determination ,chris?

G*rd*n gcf at
Sat Apr 17 18:07:16 PDT 1999

> >Chris,
> >
> >I am not sure, did you answer my query from some time back?
> >
> >how can you argue for self-determination *with conditions attached*? isn't
> >the whole idea of self-determination the absence of external conditions?
> >in which case, isn't support for self-determination somewhat cynical unless
> >it is also the refusal of conditions?
> >
> >Angela
> >---
> >rcollins at

Chris Burford:
> I have missed that, and I am not sure of the context.
> As I understand it support for the right to self-determination should be
> unconditional, up to an including the right to secession and independence.
> Whether it is progressive to encourage people to exercise that right is
> another matter.
> E.g in marxist terms the right of Quebec to be independent from Canada
> should be unconditional, but progressive people in both parts of Canada
> might or might not argue for the right to be exercised in that way.
> ...

If we followed this logic logically, there doesn't seem to be any point at which secession would have to stop. Quebec could secede from Canada, the English-speaking areas of Quebec could secede from Quebec, the French in the English- speaking areas could secede, and then of course various families and individuals could secede from the seceding towns and villages. I anarchistically approve; however, I think there would be problems about property, as there often are during divorces.

Isn't the nation-state a sort of liberal concoction?

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list