[lbo-talk] Re: Re: Nationalism & Internationalism Re: Benny Morris: in Issue 2287

[Hari Kumar]

Replying to:" The national bourgeoisie are, more often than not, content with playing economically lucrative if politically subordinate positions
> in the politics of global capitalism "
Grant lee says: "Here we get into a definition problem; in development literature, what you have described is generally referred to as a _comprador_ position, rather than a national bourgeois position. A national bourgeoisie, by definition, is generally opposed to (e.g.) the increased competition which comes with neo-liberalism."
Response: IN most situations, I believe the data shows that the national bourgeois back off. This was quite exploit in the various discussions with MN Roy that Lenin had;  I would contend is the basis of what was later followed as a general principle by ML-ists. Modern day equivalents of this come readily to mind - Including I would argue, the attempts by nehru to adopt the so called Bombay Plan. Another - perhaps less contentious illustration - is Tanzania, under Nyerere. Often these nationalists adopt pseudo-socialist colours to get a mass base. but when they are forced to back off by the immense power of the international imperialists who can easily, deny markets etc. - what does that make them? I would argue that once a national borge organised as a party, has turned coat, it becomes essentially - as a party (thereby excluding individuals) - a comprador party. The power of the international bourgeoisie is even greater now that the 'countervailing' force of a post-Khruschevite USSR imperialism is by & large, gone. As time has gone on, the 'bargaining power' of the national borge has diminished, I would argue. But, I would also argue that for a brief moment it is still there. [depending on the concretes in each country naturally]. 
Hari