[Marxism] Scottish independence
rfidler_8 at sympatico.ca
Thu Sep 4 06:04:11 MDT 2014
I am not sure what you mean by "obscurantist."
In the paragraph you cite, below, Davidson says (1) socialists are not
nationalists, (2) Scotland is not an oppressed nation, and (3) socialists
can in some situations support a national movement even when the nation in
question is not oppressed. These propositions strike me as correct.
I leave aside his specific examples of "Pan-Slavism in 1848... Serbia in
1914 and ... the Iraqi Kurds today." We are talking about Scotland in 2014,
and each national question must be assessed on its own merits.
Richard Fidler: "Neil Davidson ... the correct standpoint of revolutionary
You mean obscurantist correctness like this:
"We need to begin with what I regard as fundamental principles. Socialists
cannot be nationalists for any nation, but especially not their own, even
if their nation is oppressed. What they can do is support certain national
movements and demands, up to and including secession. The basis for
deciding which-if any to support in any given situation is political, which
is not to say that it can be determined by the blunt instrument of the
'oppressed/oppressor' formula: there are situations where even oppressed
nationalities cannot be supported if their objectives are essentially part
of a greater imperialist strategy, as was the case for Pan-Slavism in 1848,
for Serbia in 1914 and for the Iraqi Kurds today. And Scotland is not, and
has never been, an oppressed nation."
As one commentator to Davidson's piece quite rightly wrote about his
argumentation:'For a yes vote without any illusions there is any point
More information about the Marxism