Re: ON INDEPENDENCE OF TINY NATIONAL GROUPS

["Ulhas Joglekar" <ulhasj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nestor,

Indian state has always been independent in 50 years since 1947.

I am talking about :

a) Indian state and not Indian bourgeoisie. While Indian state is a
bourgeois state, Indian state and Indian bourgeoisie are not identical.

b) Indian state has ALWAYS been independent. Not merely in the 60s. There
have been tactical shifts, but overall position remains the same.

c) Indian state is INDEPENDENT. Not RELATIVELY independent.
Indian state is as independent as Chinese or Vietnamese state.

And while the existence of fSU was crucial in some ways, what was really
decisive was the strength of Indian nationalism.

This is not difficult to understand if one were willing to suspend one's
belief that only Marxism and socialism can produce independence in the
so-called Third World.

Ulhas

----- Original Message -----
From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: ON INDEPENDENCE OF TINY NATIONAL GROUPS


> En relación a Re: ON INDEPENDENCE OF TINY NATIONAL GROUPS,
> el 12 Mar 00, a las 21:58, Ulhas Joglekar dijo:
>
> > Nestor's by the way remarks regarding the socalled relative
> > independence of India in 60s are way off the mark.
> >
> > Ulhas
> >
>
> Really? I have the distinct impression that the Indian bourgeoisie,
> as represented by the heirs of Ghandi, was clever enough to attempt a
> midcourse road between imperialism and the socialist bloc in order to
> strenghten its independent position (I am not speaking of a middle of
> the way house between socialism and capitalism, mind you, just of a
> relatively independent BOURGEOIS road).
>
> If we compare the events in India and those in, for example, Latin
> America, you can gauge what I am pointing at.
>
>
>
> Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
> gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxx
>