IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Hi Bapuji: When one considers the complexities of actual national struggles, it is often difficult to sort out the different sides since national struggles for self-determination often receive support from segments of different classes and also receive opposition from segments of different classes. It may be the case, for instance, that workers outside of a region may oppose self-determination in a region for national chauvinist reasons. For Lenin, the key question was which nation or nations are oppressed nations and which are oppressor nations. For the former he supported the right of self-determination, for the latter her did not. I think that's a useful way to look at the question (especially when placed within the historical context of colonialism and imperialism) but it's not always so easy to know in a particular context which is the oppressed nation and which is the oppressor nation. There can, for instance, be role reversals - especially following national independence. In solidarity, Jerry > While appreciating Paul Bullock's and Jerry's observations, let me specify > a concrete example. > In the province of Andhra Pradesh, India, there is a region called > Telangana and there has been a 'movement' led by one section of the > ruling class [composed of landlords, capitalists of all kinds] but > supported by certain sections of the 'people': who demand 'fair' share > in governmental employment, educational opportunities, river waters for > irrigation. The demand is for a separate 'state' [= province] within the > union of India. In fact a separate 'state' will not solve the problem of > unemployment and other forms of inequality among the regions but it is > like a temporary relief from some problems. But the leaders of the > movement assure permanent solution for the regional imbalance and > backwardness etc. > Due to unevenness of development and many other aspects of bourgeois > rule, there have been contradictions between the people [certain > sections of the people] of Telangana region and other 'relatively' more > 'developed' regions in the spheres of governmental employment, education > and irrigation facilities etc. The leaders of both the leaders whip up > regional chavenism and making all sorts of false promises. > In this context, a Maoist group is supporting the demand for a separate > state, while the Communist Party of India: Marxist [popularly called > CPM] opposing it on the grounds of unity of Telugu speaking people of > the entire state. Another parliamentary party CPI is in dilemma whether > to support or oppose: its leaders are split in to two opinions. > For more information about Telangana movement, one may visit google > search engine. _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, (continued)
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, paul bullock Thu 20 Mar 2008, 12:06 GMT
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, B.R.Bapuji Fri 21 Mar 2008, 11:19 GMT
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, Dave Zachariah Fri 21 Mar 2008, 13:11 GMT
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, B.R.Bapuji Sat 22 Mar 2008, 01:48 GMT
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, glevy Fri 21 Mar 2008, 13:19 GMT
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, B.R.Bapuji Sat 22 Mar 2008, 01:45 GMT
- [OPE] Chinese edition of ?Capital and Technology: Marx and Heidegger?, Michael Eldred Sun 16 Mar 2008, 17:45 GMT
- [OPE] The Paris Commune - in 26 parts, glevy Sun 16 Mar 2008, 16:19 GMT
- [OPE] Recession could be best medicine, Alejandro Valle Baeza Sat 15 Mar 2008, 20:21 GMT