[Marxism] RE: Jim Blaut on Tom Nairn

["Calvin Broadbent" <calvinbroadbent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Does Blaut say that all nationalism is automatically progressive? An example
of 'sour' nationalism in the chapter which Louis posted, would seem to be
'Ulster' nationalism.

Thanks for posting the chapter Louis. I found it very interesting. In
arguing that nationalism is not primarily a force integral to class
struggle, but is rather an 'ideology' imposed upon masses and classes by
cynical or romantic, but ultimately self-serving would-be national elites,
Nairn and other Althusserians like, perhaps, Immanuel Wallerstein, seem to
slip into Weberian rather than Marxist sociology. Blaut's thesis seems to be
that it is vital to situate national struggles and nationalist 'ideologies'
within the material class context within which they arise, not simply in
terms of 'domination' (as Nairn somewhat patronisingly suggests) but in
terms of *exploitation*.
Its a shame the book is out of print. I for one would be interested in
reading the rest of it.

cheers.

PATRICK BOND WROTE:

> What would Blaut have said about Zimbabwean nationalism today? I asked him
> in 1989 at a geography conference in Baltimore, and he was rabidly
> pro-Mugabe, when it was already fairly clear that the government was
> adopting the standard structural adjustment posture (and Mugabe was
> simultaneously hankering for a formal one-party state). I'm hoping those of
> you, like Louis, who knew him more recently, would confirm his disgust for
> nationalism gone terribly sour. Did he mention the PRI in Mexico, for
> example?

_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/


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