." Is perfectly valid.