Nationalism (final)

DMS dmschanoes at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 18 09:24:43 MDT 2003


Wish that it were, final that is.  Tend to doubt it.

In no order:

1. We are not talking about scientific capacity.  We
are talking about class interests.  They speak very
clearly about that to each other.  The fluff about
legality, democracy, national self-determination is
for advertising purposes only. That the bourgeoisie
may be capable "not infrequently" in your words of
clearly expressing their interests, proves the point.

Unlike the bourgeoisie we have no interest or ad-
vantage in duplicity.  We must always define the class
interests behind and in front of our assessments.

2. We don't speak to all as a government representing
all classes, until we are such a government.  When
the proletariat in conflict speaks, to us as well
as all others, it is exposing that the terms of its
specific struggle are the general terms for emancipation.
Specificity is the origin and path to power.

3. Ideology-- haven't been an activist in awhile, but
when I was with my comrades we had considerable success
articulating just those social forces at work, rather
than relying on somebody's previous formulas.  I don't
think that your mythical body "ordinary people" exist,
but those engaged in struggle seem to respond pretty well
to defining the class forces at work-- I would point out
the Russian Revolution as one minor example, where ideologies
fell by the wayside rapidly in the face of the actual
social confrontation.  Then it was class against class,
with the class organ of power, the soviet, vs. the class
organ of power, the duma saying all that needed to be
said about ideology.

4.Perhaps you are not familiar with Plessy v. Ferguson,
this was a legal decision that reversed the 13th, 14th,
15th amendments and enshrined segregation as the law of
the land.  The Civil War established those amendments. The
intrusion of capital through the mechanization of Southern
agriculture after WWII disrupted the existing relations
of Jim Crow and precipitated the civil rights movement
which progressed rather rapidly through "forms" to
reveal itself as the struggle for the emancipation of
black labor, not a struggle for civil rights or a
black nation.

5. Schematic about bourgeois law being the instrument of
property owners?  Well, check the prison population stats
and get back to me.

6. If you would attempt a concrete analysis of a real
conflict, the real history of the civil rights movement,
the Irish Rebellion, the counterrevolution in Chile in 73,
the current world situation, the overproduction of oil,
the advancement of the anti-apartheid struggle in South
Africa, you would found deep and profound correlations
between the politics, the forces engaged in struggle, and
the demands made upon and for labor.  It is really that
fundamental.  You can even look at Portugal in 1974 and
find similar information.

7. Law has no importance?  I said that we do not believe
in the importance of the rule of law.  The importance is
historical, class-based.  The law permits what the
bourgeoisie might or might not be able to afford. It
does not exist separate and apart from ruling class
interests.  See no. 6 above.

8.  Saying revolution requires program and organization is
"fascist"?  So that would make a revolutionary organ like
the soviets expropriating bourgeois property fascist? That's
just stupid.

What drops out in all your supposed concern for law, equity,
subjectivity, et. is class.

9. I don't know how sitting in my office in NYC is any
different than sitting in your office in Holland, except
for the time differential, but I do know a little about
Africa, and nationalism has been an impediment to the
progress of social emancipation.  I do know that the
the drop in coffee prices internationally has flattened
certain economies in Africa,that flower cultivation for
export has been damaged by inspection procedures insti-
tuted by Holland, and I do know that the solution to
those problems can be found only in an international
program and organization for socialist control of the
means of production, not through a program for the
national sovereignty of Uganda, Nigeria, etc.

It did not matter that the Russian working class was
by far a minority of the population in Russia, nor
that the US industrial working class is a minority in
the US, nor that the African American working class
is a minority of that minority-- it is the class
position that is critical.

11. Head shot off?  Unlikely to be in that position again
comrade. But, anyone who thinks the solution to the
US occupation is "self-determination for Iraq," or
Afghanistan, is kissing a corpse.  These aren't national
struggles, and actually, pseudo-left nationalism is what
exposed Iraq to such vicious assaults.  Iraq is part of
an international class struggle, where the only prospect
for emancipation is just that program, just those types
of organizations you find fascist.

10.  Repeating something you repeated about Marx is
all very well and good, but then it sounds like you are
doing exactly what Marx is criticizing--  say "Here is
the necessary subjectivity"  "Here is the manifold nature
of conflicts"  "Don't dare try to find a coherent point
of analysis."




More information about the Marxism mailing list