>Well yeah, but nationalism also obscures class differences, by positing a
>unitary Us vs. the multiple Them.
yes, which is what calls for solidarity do, too. witness the way it works on this list. there are marxists and then there are "as if marxists." there are marxists and then there are clowns. there are marxists and then there are people who think they are, but they're just hangers on who belong to the Scene Whores and Groupies clubs.
Anarchists do it too--as in when Chuck0 decides that we can't be anarchists if we hold this or that view. As in when the primmies are dismissed as flakes. As in when syndicalists are dismissed as crusty old marxists. I could go on. I don't mean to pick on any one in particular because it's an inevitable process under current conditions. Somehow, though, we need to figure out ways to bring it to our attention. And that requires meta-level discussions. As I understand it, this is what some social scientists tried to do during Solidarity movement.
In some measure, we have to define the boundaries of who belongs and who doesn't. Chip raised this issue over a year ago in our discussion post 9.11. But drawing boundaries, requires some sort of "other". I don't see how you can get away from it. And, in turn, I don't see how we can avoid the internalization of this othering in the form of internal hierarchies erected as a consequence of building solidarity.
three for me.
kelley