On 2012-09-21, at 12:01 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> I see your point, but by your own admission, separatism does
> not alter power relations between the classes. It often ties the
> interests of the working class to those of the elite, which is in
> essence reactionary, cf. South Africa, Ireland, Israel or post Soviet
> states. Whatever one may think of the x-USSR, the communist central
> government was a *significant* improvement to the Islamist, feudal,
> tribal, or gangster statelets.
Sure, and all of us wish these movements had altered relations between the classes rather than spawning new elites from within their ranks. But whatever qualms I may have had about their leaderships and subsequent disappointment with their outcomes, I still believe it was necessary at the time to support the struggles of the South African working class against apartheid, of the Irish against British imperialism, and of the Palestinian masses against the Israeli occupation. Were you neutral? You mischaracterize these movements as "separatist", BTW, as in no case was there an attempt to separate from a federal state. The ANC sought instead to takeover the South African state and end apartheid, and the Irish republicans and Palestinians respectively sought the expulsion of British imperialism and Israeli colonialism from their territories. The national movements of the Ukrainians, Baltic peoples, and others within the USSR had a much more contradictory character, in conflict as they were with a state which was opposed to, rather than aligned with, international capitalism and imperialism, and need to be understood apart from the forces which shaped the ANC, IRA, and PLO, which originated as movements against Western imperialism and its proxies.