Re: [A-List] The national question

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

So far the responses to this thread have been encouraging, but also
indicative of a need for deeper study.

Is Canada imperialist? This question got an appropriate answer but that it
was asked at all suggests that we need to consider exactly what we mean by
"imperialist". Are there listers out there who would be prepared to discuss
this? And this is surely a good time to mention that we still need to
reactivate our reading of Michael Hudson's "Super Imperialism", which I seem
to be accepting responsibility for, by default at least. To that end I
promise to post something on this next week.

Most impressive so far is the effort to link national struggles with the
wider struggle against capitalism. Melvin's identification of the problem of
trade unionism in the metropolis as being a handmaid of imperialism is
pertinent to say the least (although I refer Melvin to my earlier points
about phraseology -- phrases like "cabal of filth" are not going to win
hearts and minds, however justified they might be objectively speaking).

Is there a way of linking discussion of the national colonial question (as
framed by Peery and the CWP) with the struggles of the Indian nations?

Jim's points about the opportunities for movement building presented by the
contradictions inherent in the apparatus of bourgeois rule reminds me of
problems I have with the SSP's apparent isolationism in its struggle for a
Scottish socialist republic, and the simplistic rejection of "Europe" as
merely another instrument of bourgeois domination. This, in my view, is to
miss a crucial opportunity for alliance-building within the UK and Europe
more generally. As I tried to point out in posting the article on railway
financing in the context of an infrastructural and fiscal crisis

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2003w38/msg00037.htm

there are opportunities for alliance-building there for the taking.
Specifically, what unites Scottish, Welsh and London interests is a desire
to be free of the yoke of Westminster. That Ken Livingstone should try to
score points locally with his London constituency by pointing to greater
subsidies going the way of Scotland, or that Scottish activists should
attribute their problems to "the English" is exactly what will ensure the
continuation of the status quo. Objectively the liberation struggles of
Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland are united, but we have to keep
hammering away against the British ideology in order to convince an ever
greater proportion of "Britons" that this is the case. It is why I consider
the Scottish struggle part of a much wider canvas on which the very future
of the world is at stake. It makes no sense to treat that struggle in
isolation, and no amount of lip service and obeisance to "internationalism"
will disguise the objective fact that this is exactly what a refusal to
acknowledge the wider British and European dimensions of the struggle
accomplishes. At the very least it is bad tactics, since it deprives the
struggle of key weapons against its primary adversary, i.e., the British
state. But strategically it is disastrous because it is almost certain to
fail thanks to its wholly unrealistic envisioning of the arena of struggle.

Of course I could be convinced otherwise. But another point I am reminded of
is one made by Néstor with respect to the liberation struggle in East Timor,
to wit, that this struggle lacked legitimacy because of the artificiality of
the partitioning of Indonesia that this would create and the economic
unsustainability of such a partition. This sort of issue is exactly what the
Scottish struggle must come to terms with, especially when it is clear that
the sort of policies envisaged by the SSP will inevitably involve a
significant downward shift in the material standard of living for a
significant proportion of the Scottish population, who, if we assume they
achieve independence, will have the prospect of living next door to a more
materially wealthy England just to remind them of the folly of their
political choice.

Meanwhile, what of Turkey? If Turkey is less imperialist than Canada, what
do we make of the struggles in Kurdistan? What is class position of the
Turkish military?

Is there a case for a more systematic study of texts on the national
question? Should we, for example, dig out Stalin's treatise and critique it?
I know some subscribers have done this already, but is it worth revisiting?
Or, are there better alternatives from where we can start?

Michael