Re: ON INDEPENDENCE OF TINY NATIONAL GROUPS

["Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky" <gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

En relación a Re: ON INDEPENDENCE OF TINY NATIONAL GROUPS,
el 13 Mar 00, a las 8:01, Ulhas Joglekar dijo:

> 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.

Yes, we are in full agreement. But the state does not fly in vacuum.


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

Independence of the state does not mean independence of the country.


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

On this I disagree. The margins for action of the Indian state are
limited, IMHO, by the class character of the Indian formation, while
it is boosted by the class character of the VN or Chinese ones.


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

Again in full agreement. In fact, the decission to play the SU card
was a typical expression of independence from a national movement.


> 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.

But then we are in complete agreement. I only think, however and as
said above, that this time it is you who goes too far along the way
of independizing a state from the ruling class. I will not enter into
the debate on what your "so-called" means here, it is a secondary
difference taking into account our basic agreements.





Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxx