We definitely disagree if you don't find anything useful in Lenin on national liberation and self-determination. >From the standpoint of the oppressed nations, colonialism was too long and hard (not >easy), to take much heed of your warning (given from inside the privilege and >material comfort of an oppressor nation) that they might " too easily" turn into an >oppressor nation. As an example, China and Viet Nam are nationalist movements that played a big role in defeating imperialism , leading to socialist societies. Socialism in one country is an unwanted necessity thrust upon the Soviet Union by the failure of the countries of Western Europe to have a revolution joining the Soviet revolution. The Soviets couldn't "cause" the Germans or French to have a revolution. But if the western "advanced "nations didn't have revs., there was no reason for the Soviets to call theirs off just because it was in only one country. Your "disbelief" that anyone could "defend" Stalin is part of the western , liberal dogma of the "absolute evil" of Stalin. Stalin, like, Woodrow Wilson, or Harry Truman , Andrew Jackson or George Washington, was a mixture of good and bad. The reflex of "Stalin couldn't do anything right and his crimes were greater than those of any Western leader" is critical to anti-communist propaganda, but it is not based on sober assessment of historical fact. You wouldn't consider it sober, factual judgment to say "I can't believe anyone would defend Harry Truman. Afterall he dropped atomic bombs on Japan, an unprecedented ,world historic mass murder. " Michael P. says comparisons to Hitler are a sign that a thread is at an end. Charles Brown >>> "Rod Hay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/02/99 01:27PM >>> Perhaps we are not in such close agreement. I don't think that Lenin wrote anything useful on nationalism (and I have read it) It is too easy in world history for the "oppressed nation" to turn into the "oppressor nation" and most nationalism appeals to an external oppressor, for it to be a useful tool for socialists. Of course imperialist have been beaten by nationalists, but have they lead to socialist societies? Socialism in one country is a Stalinist myth that should be abandonned. Remember that the name of Hitler's party was a contraction of Nationist and Socialist; that Mussolini started as a socialist. And I like Brad cannot believe that anyone would defend Stalin. ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Charles Brown" Yes, I am with you on that. Lenin wrote a lot on self-determination and national liberation which is helpful in thinking through the unity and struggle of the class/national contradiction. In sum, nationalism ( of which race identity is in a very sharp form) plays a mixed role in the world wide class struggle. One must first determine whether it is nationalism of an oppressed or oppressor nation. If the former, it may play a mixed, good and bad , role in the proletarian revolution. A concrete example of a progressive national liberation movement was that in Viet Nam, which was important in defeating U.S. imperialism. Charles Brown Workers of the World, Unite. Workers of the West, it's our turn Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
