Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:55:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: Re: Reply to Heartfield,


On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, James Heartfield wrote:

> That's all fair enough, but Shane's challenge is more interesting: what
> does the principle of self-determination mean if we no longer live in an
> era marked by national liberation struggles?
> 

This is really a dumb question. The Sandinista revolution had the dynamics
of a national liberation struggle. So did the Cuban. And the Vietnamese.
And the Chinese. Every one of these countries had formal independence, but
no genuine independence. The national struggle is about land. When a
country like Guatemala was subject to the control of the United Fruit
Company prior to Arbenz's presidency, nationalist yearnings took the form
of the desire for land. 

National liberation struggles are also about genuine independence and
democracy. When Roosevelt bragged that although Somoza was a
son-of-a-bitch, he was *our* son-of-a-bitch, this stirred nationalism.

For the schematically minded, the national question is resolved with
formal independence. For Marxists, it can only be resolved through
proletarian revolution as the Comintern documents of 1920 ably spelled
out.

Louis Proyect



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