Chris wrote:
>How to orientate ourselves, and avoid just choosing one historical
>narrative over another?
where is the class in this text? why do you need to orientate yourself around what is effectively the SAME narrative from the point of view of the working class? where's your analysis of the situation of the class struggle in the ex-yu? of the situation of the global and/or US/European economies? it all gets neatly avoided by ritual use of phrases like 'forces of production' and 'imperialism'... i don't claim to know, but i do think it's important to not be ritualistic.
>We are
>in favour of working people of the world uniting, yes? We should also
take
>a developmental view of the progress of economic formations, and
their
>cultural accompaniments, to understand the rise and fall of nations.
no. I am in favour of working class people uniting. you are in favour of military and political actions which would see the entrenchment of nationalism in the ex-yu and in Europe (and US), which will divide, not unite.
>BTW I quote Lenin a lot, not because I believe in Biblical authority.
There
>are some points on which I do not agree with Lenin. But because he
was the
>most systematic, rigorous, and influential applier of marxism in the
20th
>century, and because I like to confront those who parade sloppy left
>radical propositions as marxism.
quoting the masters in an argument seems to be your only resort, but it's all smoke and mirrors. they can only be quoted in an argument to settle what they did or did not say, not whether they would or would not agree with the position you happen to be espousing at the moment.
{snip - because I have no inclination to argue that Serbian nationalism is a good thing, but unlike you I think that judgement also applies to US nationalism, Kosova nationalism, etc. and, unlike you, I'm not interested in the routine of the productive forces versus the social relations of production - take that one up with Jim. you both argue with the same phrases, but come to different conclusions. how's that possible?}
>the right not to be
>nationally oppressed is one of many bourgeois democratic rights,
which like
>all bourgeois democratic rights, are an accompaniment of capitalist
>intensive commodity production, and which have a dual nature. They
are
>partly abstract illusory rights which can never be totally enforced
in
>isolation. They are on the other hand very important bastions against
the
>most destructive and oppressive tendencies of capitalism. Democrats,
>working people and marxists must absolutely be prepared on many
occasions
>to defend them, despite the catcalls and sneers of sloppy
pseudo-marxists.
I have no problem with supporting a reformism, nor with allying oneself with human rights groups etc. this you already know is not my concern. so, let's stop playing with this one, it seems to induce a feelings of brave orthodoxy and little more. what I do have a problem with is that you assert national oppression where I see racism. that is, you seek to solve the problem of national oppression (racism) with the mechanisms of nationalism (racism).
>The right to self-determination requires a right for nationally
compact
>areas to secede.
in order for this to make any sense at all beyond verbiage, you would have to define what 'nationally compact' is. what does this mean? crowded? don't tell me: nationhood is about some way of life... a bit like the IT wojtek thinks allbright wants to steal from Real Men...
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au