Re: [Marxism] Imperialism and its Irish handmaidens

["Lüko Willms" <lueko.willms@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:26:25 -0300, Néstor Gorojovsky wrote:

> Perhaps I did not explain myself fully. What I _actually_ mean is that
> by way of the European Union, the "European" bourgeoisie has taken up
> the "United Socialist States of Europe", narrowed it down to "Western
> Europe", chopped off "Socialist", 

  Not really, it is rather the old "we have to organize Europe" in a 
different way. Our political ancestors had analyzed the first phase of 
the interimperialist war of the 20th century as an indication that the 
national borders are simply too narrow for capitalist expansion. They 
ran against it with big armies, after the redistribution of the colonial 
empires by the victory of US imperialism over their European and Asian 
competitors, the European bourgeoisies decided to organize a common 
market as internal market by peaceful means, while keeping the relations 
with their "own" working class and with their colonies firmly in their 
own hands, asserting their separate existence as national bourgeoisies. 

> and produced a broad socio-economic space 
> within which colonialism and neocolonialism begin to fade away.

  What indications do you see for that? Colonialism and neocolonialism 
fading away? I can't see that. 

> The Irish case would probably be the most acute one. This would be a
> most  reactionary development, not less reactionary perhaps than the
> New Order that Nazi Germany attempted to impose on Europe 

  Please explain. I am at odds to understand you. 

> Certainly not less reactionary than the creation
> of a Jewish-Israeli nationality on Palestine as a _Herrenvolk_ to lord
> it upon the Arabs. But both things seem to be taking actual shape.

  Especially this. 

> Now, this puts European Marxists and socialists against an environment
> they have not actually dreamt of, where -for instance- such
> contradictions as that between the Irish nation and the British
> occupation take new forms and meanings. I understand that the Southern
> Irish Bourgeoisie drops the issue of national unity. Nothing that can
> surprise me, of course. What I mean is that there is some
> _objectivity_ in the processes acting now in Europe, at least in
> Western Europe, that turn the old Irish question into something
> potentially new.

  That has already happened, I think. Only the Northern Ireland 
"Unionists" lag behind the times. 

> Far from me to further any more into this terrain, just trying to ring
> a bell. An alarm bell, I mean. 

  Alarming about what danger? 

> If I am right, then these issues should be studied 
> in the same strenuous way that Lenin studied Russia one
> hundred years ago. 

  That is a permanent task. But what is the monumental change which you 
compare with the emergence of capitalism as the dominating mode of 
production in Russia, which Lenin analysed in his big book? 

> I remember one of Mark Jones's last endeavours was to create some kind
> of European Socialist Party, which if I am not too wrong, was pointing
> in this direction.

  For that one has to take a new look at the campaigns around the 
so-called European constitution, and find the backward nationalist 
content in there, which puts all hopes on the bourgeois-imperialist 
nation state to protect the interests of "our national workers" against 
those mean cheapo workers in other countries. 

   PS: I send in a separate mail links to and excerpts from two recent 
articles from The Militant about changes occuring in the working class 
of Ireland, both north and south. 

  
Cheers, 
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------
visit http://www.mlwerke.de Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotzki in 
German



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism