China has occupied Bagram airbase in Afghanistan - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15193258
Potemkin wrote:This is irrelevant to nation-building. The nations of Europe have existed for more than a thousand years, and for more than 90% of that time they have not been democracies. Does this mean that they weren't 'really' nations at all? :eh:


Hi, Potemkin! Nice to read you. Hope all's well with you and yours.

In response: naw. Nations are nations, irrespective of the governmental structure. That doesn't say that there is necessarily a unity involved. The lines in the Mideast sand drawn by the European powers or the partitioning of Africa into countries by the same cast of characters demonstrates that.

At present, it's amusing to see some within the good old United States of America calling for the partitioning of the USA into two nations. They appear to be unaffected by the bloodshed which obtained the last time such an attempt was made.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
#15193262
Many might point to China's (and Russia's) historical 'backwardness', imposed-from-without by the Allies.

It's only since around 2000 that China has really finally gotten its own industrialization, leapfrogging into the industrial-digital paradigm, then being leapfrogged itself by South Korea.

It's undeniably its own *country*, due to finally rebuffing Japanese imperialism, but there's still that aftermath regarding Maoism versus the nationalists (KMT), which is that standing, unresolved 'friction' between the standing, prevailing *bureaucracy*, and the on-the-outs *bourgeoisie*. (In the West the *bourgeoisie* prevailed, for a markedly different social 'complexion' of class rule, but in China / The East it's the *bureaucracy* that's been dominant.)



The interest in Marxism grew as China’s nascent working class was increasingly involved in strikes and boycotts which grew in intensity, ‘affecting all regions and all branches of industry’.137

A series of strikes in 1922 showed the potential of the new movement. A strike by 2,000 seamen in Hong Kong spread, despite a proclamation of martial law, until a general strike by 120,000 forced the employers to capitulate. A strike by 50,000 miners in the British owned KMAS in northern China was not as successful. The mine’s private police, British marines and warlord armies attacked the miners and arrested their union leaders. Nevertheless, support for the strike from workers, intellectuals and even some bourgeois groups enabled the strikers to hold out long enough to win a wage rise. Chinese police broke up the first big strike by women workers—20,000 employees in silk-reeling factories—and brought the leaders before a military tribunal. Clashes between British police and workers in British-owned factories in Hankou culminated in a warlord shooting down 35 striking rail workers and executing a union branch secretary who refused to call for a return to work. Such defeats halted the advance of the workers’ movement, but did not destroy the spirit of resistance. Rather they led to a hardening of class consciousness and an increased determination to take up the struggle when the opportunity arose.

This happened in the years 1924-27. Canton in the south had become the focus of the nationalist intellectuals. Sun Yat-sen had established a constitutional government there, but its hold on power was precarious, and he was looking for wider support. He asked Soviet Russia to help reorganise his Kuomintang and invited members of China’s recently formed Communist Party to join. The value of this support showed when ‘comprador’ capitalists connected with British interests tried to use their own armed force, the 100,000 strong Merchant Volunteers, against him. The Communist-led Workers’ Delegate Conference came to his rescue. Its Labour Organisations Army helped break the power of the Merchant Volunteers, while print workers prevented newspapers supporting them.

The power of combining workers’ protests and national demands was shown again later in 1925 outside Canton. A general strike shut down Shanghai after police fired on a demonstration in support of a strike in Japanese-owned cotton mills. For a month union pickets armed with clubs controlled the movement of goods and held strikebreakers as prisoners, while there were solidarity strikes and demonstrations in more than a dozen other cities. Another great strike paralysed Hong Kong for 13 months, raising nationalist demands (such as equal treatment for Chinese people and Europeans) as well as economic demands. Tens of thousands of Hong Kong strikers were given food and accommodation in Canton, where:

The responsibilities of the strike committee went far beyond the normal field of activity of a union organisation… During the summer of 1925 the committee became, in fact, a kind of workers’ government—and indeed, the name applied to it at the time…was ‘Government No 2’. The committee had at its disposal an armed force of several thousand men.138


The strike helped to create an atmosphere in which the nationalist forces in Canton began to feel they were powerful enough to march northwards against the warlords who controlled the rest of the country. The march, known as ‘the Northern Expedition’, began in the early summer of 1926. Commanded by General Chiang Kai Shek, its organising core was a group of army officers straight out of the Russian-run Whampoa training academy. Members of the workers’ army created around the Hong Kong strike rushed to volunteer for it.

