From: "commie00" <commie00-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: wheee... nationalism  ... Re: AUT: back Vance crisis theory
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:57:47 -0400


i've been staying out of this one because enough people have been saying
basically what i would say i didn't see much point. but, and even tho people
will prolly say what i'm about to say, i now feel compelled to answer...
maybe its because its sunny out and i'm in a good mood... who knows...

> My own position is still evolving. People have the right to self defense.
> And when they resist eviction and expulsion they are engaging in that and
> should be supported. But then there is the whole sticky question of the
> right to self determination. And when does defense turn into offense and
> exclusion?

to me it has always seemed that the main problem with nationalism (in right
wing or left wing variations) is that it belies the class relations of those
within the "nation". what this ultimately means is that after the foreign
devil is thrown of the back, the ruling class of that nation gets back to
the business of exploiting the working class (in fact, they never stopped,
but simply obscured it for a while).

however, due to the decomposition caused by this class collaborationism, the
working class is confused and weakened. and as long as the nationalist
ideology stays in play, it can still be used to decompose the class.

of course one of the major problems of maoist third worldism is that it
obscures these class relations in the case of left-wing nationalism in third
world countries. the third worldists argue that the third world is still
basically fudalistic or what-not, and accuse anyone who disagrees with them
as being eurocentric and racist.

but the problem with their analysis is that they refuse to see the global
chacter of capitalism and the general end of imperialism as such. thus they
don't see the universalization of class roles. this mistake, at best, has
them taking on the terminology and such ("civil society", etc.) of liberal
democrats in an effort to understand the global proletariat, while not
betraying their third worldism.

the third world conditions are more aptly chacterized as i think the "formal
domination of capital". that is: 1) whatever remained of the aristocratic
and patriarchical landed classes have been absorbed into the bourgeoisie,
while the peseantry as been absorbed into the proletariat; 2) however, this
domination has yet to take on the characteristics of the "real domination of
capital", which are easily explilified by such things as the "spectacle" in
all its complexties. (of course there's much more to it than these 2 points,
but i'm trying to be brief.)

etc.







NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net


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