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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005