The march north was a triumph in military terms. The warlord armies, held together only by short term mercenary gain, could not stand against its revolutionary enthusiasm. Workers in the cities controlled by the warlords went on strike as the Northern Expedition approached. In Hubei and Hunan the unions armed themselves and became ‘workers’ governments’ to an even greater extent than those in Canton during the Hong Kong strike.139 By March 1927 the expedition was approaching Shanghai. A general strike erupted involving 600,000 workers, and an uprising by union militias took control of the city before Chiang Kai Shek arrived.140 Power in the city passed into the hands of a government controlled by the workers’ leaders, although it included nationalist members of the big bourgeoisie. For a few days it seemed as if nothing could stop the advance of revolutionary nationalism to destroy the power of the warlords, break the hold of the foreign powers and end the fragmentation, corruption and impoverishment of the country.

But these hopes were to be dashed, just as the similar hopes in Ireland and India, and for similar reasons. The victories of the Northern Expedition depended on the revolutionary mood encouraged by its advance. But the officers of the army were drawn from a social layer which was terrified by that mood. They came from merchant and landowning families who profited from the exploitation of workers and, even more, from the miserable conditions of the peasants. They had been prepared to use the workers’ movement as a pawn in their manoeuvres for power—and, like a chess piece, they were prepared to sacrifice it. Chiang Kai Shek had already cracked down on the workers’ movement in Canton by arresting a number of Communist militants and harassing the unions.141 Now he prepared for much more drastic measures in Shanghai. He allowed the victorious insurrectionary forces to hand him the city and then met with wealthy Chinese merchants and bankers, the representatives of the foreign powers and the city’s criminal gangs. He arranged for the gangs to stage a pre-dawn attack on the offices of the main left wing unions. The workers’ pickets were disarmed and their leaders arrested. Demonstrations were fired on with machine-guns, and thousands of activists died in a reign of terror. The working class organisations which had controlled the city only days earlier were destroyed.142

Chiang Kai Shek was victorious over the left, but only at the price of abandoning any possibility of eliminating foreign domination or warlord control. Without the revolutionary élan which characterised the march from Canton to Shanghai the only way he could establish himself as nominal ruler of the whole country was by making concessions to those who opposed Chinese national aspirations. Over the next 18 years his government became infamous for its corruption, gangsterism and inability to stand up to foreign invaders.

The episode was tragic proof that middle class nationalist leaders would betray their own movement if that was the price of keeping workers and peasants in their place. It was also a sign of something else—an abandonment of revolutionary principles by those who now ran Russia, for they had advised Chinese workers to trust Chiang even after his actions against them in Canton.

The experience of the nationalist revolution in Egypt was, in its essentials, the same as that in China, India and Ireland. There was the same massive ferment in the aftermath of the war, and a de facto alliance in 1919 between the nationalist middle class and groups of strikers in industries such as the tramways and railways. Repeated upsurges in struggle forced a limited concession from Britain—a monarchic government which left key decisions in British hands. Yet the main nationalist Wafd party turned its back on workers’ struggles and formed a government within the terms of this compromise, only to be driven from office by British collaborators because it did not have sufficient forces to defend itself.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 457-460
#15193263
Potemkin wrote:So England in, say, 1590 wasn't a 'real' nation then? Is that your position?


You said a 1000 years. I'm not very familiar with the history of England. What happened in 1590?

Nationalism is a prerequisite for democracy on that scale, but not vice versa, obviously.
#15193265
Rugoz wrote:You said a 1000 years. I'm not very familiar with the history of England. What happened in 1590?

I just chose a random date, though it happens to be just two years after the failure of the Spanish Armada (look it up). It would have been news to both the Spanish and the English that England was not a nation in 1588. Whose ships was it who fired on the Spanish Armada in the English Channel then? :?:

Nationalism is a prerequisite for democracy on that scale, but not vice versa, obviously.

