Forwarded from Nestor (reply to Danny)

Louis Proyect 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, 
instead?

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
www.marxmail.org



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list