Nationalism of oppressed countries, again! (was Re: MS Statement on the Intifada)
Gorojovsky at SPAMarnet.com.ar
Sat Feb 17 22:20:16 MST 2001
Cdes. and friends,
On the e-mail that Xxxx has answered with lengthy quotations, I stated
> > Well, this is all I have to say on this kind of Tzahal Socialism.
I promise I will keep this decission firm.
Now, I am just replying to what lies at the core of MS's (and Xxxx's, so it
seems) ideas. The reflections and refractions of this basic mistake bounce and
rebound all over their positions, so I will leave it to our intelligent fellow
list members to trace it back, if they wish, throughout both the declaration by
MS and Xxxx's well meant but mislead defense of it. This last I say with
respect, since I have always liked people who defended their friends. Honest.
En relación a Re: MS Statement on the Intifada,
el 17 Feb 01, a las 22:16, Xxxx Xxxxxx dijo:
> Well, it's interesting that you call MS, who raise the call for Palestinian
> and Jewish working class unity against capitalism "great nation socialists"
> when you revert to a call for narrow ethnic nationalism with your call
> insistance that only a national Arab revolution (by your context, I assume
> you mean a Pan-Arab nationalist revolution) can liberate the Palestinians.
For Xxxx, calling for the nationalism of an oppressed country against the
nationalism of an imperialist state is "narrow ethnic nationalism". Of course,
he also believes that "a national Arab revolution" is an ethnocentric "Pan-Arab
nationalist revolution". I skip his derision of the oppressed non-proletarian
masses in the Arab world, and of course I skip his derogatory reference to the
assumed inability of Arab workers to understand the basic issues of Arab
national unity. Xxxx believes that all this implies support to some kind of
"ethnocentric nationalism" (yes, the nationalism of the Third World is always
ethnocentric for the very universalist citizens of the First World!). I will
just confront this with the position of MS which sanctifies the coexistence of
TWO states, on ethnic principles (because this is the only possibility for an
independent Israel, even an independent "socialist" Israel).
The word "imperialism" hovers above his head as high as a condor above the
Andean heights. It would be very good for Andy if he tried hard to have that
condor land on his skull, if he wants to become a Leninist, that is. (Sorry,
Andy, you seem to be a great guy and a good friend of your friends. You may
even be a Marxist. I do not know you in person. But, certainly, you are not a
Ah, and just for the record. Andy says that I argue that
> Palestinians have a different type of social justice from
> everyone else.
and links me with the worst kind of reactionaries. I did not say that,
I only said (and I repeat it) that no people can allow itself to be deprived
of the right to attain social justice by their own means and being _the subject_
of their own history. This is quite different from pandering that
> Palestinians or Hindus or First Nations are somehow culturally programmed to
> except their "own kind" of justice.
Xxxx's confusion is more revealing of his own abstract internationalism than of
my reactionary liberalism, indeed.
In this sense, Xxxx's
> Your argument that a
> Marxist has no right to criticise the leadership of other groups...
and so on, well, er, is just blah blah blah. If I belong to these lists it is
because I relish in such kind of criticisms. Only that I do not accept people
who sell a Leninist face and provide Zimmerwaldian (at best) policies.
As tangos end: "sol-do", that is, "G-B"!
This said, good night, the curtain falls, and I am over with the job. I will
leave the detailed debate to much more knowledgeable people from who I am eager
to learn lots.
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar
More information about the Marxism