Replace the "Nobles" by leaders and the "Plebs" by masses, and what he says suggests what we must aim for: to create as much space as possible for conflicts between leaders and masses in socialist society, for such conflicts are essential to retention and expansion of liberty. The difficulty is to figure out how to do so without allowing a foreign power to take advantage of such conflicts to overthrow the socialist state and impose capitalism.
[WS:] I pretty much agree with most of what you said, but this really puzzles me. This position rests on the implicit assumption that national interests precede individual freedom for sure, and perhaps even socialism itself. I think that if there were such a thing as quintessence of fascism, this assumption would be it.
My own position on this issue is "fuck nationalism and national sovereignty if is does not advance the cause of socialism". By 'socialism' I mean two things - the most efficient method of surplus production possible, give the level of historical development, and the most efficient method of distributing that surplus, one that gives due consideration to all social interests, those that can be monetized as well as those that cannot.
Wojtek