Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:13:12 +0100
From: Joćo Paulo Monteiro <jpmonteiro-AT-mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Re: M-I: Nationalism & Internationalism


Louis Godena is found of dark, pessimistic tones, reminiscent of XIX
century romantic reaction (Herder, J. de Maistre, etc.). I've already
red him, with astonishment, praise Samuel Huntington thesis. Now he
offers this:

> Nationalism *has* proven to be a much more powerful force than Marxism,
> which has proven more adroit at allying itself with nationalism than at
> suppressing it.    The reasons for this are varied and complex.

Marxism, as a social transformative force, is still on its adolescence.
It's only very recently - with the slow, hesitant and limited rise of an
integrated world economy - that the material conditions for
international class solidarity are being put in place. Probably, it will
still take a long period of maturation to reach a point to call for
class organization on a world scale. But we're surely getting there.
Slowly, as yet.

> Horizontal class divisions appeared far later in humanity's development than
> the segmentary cultural divisions of ethos,  nations and people.    What is
> that anthropological law which holds that the deepest layers of a national
> formation or of an individual personality is the most formidable?     In
> both psychic and social organization,  ontologically and philogenetically,
> the hard core is always archaic.    This most ancient stratum is also the
> most active -- this is a fundamental psychoanalytic and historic datum.

This is utter nonsense. In fact, I've never seen so much of it packed
together in so small a space. Obscurantist, impressionistic talk devoid
of any scientific meaning whatsoever. I wish you would find this
"anthropological law" of yours. That must be quite a piece. This is
blood and soil talk you usually find in fascist journals.

> And,  further,  is not the instinctive determinant in relation to the
> conscious?    There is an internationalist *conscience*,  rather than an
> internationalist *instinct*.    Whenever nationalist instinct conflicts with
> internationalist conscience,  the former has a much greater mass force.

More nonsense. Please, what is this "instictive determinant"? Are you
refering to the "reptilian complex" (MacLean) that, according to some,
determines aggression, hierarchy and territoriality? What makes you
think this atavistic brain function is so powerful. If it is, we can
surelly forget socialism for all eternity. And what in hell's name is
this "greater mass force" of yours?

> Is this a platonic state of affairs?     I do not think so,  but one cannot
> be unmindful that the atrocity of national sentiment continually bests the
> higher impulses in nearly every arena,  and that the ensuing benefit to
> imperialism remains the appalling case.

Comrade, please come to your senses. These "theories" of yours are pure
rubish, and of the most harmful kind. The fact is that this all
continent is still largely submerged on the vast pool of human
ignorance.
As someone said, theory is a good servant but a dreadful master. If you
are a commited revolutionary, try to theorize in the sense that serves
the proletariat's cause. Or, at the very least, try not to display such
an unsound fascination for baseless and reaccionary intellectual junk
food.


Jo=E3o Paulo Monteiro
Porto



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---