Nationalism, Indigenismo, & Vanguardism (was Re: Patriotism)

[Michael Hoover]

> What Mariategui says above was largely true during the days of
> anti-colonial struggles for independence.  Now, long after the heyday of
> anti-colonial movements in the Third World, we need to assess each Third
> World nationalism, case by case, taking a close look at its social and
> ideological compositions, as well as its position vis-a-vis imperialism.
> Still and all, what Mariategui called "the Indigenous Question" is an
> unfinished one anywhere in the Americas and especially important in the
> largely Indian nations in Latin America.  I suspect that the combination of
> nationalism & indigenismo is in many ways meaningful to, say, peoples in
> Guatemala, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia, etc.
> So, nationalism of one kind or another is likely to be with us in the
> foreseeable future.  The questions are, of what kind?  When?  And where?
> To what effects?
> Yoshie

Engels, in an 1882 letter to Kautsky, wrote:

"It is historically impossible for people to discuss seriously any
internal questions as long as national independence is lacking...To
get rid of national oppression is the basic condition of all free
and healthy development." (quoted in H. B. Davis, _Nationalism and
Socialism_)

To which Mariatequi's insights on adapting to national conditions
must be added...

Nationhood (however much an 'imagined community' the concept is as
Benedict Anderson suggests) cannot be completed in instances such as 
ones cited above unless balance of class forces can mitigate historical 
pattern of capitalist integration that has had generally uniform, 
negative effects for majority of people.  Various 'nationalisms' have
condemned conditions of persistent of poverty, authoritatian gov't,
outside intervention, absence of real autonomy.  They can't all be
correct.  History shows bourgeois factions (irrespective of their 
'progressive' character) cannot break from core's domination because
they are only nominally independent and their class interests work
against doing so.  The system of exploitation to which labor has
been subjected, a system maintained by capital supported by US 
interests, reflects maldevelopment of quasi-national status. 

Nationalism in countries such as those cited above cannot correspond 
to property-owning classes leading 'national project' pursuant to
their particular interests.  Rather, 'national question' is about
possibility of building, through differing process of hegemony,
a popular subject.  Chile (evolutionary) and Nicaragua (revolutionary)
posed the most important question of all:  Will capital cooperate
in transformation of state form that facilitates exploitative
relations upon which it depends?

Of course, pseudo-sovereign status of nations that have occupied place 
in US 'backyard' reinforce warnings as old as those of Bolivar and San 
Martin that declarations of independence are meaningless so long as 
colonial power remains.  Thus, nationalism in such circumstances must 
take on trans-national character in repudiating neo-colonial, dependent 
capitalist relations.  Such nationalist struggles must combat both 
entrenched ruling classes and subordination to imperial power.  
Michael Hoover