I think we already have better ideas... the same old left framework/ criteria for defining principles, predicting and evaluating outcomes, and selecting an action. So there was Gandhi-Azad national liberation from the British. There was Jinnah national liberation from the British and India. There was Mujibur Rahman national liberation from Pakistan. We can and must evaluate each from the framework of the will and good of the people. Of course there are no guarantees of positive outcomes. But that does not necessitate abandoning a framework of more fundamental leftist values in favour of absolute support for an outcome such as national liberation.
Also, nationalism/sovereignty is not congruent with [national] liberation.
> ws:] If it does not, or even if it turns back the clock of social
> progress
> and worsens the quality of life, national liberation is unworthy and
> reactionary.
>
> Russell: Who makes this judgement? Unfortunately setting impossible
> preconditions for supporting foreign liberation struggles has often
> been a
> pretext for instead supporting - or at least tolerating - imperial
> adventures around the world. The argument runs: "We would support
> the right
> to national liberation but not in this case as the politics of the
> liberation movement are too reactionary for our tastes (they oppress
> women/are religious fundamentalists/aren't sufficiently socialist/
> whatever).
> Instead we're forced - more in sorrow than in anger - to go along
> with our
> own country's civilising mission in X country".
Fair enough, as far as that line of thinking goes. But once again, metrics are available for making such judgements, and they can be informed by an awareness of such irrationalities as tastes and identity bias. There is a "liberation" in "national liberation" and that is here one such metric. They may oppress women, but worse such oppression might be a specific [sub]goal of the "liberation" movement. A classic case today, for me, is Iran: while not struggling for liberation in the sense of being occupied, it is a country that is trying to break free of Western attempts at domination. And it is doing so through leaders who stand accused of various views that are in contradiction with left values. Nevertheless, they are deserving, IMHO, of our silence, if not support, since (AFAICT) (a) the greatest danger facing gay people, women, atheists, socialists, mothers, dogs, straight Muslim men, and so on, is Western meddling and outright attack and (b) the current "regime" may be the only hope to avoid (a) and move towards progress (given that Iranians seem to have tried other means with no success).
> Russell: National liberation/foreign domination - it's all the same
> to Woj.
> Let's have your list of all those countries that benefited thanks to
> colonial domination/foreign intervention. I know of none in Africa.
> We do
> however have a bunch of disaster areas that are the direct
> consequence of
> western meddling.
So, will Western leftist unwillingness to further meddle in Africa undo the effects of Western leftist incapability to prevent such meddling in the past? That we (leftists) have to act does not, I believe, imply that we have to act through and in step with the USG, NATO, etc. The difference IMHO between us and "liberals" is that they are willing to exercise power (at least as a last resort) to soothe their conscience. In a cyclical manner, when that exercise of power leads to further regret (of the exploitation of their pure intentions).
--ravi