Nationalism is a necessary yet not sufficient condition for democracy.
#15193268
Potemkin wrote:I just chose a random date, though it happens to be just two years after the failure of the Spanish Armada (look it up). It would have been news to both the Spanish and the English that England was not a nation in 1588. Whose ships was it who fired on the Spanish Armada in the English Channel then?


I doubt the term "nation" even meant anything to them. Wasn't it rather the Spanish crown vs the English?

I suppose there isn't any agreement on what nationalism means, but I would suggest that national identity must trump class identity.
#15193269
Rugoz wrote:I doubt the term "nation" even meant anything to them. Wasn't it rather the Spanish crown vs the English?


"Of my nation? What ish of my nation? Ish a villain and a bastard and a knave and a rascal. What ish my nation? Who talks of my nation?"

William Shakespeare, Henry V - 1599
#15193270
Rugoz wrote:
I doubt the term "nation" even meant anything to them. Wasn't it rather the Spanish crown vs the English?


Rugoz wrote:
I suppose there isn't any agreement on what nationalism means, but I would suggest that national identity must trump class identity.



The fascist Mussolini would agree with you:



Decades of abiding by the rules of capitalist democracy were having their effect. Pursuit of reform within the structures of the capitalist state led to identification with that state in its military conflicts. In the warring countries only the Serbian Socialists and the Russian Bolsheviks came out in unremitting hostility to the war. The Italian Socialists also opposed the war when Italy finally allied itself with Britain, France and Russia. But their attitude owed much to a split within the Italian ruing class over which side to support—and the left wing editor of the party’s daily paper, a certain Benito Mussolini, split away to wage virulently pro-war agitation.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 407



---



Mussolini rejected egalitarianism, a core doctrine of socialism.[9] He was influenced by Nietzsche's anti-Christian ideas and negation of God's existence.[42] Mussolini felt that socialism had faltered, in view of the failures of Marxist determinism and social democratic reformism, and believed that Nietzsche's ideas would strengthen socialism. While associated with socialism, Mussolini's writings eventually indicated that he had abandoned Marxism and egalitarianism in favor of Nietzsche's übermensch concept and anti-egalitarianism.[42]



Mussolini initially held official support for the party's decision and, in an August 1914 article, Mussolini wrote "Down with the War. We remain neutral." He saw the war as an opportunity, both for his own ambitions as well as those of socialists and Italians. He was influenced by anti-Austrian Italian nationalist sentiments, believing that the war offered Italians in Austria-Hungary the chance to liberate themselves from rule of the Habsburgs. He eventually decided to declare support for the war by appealing to the need for socialists to overthrow the Hohenzollern and Habsburg monarchies in Germany and Austria-Hungary who he said had consistently repressed socialism.[51]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini



---


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stage_theory


---


3-Dimensional Axes of Social Reality

Spoiler: show
Image
#15193285
B0ycey wrote:"Of my nation? What ish of my nation? Ish a villain and a bastard and a knave and a rascal. What ish my nation? Who talks of my nation?"

William Shakespeare, Henry V - 1599

Yeah, it was around the Tudor period when England became a nation, which led to a bourgeois liberal revolution and a civil war for a parliamentary system, but England hadn't really been a nation before that.
#15193286
Rugoz wrote:I doubt the term "nation" even meant anything to them. Wasn't it rather the Spanish crown vs the English?

Nations certainly existed in the Middle Ages, in the sense of unified contiguous territories controlled by a single political leader (usually a monarch) and most of whose population shared the same (or at least similar) language and the same (or at least similar) culture. Nations in their modern sense only came into existence with the American and French Revolutions of the late 18th century, and involve ideas about equality before the law and the right of the state to conscript its citizens in wars. Democracy came a little later, of course. Before it could come into existence, the modern nation-state required that feudalism be decisively shaken off. This, and not democracy as such, is the defining feature of the modern nation-state.

I suppose there isn't any agreement on what nationalism means, but I would suggest that national identity must trump class identity.

It does in theory, but not really in practice. After all, the very people who are loudest in claiming that national identity must trump class identity also tend to have vested class interests of their own....
#15193288
Beren wrote:Yeah, it was around the Tudor period when England became a nation, which led to a bourgeois liberal revolution and a civil war for a parliamentary system, but England hadn't really been a nation before that.


