>>Nationalisms of settler colonialists and anti-colonial nationalisms
>>of the colonized are not the same thing and do not occupy the same
>>place in leftist politics.
>
>No they're not, but it's fascinating how anti-colonial nationalism
>can devolve into bourgeois nationalism - and how often bourgeois
>nationalists play the anti-colonial card.
Nowadays, it's extremely rare for capitalists to become nationalists who make use of the anti-colonial rhetoric, much less promote anti-colonialism in practice. The Bandung Conference happened nearly five decades ago, and since then, most nations of the world have become formally independent of their former colonizers (with some important exceptions such as Iraq, Puerto Rico, Palestine, Northern Ireland, etc.), hence the obsolescence of bourgeois anti-colonialism. Some sectors of the bourgeoisie had interests in anti-colonialism before formal independence, but one can't expect capitalists to be even rhetorically interested in anti-imperialism/anti-neo-colonialism after it (if some capitalists do become anti-imperialist/anti-neo-colonialist nationalists, that's despite, not because of, their individual and group economic interests).
Doug wrote:
>>Also, it is too simplistic to set up an either/or choice between
>>nationalism and global capitalism, especially in that it is the
>>latter that begets the former in all its varieties.
>
>You did that, not me. What about revolutionary internationalism?
Is revolutionary internationalism (i.e. undergoing social revolution at home and assisting revolutionary movements abroad at the same time) a practical option anywhere? If it isn't, the choice is between left-wing nationalism and internationalism on one hand and right-wing nationalism and internationalism on the other hand.
Grant wrote:
>I said: "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."
>
>Hari said: "In most situations, I believe the data shows that the
>national bourgeois back off..."and: "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? "
>
>Me: Sure, they are often forced into alliance with the compradors by
>a political fait accompli. This does not equate to the "natural",
>material position of a national bourgeoisie, dictated by
>self-interest. (e.g.) In a country with a large and growing
>population & economy, there is relatively much less need for
>export-oriented development, because domestic consumption is
>adequate for the bulk of valorisation. Compradors, by definition,
>are dependent on international trade (and this is why in
>small/entrepot states the compradors usually predominate).
I don't think it was possible to make a sharp distinction between "comprador" and "national" bourgeoisie even at the heights of anti-colonial revolutions. The distinction makes even less sense now. Take a look at Bob Jessop, "Globalization and the National State" (draft), <http://www.comp.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/soc012rj.html> -- especially the second paragraph of the section titled "Internationalization and Class Relations."
Grant wrote:
>>The national/ethnic ruling class (landlords and bourgeoisie) have
>>tended to come to anti-colonial nationalism more slowly and
>>reluctantly than peasants, the working class, and the petit
>>bourgeoisie have
>
>Not necessarily, e.g. modern Irish nationalism began within elements
>of the Anglo-Irish bourgeoisie and spread "downward" from them,
>until it reached everyone except the bulk of the (northern)
>protestant petty bourgeoisie and working class. (cf
>http://www.tau.ac.il/tarbut/readers/syllabi/suzman-2-ethnicity.htm )
>
>And I don't know how one could possibly justify the above
>generalisation logically, or on the basis of much historical evidence
The roots of popular nationalist sentiments among the masses are rebellions of the lower orders motivated by their own social questions, not a trickle-down affair from above:
Jim Smyth <http://www.nd.edu/~irishstu/faculty/smyth.html>, "Agrarian Rebels, Secret Societies and Defenders, 1761-91," _The Men of No Property: Irish Radicals and Popular Politics in the Late Eighteenth Century_ (1992), <http://www.iol.ie/~fagann/1798/dfender.htm> & <http://www.iol.ie/~fagann/1798/dfender2.htm>; and "The Rise of the Defenders 1793-5," _The Men of No Property: Irish Radicals and Popular Politics in the Late Eighteenth Century_, <http://www.iol.ie/~fagann/1798/dfender3.htm>, <http://www.iol.ie/~fagann/1798/dfender4.htm>, & <http://www.iol.ie/~fagann/1798/dfender5.htm> (cf. <http://www.palgrave-usa.com/catalog/product.aspx?isbn=0312213395>).
Generally speaking, colonialism and imperialism -- especially the way they facilitate primitive accumulation separating peasants from their land -- harm peasants and workers directly, whereas the ruling class (landlords and bourgeoisie) can ally with colonizers and imperialists to augment their class power. The theoretical hypothesis is that the ruling class, if they come to anti-colonial rhetoric at all, do so belatedly, only to deprive patriotic sentiments of the masses of their roots in social questions (land and labor -- Cf. James Connolly, <http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/index.htm>), the hypothesis proven true by history.
>>>As I've said before there is no correlation between historical
>>>dominance/resistance to imperialism and the later fortunes of a
>>>society. In fact, some of the most "colonised" peoples are later
>>>the least "annihilated".
>>
>>If you've said it before, I've missed it. What comparison do you
>>have in your mind?
>
>The particular point/comparison I've made before is that Thailand
>and Ethiopia, neither of which was formally colonised for very long
>(if at all), have experienced very different economic histories in
>the last half-century.
On one hand, decades of hot wars in the Cold War wrecked Ethiopia: <http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/EthiopiaEritrea.asp> & <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b8-9toc.htm>
On the other hand, the dictatorships allied with the United States brought economic development to Thailand through two wars in Asia: <http://www.bartleby.com/65/th/Thailand.html>.
>>Nationalisms of settler colonialists and anti-colonial nationalisms
>>of the colonized are not the same thing and do not occupy the same
>>place in leftist politics.
>
>Which was Bolivar?
>
>Tom
The latter. Backed by the first Black republic Haiti, Bolivar fought on, abolishing slavery to emancipate Blacks, decreeing land reforms in favor of Indians, dreaming of uniting "all South American, Central American and Caribbean countries and turning them into a single, economically independent country, which he had planned to name Estados Unidos de Latinoamérica, or The United States of Latin America" (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Bolivar>). Hating corruptions and scorning accumulation of personal wealth, he died in poverty. -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>