YOSHIE: "As for nationalisms (note the plural), here are my thoughts:"
"(1) Nationalism in rich imperial powers (the USA above all) should be resisted."
What is nationalism? Seems a simple enough question, we certianly known what jingoistic chauvanism is, and militarist-imperialist nationalism is, and concessions are given to undeveloped economies, but we tend to leave the question alone after that. Why?
At its simpliest level it is mere identification with the culture and heritage of a given state, in essence the dominant direction that state should take all wrapped up in a variety of cultural expressions.
The Left makes fun of Orwell when he eulogises over Britishness, actually picking the attributes of that culture which are worthy and progressive and wrapping the whole thing up in an expression of love for a certain place. I cannot see anything wrong in this, far far better in fact than leaving the whole area for the Right to have a pinic.
The trouble is that culturally the Left's internationalism tends to be culturally sterile and unattractive, not that internationalism is any such thing - but certianly the blatant disregard for national culture is the hall mark of the present Left.
It never seems to connect that given that we are all born into or live within a national culture that the expression of the culture can be progressive as well as reactionary where-ever we are from. Moreover, if we really do wish the proletariat to come to power it will do so within the confines of a state and much might be said for such a struggle to take on a progressive national direction which embraces much of the non-thinking population and goes in some way to defining what proletarian internationalism will actually be (that is it certainly will not be the cosmopolitian sterility that the present left manifests).
So Yoshie I think your division between peripherial and centre nationalism is false - the periphery is in just as much danger from jingoistic nationalism as the core - the difference being that the cxore has much further developed its national expressions in a jingoistic fashion - this is what has to be brocken the virtual monopoly of the right in dictating national identitiy and thereby direction.
"(2) Nationalisms in the periphery and semi-periphery have to be examined case by case. Some nationalisms (e.g., Cuban nationalism) have helped people resist imperial powers, empowered the most oppressed and marginalized, etc.; others (e.g., nationalisms of constituent nations -- Slovenes, Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Albanians, & Serbs -- in what used to be Yugoslavia) ended up inviting the occupation of imperial powers, reducing some people to wards of protectorates, throwing the exercise of self-government & self-determination out of the window in the process, nationalist rhetoric notwithstanding."
This would bring me back to the same effort of struggle for progressive proletarian nationalism which by its nature is internationalist (an outlooking national identity as against a jingoistic one). Nationalism is not a thing but an abstract category in which all soughts of igrediants can be poured, perhaps Nationalism is not even the right world for it?
Old style progressive nationalism (linked to national liberation) may be on the wain for reasons I have unsuccessfully tried to argue before, certianly the outlandish national/communalism that gets the most attention tends to be nine-tenths jingo-ism and one-tenth progressive. However, all this goes to show that national culture and identity plays a powerful role in societies in general - Hence I believe it should not be neglected or passed over in imbarrassed silence in an effort to appear cosompolitian - we need to struggle towards proletarian expressions of national culture and give a progressive direction to national identity.
"(3) The presence of "nations" is not a given -- it is, rather, a costly achievement (cf. Ernest Renan, "What Is a Nation?"), and a precarious one at that in the periphery. It cannot be taken for granted at all, except perhaps by those who already enjoy citizenship of a rich & solid imperial power. The more the world capitalist market exercises its power to discipline labor freely, the more economic upheavals all of us experience; and such upheavals can easily capsize weak states and disintegrate only recently achieved & weakly integrated nations, sometimes descending into endless civil & regional wars, with sub-national groups easily turned into proxies of imperial & sub-imperial regional powers -- hence the expansion of the Empire. <SNIP> This is the dangerous condition that those on the periphery must overcome by achieving nations & building states."
Recent, often arbitary and given shape by history, nation states and national culture and identity are here for some time yet. I only wish people would properly assess some of things which happened in the Popular Front days when communists (and good communists, there was absolute majority of bad ones) applied themselves to these questions rigoroursly in both the Imperial homelands and the colonies (although obviously not all). They often produced progressive proletarian national images and directions, many of which far outlasted the CP's.
"(4) There are no "national" bourgeoisie in the periphery, even where "indigenous" bourgeoisie can be said to exist at all (for instance, where is "bourgeoisie" in Afghanistan???). Left to their own devices, landlords & capitalists in the periphery would rather engage in _anti-national_ activities, avoiding taxes, eschewing domestic investment and modernization, parking their capital in safe banks in imperial metropolises. When social movements outside imperial powers engaged in populist reforms or socialist revolutions, they were inevitably led by intellectuals often of petit-bourgeois backgrounds (doctors, lawyers, teachers, military officers, etc. -- think of Che, Castro, Allende, Arbenz, Mossadegh, Nasser, Torrijos, etc.), who sought to serve and were in turn supported by peasants, proletarians, civil servants, etc."
Sorry Yoshie I see what you are saying here, but by any definition Afghanistan is really the periphery of the periphery, a significant exception to the place of most nations in the world (there are a good handful of countries which could be placed in this category, the rest however have economies and infrastractures far more advanced than Afghanistan - the Afghan problem is shared in broad terms across some central asian countries and some tropical African and Pacific nations - many of whom would leave Afganistan well behind in terms of internal development).
Across the majority of Asia, Latin America, North and South Africa, national bourgeois are plentiful enough, but often very weak (like the old German Bourgeoisie of 1848) and corrupt. However they are not colonial collaborators and hangers on as in the not too distant past, merely small fish in a sea full of very big fish - not rocking the boat is something of a religion with them, their very weakness making room for semi-popularist and sometimes criminal types to beat national drums occassionally. Another round of national liberation struggle as rose during the 1930's and came to a head in 1960-70s does not seem to me possible - the national question therefore tends to fall into the worst hands as expressions of communal hatred.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/) * Powerful filters. * Create you own headers. * Have email types launch scripts. * Use emails to automat your work. * Add comments on recieve. * Use scripts to extract and check emails. * Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions. * LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX. * A REXX interpreter is freely available. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________