Forwarded from Nestor (reply to Danny)
lnp3 at panix.com
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.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism