What would Lenin say in 2000? Re: Reply to Mac on national self-determination:

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thu Aug 10 12:44:54 MDT 2000



>Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:

>  >The basic class question, the
> >basic class struggle in those places is "who fights imperialism
> >best?".

I think this is well put, Nestor. There is nothing like *vulgar
anti-imperialism*.  Our task, as Marxists, should be to decide "who fights
imperialism the best", or to put Lenin in context, instead of blindly
following a sectarian ethnic nationalism. Every form of sectarianism is bad,
whether vulgar materialist or vulgar nationalist. It is too loud and hits
the wall, that is all. National self-determination is a must, and we oppose
every form of barbaric sanctions imposed upon people-- Iraq, Yugoslavia,
Russia-- by western powers. It is also important for us, however, as
Marxists, not to quickly allow imperialists to divide and rule the nations.
It was completely within the scope of US imperialism to see the Soviet Union
divided from the beginning. This has been part of the persistent strategy
pursued by the US against communism since the cold war. They enslaved it,
fucked it and got it.  Isn't the disintegration of Russia the natural
extension of older plans and revival of second cold war plans already?

In more technical terms, what should be the criteria to determine the right
to national self-determination in the era of US imperialism *without*
becoming subservient to imperialist strategy of divide and rule? What would
Lenin say in  the year of 2000?  (or may be Gramsci?)

Let's put three different scenarios of national self-determination and
evaluate accordingly. what should be our strategy in each case?

1) Russia versus Chechen war

The regime identifies its interests with the US; bourgeois form of
government ( or nascent bourgeoisie developing); Putin regime and Russian
oligarchy subservient to US imperialism and finance capitalists like Soros;
Chechen control is vital to have control over the oil in the Black Sea for
both Russia and the US.

2) Iraq versus Kurds

No bourgeois form of government. The regime does not identify its interests
with the US. Oppresses two kinds of Kurds, besides Shiite religious
minorities.

a) bourgeois nationalists in the South and North. They conspire with the US,
demanding political freedoms and national self-determination.

b) socialist/nationalist PKK on the Turkish/Syria/Iraq/Iran borders. They
are not seriously allied with the US, but they complain to European human
rights organizations about human rights violations in Iraq, Iran, and
Turkey.


3) Turkey versus Kurds

The regime identifies its interests with the US.  Modern Bourgeois
nationalist government subservient to imperialism and foreign capital
(currently);  Military aid from the US to oppress PKK militants, and to
continue the war in the South (which ended anyway with the sentencing of
Ocalan);  Convergence of interest with Saddam to contain the Kurds.

Disinterested Turkish marxists are not here!  If there are any, raise an
opinion men!


I am not touching upon the issue of religion (Islam) for the time being..
let's leave it aside. This is complex enough.


hug to all

Xxxx








>
> So that this is "vulgar anti-imperialism". What would be "refined
> anti-imperialism"? Suggesting that there are other imperialisms
> besides those of Western Europe, the United States, and Japan? Well,
> prove it. You have not. And I am afraid you will get caught by your
> own lasso if you try.
>
> Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
> gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar

--

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222



____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now     http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________





More information about the Marxism mailing list