Lenin, secession and the national question
Jose G. Perez
jgperez at SPAMfreepcmail.com
Fri Dec 31 17:54:33 MST 1999
Thank you, James!
What is important is not the sociological definition of "nation"
"nationality" or "national minority" but the support to national struggles
against oppression and imperialism. This issue is political and NOT
sociological, NOT economic NOT linguistic.
From: James M. Blaut <70671.2032 at compuserve.com>
To: INTERNET:marxism at lists.panix.com <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Date: Friday, December 31, 1999 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: Lenin, secession and the national question
>Norm is talking about STALIN's theory of nations, not LENIN's. Lenin
>probably agreed with Stalin's definition of "nation" in 1913, when Stalin
>wrote "Marxism and the National Question," but that was before Lenin began
>seriously to study the dynamics of the colonial world. Lenin never used
>Stalin's definition thereafter. In fact, Lenin didn't ever define "nation"
>in any formal sense, and said absolutely nothing about a definition of
>"nation" after 1913 or 1914. He never even mentioned Stalin's defnition
>after 1914.I'm sure that Lenin was aware of the fact that you can't define
>"nation" in such a way as to to include all real nations of all periods,
>and to exclude non-nations.
>So don't burden Lenin with Stalin's defnition, or with Stalin's overall
>theory of nationalism, which was not useful in the period of imperialism.
>I wrote about this in an article in Monthly Review in 1977, "Are Puerto
>Ricans a 'National minority'?" and in a book called _The National Question:
>Decolonizing the Theory of Nationalism_, Zed 1987.
More information about the Marxism