Re: [Marxism] National questions and 'national questions'

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 12/19/03 5:35:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
edgeorge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

>And I have to say this too, to finish. When Melvin says 'The
Ukrainian nationalists were objectively reactionary,
bourgeois and showed their true fascist nature. They were
reactionary in 1917, 1922, 1929, 1950 and 2003' we are back
into the realm of 'revolutionary' and 'non-revolutionary'
nations. This kind of nonsense needs to go straight back
into the Hegelian dustbin where it belongs.<

Comment

What is called the national-colonial question to be exact is a complex
question on the level of theory. On the level of politics there is nothing 
complex
about the matter because we are talking about being colonized and existing in a
non-sovereign relationship within a multinational state stabilized on the
basis of a dominate people. A non-sovereign relationship means in American
English, second class citizenship. Citizenship rights exists in relations to the
dominate group - historically evolved people, administering a state apparatus.
There is no such thing as a "national question" in today's world because
non-sovereign people are second class citizens dominated by imperial capital 
and not
simply the national capital of the dominate peoples.

In other words the logic of the debate is posed wrong in my political
tradition but I spoke to questions within the framework of what I believe to be 
a
fundamentally incorrect political assessment.

There is no such thing as revolutionary and non revolutionary nations, no
matter how one defines nation. There are only revolutionary classes that arise 
on
the basis of the spontaneous development of the productive forces. A
revolutionary class is revolutionary in relationship to something.

I did read the article on the National Question in Western Europe. I am not
of the opinion that a nation is a construct of the mind but a historically
evolved transitory organization of people during a definable stage of 
development
of the material power of production and the evolution of exchange and
distribution. There are nations and nations - ancient and modern. Context is in 
fact
everything and context means a description of what one is talking about, the
concrete economic formations and the trajectory of a particular state of
development and finally the correlation of political forces.

It is understood that my political tradition is not Trotskyists and Stalin's
writing on the National Question - 1913 is an excellent historical document
better understood by comparing it with the documents on the national question
written in the pre-1917 era. To compare my writings at age three to those at age
51 and declare at three my writings made no sense is not honorable. The
writings at three made sense to a three year old. Such has been the history of 
the
presentation of the African American social position in America.

I believe it is a mistake to take sides in the breakup and Civil War in
Yugoslavia . . . period. I believe it is a mistake to have a political position 
on
Milosevic - one way or another, other than an agent of imperial capital, being
punished by his masters. I do not object to calling this position Hegelian
nonsense fitting of the wastebasket or Stalinism - or black nationalism.

Real politics means the context in which a given set of events take place.
The Ukrainian bourgeois nationalist were reactionary in the context of the
political antagonism with world imperialism and this is elementary. All 
nationalism
is reactionary in relationship to the proletariat as it evolves, polarizes
and gives rise to a class of dispossessed. National colonial revolts are
inevitable and requires that one master the art of political maneuver and 
understand
their class interest. For reasons of history the bourgeoisie and proletariat
has had to march together - first in the attack and overthrow of feudalism and
then in its attack on foreign capital and against second class citizenship. To
call bourgeois nationalism progressive in its attack against imperialism can
only mean that at a specific development in bourgeois property the proletariat
uses every and all means at its disposal to undermine imperialism with a firm
eye on the property relations. This of course is a political strategy and
tactic and not a theory of development.

It serves no political purpose to make a fetish out of this historical
process.

Let me brake/break this down so there is no misunderstand and we become clear
that what is being debated is a difference in line of march and assessment of
the forces of social revolution at this juncture of history and not 1913.
Today in the real world when the fundamental political separation of the workers
has taken place with the black bourgeoisie and polarized the Black Elite, all
talk about progressive nationalism is imperialist logic. On the other hand the
form of a given set of demands on behalf of the dispossessed amongst the
African American people will be cloaked in demands for equality because they are
not equal in American society.

I thread lightly on this question of Yugoslavia because my political
tradition is such that I am only interested in the equality demand of the 
dispossessed
sector of the proletariat of all peoples. The quality demand of the
bourgeoisie means nothing to me. This is not 1914 or the post WW2 period. In an
environment - context, of world political polarization between Soviet Power and
Bourgeois Property one adopts a certain set of tactics and strategic point of 
view
aimed at undermining bourgeois imperialism. No matter how righteous the
demands of the bourgeois nationalist in the Ukraine, they were objectively
reactionary to the degree they weakened the Soviet State in its consolidation 
and
confrontation with imperialism.


Nor, do I deny that mistakes were made during the existence of Soviet Power.
In a shooting war you take sides. All those in the middle get shot from two
directions. I could give less than a damn about President Milosevic or the
bourgeois nationalists not fighting for the cause of the dispossessed, at this
juncture of history. This is not 1980 and a new economic and political alignment
has emerged. One comrade correctly asked "who are supplying the insurgents in
Yugoslavia with weapons?"

Some questions are best answered on the basis of common sense.

Melvin P.

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism