[lbo-talk] Definition of nation (was as if on cue)

[123hop at comcast.net]

But what "united" means depends on who is doing the uniting. The EU was hardly a bottom-up affair. As people keep saying, it was essentially a neoliberal project with the attendant results.

Joanna

----- Original Message -----
From: "Somebody Somebody" <philos_case at yahoo.com>
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2011 6:28:22 PM
Subject: [lbo-talk] Definition of nation (was as if on cue)

To me it's depressing that in in the 1920's Trotsky could conditionally endorse the idea of a United States of Europe, but in 2011, folks on the left are still insisting that we should retreat to the confines of the nation-state. Whatever your criticisms of the EU, there's no obvious reason why they can't be tackled on an international basis, like Wojtek suggested.

It's funny to me that the Soviet Union was unable to keep Eastern Europe and China united, Arab nationalists failed to secure a republic of even just Egypt and Syria, and South American populists have been unable to create a Bolivarian union, but when the bourgeoisie achieves what the left has been unable to do, it's rejected out of hand. Honestly, it just looks like sour grapes.

      
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk