Re: Auschwitz in Bulgaria

["Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky" <Gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

En relación a Re: Auschwitz in Bulgaria,
el 1 Sep 00, a las 20:19, Borba100@xxxxxxx dijo:

>
> ... as Nestor says, this is planned world wide in order to produce a
> new colonial order for most of humanity and coincides with the
> destruction of the nation state as a form in which working people can
> struggle to protect some degree of social life.

I do agree with Jared's rendering of my general idea, but I would
like to do a comment, because I would not like that (obvously against
Jared's intention) it is misunderstood. I am certainly convinced that
we are witnessing a massive assault on the Third World, and at the
same time a massive effort of imperialists to push back to Third
World conditions those countries in Eastern Europe that, through non-
capitalist methods, had managed to attain a general level of living
far exceeding that which the capitalist world system can afford to
sustain

This assault was particularly virulent after the second half of the
1980s, an era of defeat for the workers and the workers' movement. It
was preceded by the first attempts at recolonization in Latin America
during the mid and late 70s, in countries such as Chile or Argentina,
where many "experiments" were made and many lessons learnt that were
later applied on Eastern Europe.

One of the main lessons extracted from the experience thus gained was
that the local State had to be reorganized in order to comply with
the urges of imperialist capital. The reconversion had to be deeper
where, such as the case was in Argentina, this state had led a quite
succesful attempt at independent economic development and had set up
a small and harassed but still sound and solid set of public
utilities and companies that ensured (actually, during popular
regimes, or potentially, during antipopular regimes) a capability of
solid national autodetermination against the impositions from
imperialist concerns and states.

The main lesson was that there should be no limit to this
reconversion. The state itself may be put to an end, provided
different and more manageable structures were placed in its stead.
This, by the way, was simply a modern recasting of the already
decades old policies of oligarchic regimes in Argentina to have a
weak central state that would not hinder, for example, the ability of
local governments to contract loans abroad.

It is interesting to point out here that in my own mind the Argentine
State is not what is usually known as a "nation-state", because
nation-states can only exist AFTER  a national revolution has
succesfully taken place. The danger for imperialism with our states
in the semicolonial world is precisely that they may, out of the own
logic of the structures of the state, become a rallying point for
such a revolution to begin. Thus, whenever a state in the Third World
looked like "too large", it was only begrudgingly helped against
Communist (or labelled Communist) movements during the Cold War, and
only to the extent that it would not become strong enough on the
economic and social areas to acquire a momentum of its own.
This gave both state bureaucracies in the Third World and some
fractions of the bourgeoisie a bargaining power that the imperialist
bloc only accepted as a minor problem in a world where the
overwhelmingly interest was to destroy the Communist Enemy.

The defeat of Soviet Russia by its own inbred contradictions as well
as by the continued attrition from outside meant a toll of death to
this compromising policy. Since 1989-90, the imperialists have
launched an offensive on all fronts against the Third World. In the
course of this offensive, states that would be a menace are under
attack as well. Countries already under full imperialist grip are
menaced with separatisms, others are strangled through financial war,
and all this is of course put in correct perspective by the deeper
and more acute promotion of mass starvation and ecologic aggression.
This promotion goes so far that it also includes plans to obtain full
territorial control of tracts of land, such as the plans of the
United States on the Amazon Basin. These are just three examples, but
I think they show the point I am making.

Since it is a normal attribution of a state (of _any_ kind of state)
to take care of such things as mass hunger and environmental care, as
well as of territorial unity, there is always a potential risk for
imperialists that "strong" states in the Third World might attempt a
defence against the attack, an attack that is structurally embedded
in the necessities of the imperialist world system to upholster the
rate of profit. And thus, unless good evidence is provided on the
contrary, it is my idea that whenever and wherever the Western press
begins a campaign against "imperialist" oppression of some fraction
of people in the Third World by a state of the Third World, it is a
warning that the probably (but not certainly, not in all cases) most
legitimate rights of that fraction of the population of the Third
World will be used in order to establish either an aggressive
imperialist enclave or either a more manageable state (which will be
automatically allowed immediate "nation-state" status by the
imperialists) in an otherwise unruly Third World large country.

Please note that I never speak of "Third World nations", I only speak
of "Third World countries".

That's all.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx