Jim Blaut on Lenin and the National Question
Henry C.K. Liu
hliu at SPAMmindspring.com
Mon Nov 20 21:29:43 MST 2000
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Henry says:
> > > >Without Third World nationalism, there would not have been Third
> >> >World socialism.
> >> >Henry C.K. Liu
> >> Quite right, with a couple of modifications:
> >> Third World nationalism was a necessary but not sufficient condition
> >> for Third World socialism. And at this point in history, we hear
> >> more of nationalist rhetoric without any substance; in fact, more
> >> often than not, the idea of need for national competitiveness, etc.
> >> gets used to _destroy gains made in the past_, sometimes in such a
> >> way that the social reality of the nation melts down.
> >Modern China's nationalism is not based on any empire fixation, but
> >rather on the
> >fact that all separatist movements in modern time have been fanned by Western
> >imperialism for ulterior motives. Taiwan and Tibet are clear
> >examples. The Dalai
> >Lama stands for feudal theocracy against communism. Both Taiwan and
> >the exiled
> >Dalai Lama declare their willingness to rejoin Beijing if China stop being
> >communist, repaeting propaganda slogans fabricated in Washington.
> >As long as China remains a socialist country, it opposition to separatism is
> I agree, and I might add that even should China become fully
> capitalist, it would probably be still more progressive than Dalai
> Lama's Tibet, etc. That said, at this point in history, I find it
> more and more difficult to regard China as socialist; it's not
> capitalist yet, but is it really socialist still? More importantly,
> whither China in the future? Yes, there are, in China, people who
> think like you, trying to remain true to Maoism; yes, peasants &
> workers are struggling hard to hold onto their past gains. However,
> it appears to me that the ruling faction of the Party is fully
> committed to the path toward slow but eventual capitalist
> restoration. Of course, the gradual nature of transformation makes
> the Chinese transition _much superior_ to Perestroika, but,
> nonetheless, the direction seems to me to be the same.
Although such a revolution in a colonial and semi-colonial country is still
fundamentally bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage
or first step, and although its objective mission is to clear the path for the
development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of the old type led by the
bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under
dictatorship. It belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with
the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a state
under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes. Thus this
revolution actually serves the purpose of clearing a still wider path for the
development of socialism. In the course of its progress, there may be a number of
further sub-stages, because of changes on the enemy's side and within the ranks of
our allies, but the fundamental character of the revolution remains unchanged.
Such a revolution attacks imperialism at its very roots, and is therefore not
tolerated but opposed by imperialism. However, it is favoured by socialism and
supported by the land of socialism and the socialist
Therefore, such a revolution inevitably becomes part of the proletarian-socialist
world revolution. - Mao Zedong.
More information about the Marxism