[PEN-L:32421] Re: Re: Stallin Stalin

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 11/20/02 6:19:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, rael@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

> On Wednesday, November 20, 2002 at 16:17:51 (-0800) Devine, James writes:
> >...
> >1) while it makes sense for Stalin to make a deal with Hitler from a
> >nationalist perspective given the circumstances, does it make sense on the
> >basis of socialist principles? probably not, which suggests that socialist
> >principles had long before been subordinated to those of Russian
> >nationalism, just as the Comintern became subordinated to Russia's foreign
> >policy needs. 
> >
> >2) while Stalin's stallin may make sense in terms of nationalist military
> >strategy, we should look at other elements of his strategy at about the same
> >time. did invading Finland make sense? maybe. But did purging the military?
> >no. There was an element of irrationality in Stalin's policy, even from a
> >nationalist perspective. 
>
> "Nationalist" meaning that which benefits a small elite that fancies
> itself "the nation".
>
>
> Bill


 Actually, nationalist can only mean a class conception of the nation. The nation or modern nation in the time frame in which we speak is a specific market. The nation is of course predicated upon the fundamentality of its mode of production and in this instance we are speaking of a specific generation of industrial production. 

The question of an elite - what ever that means, is actually a question of administration, which is in turn dependent upon the technological state of development of the material power of the productive forces.

Then of course the word nationalist refers to the bourgeoisie. Here is an example. The proletariat in Cuba is not nationalist but patriotic, because the plight of their country is inexplicable fused with the question of property relations and secondarily, with the ruling "elite." 

Elite is not a bad word once one study the historical evolution of the administrative function in society. The real question is not "the elite" but privileges based on administrative functions. 

My grip is not having labored in heavy industry for over 30 years, as opposed to being say an academician. All contributions of labor is honorable. I seek to contribute because it is healthy and good. Privilege is another question altogether, but one cannot confuse it with the issue of the "elite."

Nationalist does not mean that which benefits a small elite that fancies itself the nation. Elites do not represent nations as such but rather states and multinational states. The national ideology one espouses is another matter altogether.

In terms of the Soviet Union there is of course the elite and the elite. There is the elite that is or rather was the organization called the CPSU and the elite that was the bureaucracy charged with the industrialization of the country.  The former was defeated and the latter evolved into wht exists today. 

What of the bureaucracy in the USA and its expansion? 


Melvin P.