Forwarded from Nestor (reply to Danny)

Louis Proyect lnp3 at
Thu Jul 4 16:47:54 MDT 2002

Daniel Ortega (whew, that´s a name!) wrote:

" Nationalism is a very tight rope that marxists have to walk on, 
especially third world nationalism that can represent such an 
anti-imperialist upsurge. (...) But I think most marxist in the 1960 did 
not or could not develop an alternative to such nationalist 
developments, so they raised these forms of nationalism to a political 
level of being the anti-imperialist vanguard of the world. (...) My only 
point is that these developments represent an artificial substitution to 
the class struggle."

What about thinking of national struggle as a specific form of class 
struggle, instead of substituting an abstract "class struggle" for it, 

The late Jim Blaut, one of those rare American Marxists who, though they 
could have developed a well seated position in Academic Marxism chose to 
work for the Puerto Rican struggles, and a prime member of this list 
while he lived, wrote some very interesting and compelling things on 
"national struggle as class struggle across borders". I suggest to those 
American cdes. interested in these issues to read his _The national 
question_ (even though, or perhaps even because, I don´t agree with all 
what he wrote on that book).

Is today´s Marxism so sterile and shallow a subject matter that this 
dialectical conception of national struggle looks to Marxists -in the 
best Bernsteinian tradition- something _else_, substantially separate 
from class struggle? Maybe I misread Lenin, but I have a distinct 
feeling that the Old Man would have had something to say -once again, 
still once again!- against this formal opposition.


Louis Proyect

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list