File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0106, message 140


From: "Ahmed" <ahmedv-AT-mail.saimr.wits.ac.za>
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Re: Re: wheee... nationalism 
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:21:45 +0200


 Dear Thomas


Just a few thoughts:

> I dont think that revolutions need to necessarily go
> through "stages".  It depends on the conditions of a
> particular country.  I do contend that it seems rather
> a difficult task to call for a "socialist revolution"
> in a country where near feudal property relations
> dominate.
>
Firstly i think you make the mistake of posing the question of revolution in
terms of a call from a working class of a particular nation. that is
nationalism seems to structure the collective will of the class

more. certainly in many 'countries' traces of non tradition capitalist
property relations are found. however they are not precapitalist as such, or
as i believe you would suggest  feudal. post colonialism these forms of
organisation were intergrated into capitalist circuits of exchange and
distribution and must be understood in relation to that (latter) mode of
production

Finally conditions may be different within a particular continent, region,
country, town or section of that town. So for me in johannesburb, is a call
for socialism more ligitimate and plausible than my brother in rural kwazulu
natal? should he wait until 'propercapitalism' happens?

> We used to joke about trotskyists saying they
> supported revolution until it actually happened.  On
> the one hand I agree with you that "stagism" is
> incorrect if it is just a mechanical procedure.  On
> the other hand, in some cases it is going to be
> impossible to call for a socialist revolution (in lieu
> of a nationalist revolution)...maybe not impossible to
> call for it but when you have a small proleteriat, it
> would just be crushed immediately.

Just a question so i know when to make the call

what are the basic preconditions for socialism?

ahmed

> --- Ahmed <ahmedv-AT-mail.saimr.wits.ac.za> wrote:
> > Dear all
> >
> > i need to read the 80 odd messages in my inbox, but
> > did catch the tail of a
> > discussion.
> > cwrite wrote:
> > Maybe nationalism is not able to even put on a
> > progressive mask
> > > anymore to hide its reactionary politics
> >
> > o how we wish this was true. In South Africa the
> > communist party, and the
> > largest trade union federation COSATU, justifies its
> > continued alliance with
> > the ANC in terms of a national democratic revolution
> > which becomes
> > increasingly indistinguishable from everyday
> > bourgeois nationalism.
> >
> > What is most worrying is - that the discourse of the
> > national democratic
> > revolution, which is heavily dependant on a crude
> > idea of 'stages' that need
> > to be completed in order to arrive at communism - is
> > precisely how what some
> > list members seem to be arguing in relation to the
> > 'Third World' ( and its
> > lack indusratialisation to support a socialist
> > state)
> >
> > Now this kind of stagist approach depends on seeing
> > revolution in very
> > narrow terms in which nations (imagined by bourgeois
> > maps) proceed
> > individually to socialism. sounds a bit fishy.
> >
> > I return to my inbox. if out of context please
> > ignore
> >
> >
> > _________________________________
> > Ahmed Veriava
> > Centre for Health Policy
> >
> > I write what I like
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "cwright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
> > To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 9:42 AM
> > Subject: AUT: Re: Re: wheee... nationalism
> >
> >
> > > BTW, all this may be a moot point.  As Sean
> > pointed out, with the collapse
> > > of the Soviet union, the space for nationalist
> > revolutions may no longer
> > > exist.  Then again, it may be less the collapse of
> > the USSR and the degree
> > > to which capital has transformed social relations
> > all over the world.  It
> > > does not seem to me that much space still exists
> > for that type of
> > revolution
> > > (no colonialism anymore, or not much; much greater
> > integration into the
> > > world market, no longer are so many countries just
> > raw material
> > reservoirs,
> > > etc.)  Maybe nationalism is not able to even put
> > on a progressive mask
> > > anymore to hide its reactionary politics.
> > >
> > > Maybe.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Chris
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Sean Fenley" <satellitecrash-AT-yahoo.com>
> > > To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 8:59 AM
> > > Subject: AUT: Re: wheee... nationalism
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- Thomas Seay <entheogens-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Commie00,  I dont know what position to take
> > vis a'
> > > > > vis
> > > > > Nationalist struggles that are led by the
> > national
> > > > > ruling class, or at least in which there is a
> > > > > national
> > > > > front of classes.  However, it seems that the
> > theory
> > > > > of "thirdworldism", such as that put forth at
> > one
> > > > > time
> > > > > by the Communist Party of China, deserves
> > serious
> > > > > thought.
> > > >
> > > > Hey all,
> > > > I think the apologetics for nationalism and even
> > > > attempts to make nationalist struggles seem
> > logical
> > > > obscure what is the real situation...
> > > >
> > > > all nationalist struggles are led by a ruling
> > class
> > > > insofar as they are nationalist struggles.
> > communists,
> > > > of course, are not interested in nations, but a
> > world
> > > > of freely associated autonomous communities.
> > > > identifying with a nation seems to me to be a
> > > > reactionary stance that goes along with being an
> > > > apologist for empire building, representative
> > > > democracy, standing militaries (police forces
> > too),
> > > > not to mention racism, sexism, and the various
> > > > cultural oppressions which states have made into
> > a
> > > > science. as a disclaimer to the last part of
> > that i
> > > > should say that it does seem like at least the
> > > > advanced capitalist states are trying to
> > eliminate or
> > > > at least mitigate racism, sexism, hetrosexism
> > (more
> > > > rhetorical than serious about this one) and
> > religious
> > > > discrimination (insofar as workers
> > identifications
> > > > with these cultural concepts don't get in the
> > way of
> > > > their ability to work and take part in beyond
> > what is
> > > > deemed "normal") at least among disempowered
> > groups
> > > > when it is  in the ruling classes's interests.
> > Racism
> > > > and discrimination is ok when a particular race
> > is
> > > > rioting or "scamming" the welfare system but not
> > in
> > > > the workplace where it may interfere with
> > > > productivity, etc... This might not be
> > completely
> > > > clear i can spell it our further if I have to
> > but am
> > > > just typing this to save space...
> > > >
> > > > it's just completely obvious to me that some
> > third
> > > > world liberation struggles will pose a
> > nationalist
> > > > character (and is why i support nationalist
> > third
> > > > world struggles b/c these struggles are
> > resisting an
> > > > even more oppressive bourgeosie than their own),
> > > > virtually every society on the planet has a
> > > > nation-state hovering over it and attempting to
> > > > control it, it's almost an "if you can't beat em
> > join
> > > > em" type of logic for liberation movements to
> > take a
> > > > nationalist character... this is one of the
> > greatest
> > > > difficulties of the class struggle, breaking
> > through
> > > > the state and realizing the kind of society the
> > > > various cultural revolutions that have been
> > taking
> > > > place since 68' have been striving for, and a
> > society
> > > > with workers self-management. but breaking
> > through the
> > > > state has of course been so difficult because of
> > > > arguments against class struggle in favor of
> > > > nationalism, social democracy, trade union
> > membership,
> > > > etc...
> > > >
> > > >  but as i said it doesn't really make sense to
> > > > rationalize nationalism. even though i can
> > understand
> > > > a movement being nationalist that's not
> > important
> > > > because it doesn't do anything to change what
> > nations
> > > > and the concept of nationalism are about... for
> > me
> > > > this whole debate asks the question of can third
> > world
> > > > peoples realize communism? what i mean is can a
> > third
> > > > world struggle get outside of capitalism and
> > realize a
> > > > free society? i think that such a movement could
> > occur
> > > > but would have to give up a lot of material
> > goods
> === message truncated ==>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005