It is difficult to debate this given I don't really know when the term nation was first said - but clearly before Tudor. What I do know is the character who I quoted was Irish, so I suspect national identity wasn't English specific. But even so, I would say nations became formed with the dissolution of the Roman Empire, but in England perhaps Athelstan or at the very latest William the Conquer. The basics of a nation can be best explained with the social contract and for that you could even go back to Mesopotamia. But rather than debate this, Rugoz was wrong and really, for a bit of fun, I thought I would weigh in because trolling trolls can be fun indeed. :D
#15193289
B0ycey wrote:I would say nations became formed with the dissolution of the Roman Empire

The Franks, for example, definitely weren't a nation. They were a people, even under Charlemagne. The French and the Germans became nations a lot later than that. Shakespeare was a nationalist when England had been becoming a nation, and he wrote his dramas and plays according to that.
#15193290
Beren wrote:The Franks, for example, definitely weren't a nation. They were a people, even under Charlemagne. The French and the Germans became nations a lot later than that. Shakespeare was a nationalist when England had been becoming a nation, and he wrote his dramas and plays according to that.


What of the HRE? Was it not a nation. I think it is difficult to distinguish this if we are basing it on todays map rather than looking it in terms of empire.
#15193299

The beginning of the 15th century saw a different sort of religious movement arise in Bohemia,122 which contained some of the characteristics of the earlier urban revolts in Flanders, France and Italy, but which was also a rehearsal for the great Protestant Reformation 100 years later. The region had undergone rapid economic development. It contained the richest silver mine in Europe and the most important seat of learning in the (German) Holy Roman Empire. But much of the wealth was in the hands of the church, which owned fully one half of the land. This caused enormous resentment, not just among the poorer classes of town and country but even among many of the knights who spoke Czech rather than German.

The resentment found expression in massive support for the views of Jan Hus, a preacher and professor at the university who agitated forcefully against the corruption of the church and the claim of the pope to be the sole interpreter of God’s wishes. Hus even had some backing from the Bohemian king, Wenceslas. When the emperor, at the behest of the pope, burnt Hus at the stake in 1415, virtually the entire Czech population of Bohemia rose in revolt, taking control of the church and its property into local hands.

The king turned against the movement, and the nobles and the rich merchants became increasingly worried by the peasants’ tendency to reject exploitation by anyone, not just the church. Artisans belonging to the radical ‘Taborite’ wing of the movement controlled Prague for four months before being removed by the merchants who hoped to conciliate the pope and the emperor. There was a decade of war as the emperor and pope fought to crush the Bohemian revolt. Repeated vacillations by the Czech nobility and the Prague burghers pushed the rank and file of the Taborites to look to radical ideas, with egalitarian slogans like, ‘All shall live together as brothers; none shall be subject to another’, ‘The Lord shall reign and the Kingdom shall be handed over to people of the earth’, and, ‘All lords, nobles and knights shall be cut down and exterminated in the forests like outlaws’.123 It was not until May 1434 that a noble army of 25,000 defeated the Taborite force—aided by the desertion of one of its generals. No fewer than 13,000 of the Taborites were killed.

Flanders, northern Italy, northern France, Britain, Bohemia—the crisis of feudalism led to a series of great rebellions. Yet the power of the feudal lords remained intact. No class emerged capable of uniting the rest of society behind it in an onslaught on the system.


Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 153-154
#15193341
Unthinking Majority wrote:
Russia/China/North Korea/Iran/Syria/Afghanistan alliance. Axis of A-holes.

If you're a horrible regime there's friends for you apparently.



This is Cold-War-type paranoia, looking for an international placeholder adversary -- those countries are *not* allies, and each has quite separate and distinct histories from each other.
#15193348
ckaihatsu wrote:This is Cold-War-type paranoia, looking for an international placeholder adversary -- those countries are *not* allies, and each has quite separate and distinct histories from each other.


You don't think most of those countries form a security bloc? They have to, every other country treats them like the pariahs that they are.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Tainari88 , if someone enters your house withou[…]

Considering you have the intelligence of an oyste[…]

Liberals and centrists even feel comfortable just[…]

UK study finds young adults taking longer to find […]