[WS:] I have no interest in hagiography - but the position itself warrants some thought (whether or not it was actually proposed by M&E.) That is to say, let's consider the distribution of cost and benefits of national independence vs. imperial domination. If the former leads to backward rural societies ruled by a priestly oligarchy and the latter leads to economic development that replaces the local priestly oligarchy with remote central bureaucracy and improves, even if slightly, the living conditions of the vast majority of the population (cf Tibet) - why would someone identifying him- or her-self with the left support the former but not the later?
Wojtek
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> All of which they believed would require the suppression of several nations
> within that territory, such as the Serbs and Bosnians (and actually
> everybody who wasn't a German, Pole or Magyar), whom
> Engels considered reactionary, backward peoples doomed to eventual
> disappearance (he was quite gloating about it too, which is what is
> extra-creepy). In other words, they had no problem siding with larger
> nations against smaller ones if they thought the former were progressive
> (which ironically usually meant more capitalist) and the latter backward.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "farmelantj at juno.com" <farmelantj at juno.com>
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Sent: Thu, April 8, 2010 3:23:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Platypus: what we are, what we do, and why
>
>
> Marx thought that the unification of
> Germany was a progressive step forward,
> even though it was accomplished under
> the auspices of the conservative Junkers.
> It was progressive, in Marx's view, because
> it would lead to the creation of a unified
> German economy, leading to a more rapid
> industrialization of that country, and
> hence the development of a larger and
> stronger, and more unified proletariat
> within that country. And within the
> sphere of international relations,
> the unification of Germany
> was seen by Marx as progressive because
> a unified Germany would be able to act
> as a counterweight to both Britain and
> Russia, the twin pillars of political
> reaction in Europe.
>
> Jim Farmelant
> http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>