Who/what is "dms"
dmschanoes at earthlink.net
Tue Jul 8 07:39:29 MDT 2003
The politics are in the presentation. If one wants to
assert the revolutionary character of nationalism in
the "long view," say the last 70 years or so, one should
be ready to assess the achievements of that nationalism over
the "long view" say the next 70 years or so.
So look around, tell me where you think China, Cuba, Vietnam or going to be, all examples I think you would tell me of the
triumph of revolutionary nationalism.
If you are going to assess the progressive impact of nationalism,
using China or Vietnam as an example, then we have to account
for the regressions that multiply on the basis, the social basis
of the triumph itself. To say that such regressions are solely
and always the attack of imperialism, the nefarious actions of
the bourgeoisie, begs the question. We know the bourgeoisie
are nefarious. It is the confluence of internal and external
presssures, pressures generated by a revolution incompleted,
isolated, that makes it vulnerable.
You can't award the credit without assessing the respons-
ibility for subsequent developments.
The problem with nationalism is that it really is a construct
of the emerging European bourgeoisie. It, the nation, is
then grafted upon Africa, Latin America, by imperialism. Really,
what could be more absurd then "national liberation" in Africa,
where the nation is purely an imposition of the occupiers
upon the occupied?
Look at the moments when the national question emerges, and
you will find overproduction, the overgrowth of the means of
production beyond the limits of the archaic social forms. This
is the case not only with the "national question" but "democratic
questions" as a whole. Examine the precipitating forces in
the civil rights movement and you will find the "invasion" of
the archaic agricultural system in the South by the North, i.e
by mechanization which tears the fabric of the social
restrictions on black labor. Capital demands the "equality"
that is to say, the dispossessing of that labor, accessibility,
while at the same time being unable to complete the process
of emancipation, as emancipation has eclipsed the simple
createion and expansion of wage-labor.
The theoretical bent of the presentation was an attempt to
find, within the logic of capital itself-- the organization
of labor as wage-labor and the means of production as
capital-- as detachable, circulating values, a link between
its "patriotism" and its capitalization of agriculture.
I tried to temper the abstract nature of that discussion by
concretely drawing upon a condensed analysis of the Philippines.
Perhaps I failed to make that clear. Or perhaps it requires
closer reading and less dizzyness.
As for personal information... that's not really any of your
As always, ad hominem attacks cheerfully acknowledged.
More information about the Marxism