File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1998/marxism-international.9802, message 482


Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:12:34 +0000
From: Lew <Lew-AT-dialogues.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M-I: on nation building


In article <199802262352_MC2-34DC-4E19-AT-compuserve.com>, james m blaut
<70671.2032-AT-CompuServe.COM> writes

>Either what you're saying is -- yes, you picked the right word -- racist,
>because it defines political struggle as just too sophisticated a task for
>the uncivilized workers of backward countries, or you are returning to the
>romantic but silly idea that workers around the world will rise up en masse
>and overthrow capitalism without bothering about state power.

I take the point of view of the working class, wherever in the world
they may be. The main reason I am opposed to nation building is that it
divides the working class. It divides the working class by employing
xenophobia and, quite often, explicitly racist arguments. It becomes the
undifferentiated "us" versus the undifferentiated "them". "Our" nation
against the filthy foreigners. By the very nature of nation building,
the class perspective is absent. 

Also absent is an understanding of global capitalism and the illusion of
national independence. That is to say, the illusion that the state has
autonomy in a global context to pursue the interests of the capitalists,
never mind the workers. All states are potentially imperialist, but the
bigger ones usually have the economic and military muscle to back up
their claims over the smaller ones. Here in the European Union the Left
and Right are united in their fears about "their" national sovereignty
being swallowed up by a European Union monolith. But what this argument
is really about, and sometimes explcitly so, is a fear of German
domination. Does it matter to me or any other worker that the boss is
German, living in Germany? Would the position of workers be improved if
bosses only came from the indigenous country? The answer can only be yes
if workers can be convinced that the abstraction of the nation is more
important than their material class interests. This is not to say that
workers should not capture state power. They should unite for that very
purpose, but this does not entail nation building - or as it is
sometimes called, "ethnic cleansing".

>And again: What about Puerto Rico? Should not Puerto Ricans struggle for
>independence?

Independence for who precisely? Independence from whom or what? 

BTW, Nestor emailed me a few days ago to say he was going away for a
couple of weeks and he will return to this topic when he comes back.

-- 
Lew


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005