National consciousness and material conditions of existence (was: Malvinas answers)

["Gorojovsky" <Gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

En relación a Re: Malvinas answers, 
el 25 Oct 01, a las 17:28, Edward George dijo:

> I would suggest that the 
> fundamental problem with Stalin's approach (and that of his 'objectivist' 
> theoretical predecessors, Kautsky and Bauer) is not so much that it fails in 
> the
> sense of practical utility, even though it does, sometimes spectacularly, but
> that, in trying to explain national movements and national conscious as
> functions of an 'objective' national existence it inverts the real order of
> things. The reality is the other way round: national existence itself is a
> function of national movements and national consciousness. To put it another
> way, nations as such do not exist (other than in the minds of nationalist
> theoreticians) other than in the form of national states and national 
> movements.
> For Lenin, and he repeated this many times, the national question was not
> reducible to questions of language, territory, economics or culture, but
> pertained 'wholly and solely to the sphere of political democracy'. For this
> reason Lenin had no truck with conjuring up definitions of 'the nation'. He
> wasn't hostile to such a practice-as we have seen, he was prepared to line
> Kautsky up on his side when it suited him-but he never bothered to come up 
> with
> a definition himself, and he didn't do this simply because he was essentially
> indifferent to the problem.

Too late in the night to give a full comment. But I would take exception to the 
way this position has been formulated. I agree fully in that "nations as such 
do not exist (other than in the minds of nationalist
theoreticians) other than in the form of national states and national 
movements", but I don't think that this solves the problem.  Rather, it simply 
establishes the _real_ problem, which is that of the material origins of 
national states and national movements.

Since I am beginning to prepare a series of postings on the problems of 
national consciousness in Argentina to broach the issues raised by Anthony 
Boynton, I will give substantial development to what I have just advanced on 
the paragraph above.

George has established a very firm starting point, but only a starting point. 
National movements are not something that takes place in the minds of the 
people as a fact of the spirit. On the contrary, they are the spiritual 
expression of many important concrete issues which bear on the "structural" 
fraction of reality.

And, I am not in agreement with George's idea that Lenin was not choosy when it 
came to quoting. In fact, I hope to show that if one takes into account the 
problems I am presenting now the quotes by Lenin are very apt.

But it is too late, will go ahead on the following days

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.