Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:00:53 -0400
From: neil <74742.1651-AT-CompuServe.COM>
Subject: M-I: Zionism ,racialism , and nat-libbing


dear Jim Blaut,

Yes, Palestinains, Puerto Ricans, etc are  
suffer not only exploitaition by capital but 
national oppresion as well.
But , Jim, i should remind you that as are 
all peoples/societies, these and the others 
are divided into  antagonistic classes. 

Your position  blurrs class distinction and antagonism 
and instesd enlists militants and anti-imperialists 
to line up behind national (bourgeios) struggles for "independence",
which in the present epoch of world capitailist dominace
and imperialism are in fact no longer progressive fof 
workers as they were in the pre-WW1 period .

National states 'liberated" in the 20th centuries 
are all bourgeios exploiter regimes , that can't even keep 
power except by terrorizing workers and lining up with 
 the support of one group of imperialist states against
 another group..

Even when Marx-Engels (M-E) gave support to national struggles,
they were quite selective, backing these as  tactics in 
the fight against backward feudal empires to create 
new capitalist states that would hasten the growth and
power of the working class, overall. 
M-E opposed  many other national struggles which they 
(correctly) saw as cats paws for reaction, ironically ,
the nat-libbers in the Balkans comes to mind.

In the imperialist epoch , no small nation  getting nat-libbed 
can be historically progressive for the workers as the 
whole planet now is dominated by imperialist capitals.

Lenin backed nat-libbs from a tactical standpoint and even he 
faced bitter opposition inside  the bolshevik movement on this 
and had to do a lot of arm twisting to get the party to fall
into line. (see records of polemics with the Bolsheviks Bukharin
-Piatikov-Roy - Zadeh and  even Luxembourg on this)

Lenin thought the nat-libbs movements would weaken the 
imperialist chain  and help speed proletarian revolts but
what Lenin and others underestimated was the ability 
of the metro capitals to maintain hegemony in the
post-colonial situation through primarily ECONOMIC MEANS  .
 For Leninists of 1916 , it was an innocent error.
Seeing the overall  track record of this tactic now and still 
promoting it  is a grave class error.

Explain then too why is it that all nat-libbed 20th cent states
having political independence are all frimly under domination 
of international capital ?

In these nat-libbered states , the wage workers live under 
NEW ruling capitalists and state capitalists who not only
keep the club and bayonet ready to deal with any worker 
organizing but themselves practice  national/class  oppression
against minorities within their own national  borders. 
Eliminating national and class opression means fighting
capitalists of ALL nationalities , not the pick and choose
some "good exploiters" eclectic method of nat-lib supporters.

For the workers , not the bourgeois , in Palestine , Puerto
Rico , etc class struggle is clearly oppsed to national 
struggle .Real movements that can take on capital in
our epoch are based on workers unity and organization
based on the internatinal class struggle , and this 
means opposing nationalism as the anti-worker
puke that it is.

Even a few nat-libb leaders , like Amilcar Cabral (Guinea-Bissau)
began to see these failings near the end of his life. Thats
probably why the imperialists and the new nat-lib bourgoeis
ruling  class decided it was time to get rid of him. 

Neil 



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