Hi Chris,
I wasn't gonna bother drawing out the national question business but (a) I
have to work if I don't play on Thaxis, (b) Thaxis has a chronic case of
laryngitis, and (c) I may have misunderstood you.
Anyway, our little chat had gone thus:
Chris (wisely):
>>>I suggest this hegemonism must be fought on the merits of the case and not
>>>on any abstract principle that national sovereignty is sacrosanct. There is
>>>no materialist basis for such an approach.
Me (approvingly):
>>Er, yeah ... Is this Burford of Kosovo speaking? Christopher, nemesis of
>>Luxemburgian state theory? What's happened to ya, mate? Whatever it is, I
>>like it.
Chris (bemusedly):
>Rob, I can't say 'Touché!' because I cannot work out what point you are
>making. Haven't a clue about the allusion to Luxemburg on the state.
Well, in July, you thought:
"The importance of Lenin's position versus Luxemburg's is that the fight
against all forms of national oppression is indispensible for building
working class unity, *especially* under conditions of bourgeois rule!"
And I responded with the speculation that we should begin with Rosa's
insistence against uncritical pro-nationalism as 'metaphysical cliche'
('Preface to the Polish Question & the Socialist Movement'). I voiced a
fear that the modes of nationalism (as reactions against US hegemony) we
see gaining impetus around us are dangerous conveyances indeed - promising
on occasion (Seattle - which occurred after our chat) and positively
demonic on occasion (Haider and Hanson are two very obvious examples - I'd
include the Iranian brand of Shiism and half the Knesset - but not all the
examples are gonna be that obviously 'good' or 'bad' - eg. China's
bellicose utterances of the last coupla days - I mean who's protecting and
promoting what here - and threatening WHAT? I'd appreciate some advice as
to what we should be thinking about this,):
Making a couple of leaps, admittedly, I submit that Rosa's thoughts on
Poland at the time might offer some useful parallels:
"For the socialists, the indubitable right of every nation to
independence was and is clear, for this, too, proceeds from the basic
principles of socialism ... (but) elucidating phenomena of Poland as created
by capitalism and having regard to the country's special historical and
political conditions ... . the objective analysis of the social evolution of
Poland leads to the conclusion that the trends towards a re-establishment of
a Polish state at this time are a petit-bourgeois Utopia; as such, they are
suited only to confuse the proletariat's class struggle and lead it astray."
We're not in the business of defending a Conrad Black or Kerry Packer from
a Rupert Murdoch, are we? Or Australian (transnational) gold miners
against US transnational miners? So exactly what is there to be found in
the mass of contradictions that is today's China, for instance, that should
warrant our attention? Would the lot of the rural or proletarian Chinese
be bettered or worsened by (a) a PRC attack upon Taiwan or (b) the PRC
getting subsumed under the WTO (under [i] conditions preferred by Beijing
or [ii] those preferred by Washington)?
Sorry if I've drifted from (or never approached) your point, Chris, but
waddya reckon?
Anyone?
You and I have done Kosovo to death (at least we confined ourselves to
soing it figuratively - unlike some), so let's leave that one there, eh?
Cheers,
Rob.
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
