Re: Putin - Texas and the national factor- last post on this subject
In a message dated 6/25/2004 8:40:18 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The situation is particularly complicated in a state like the USSR and Russian Federation, neither of which were/are nation-states. (None of the ex-Soviet republics are nation-states, which maybe the exceptions of the Baltic States, Belarus and Ukraine.) Russia is probably the most multiethnic and multicultural country in the world, and ethnic minorites are not localized in particular areas. Let's look at Tatarstan: Some Tatar ultranationalists want Tatarstan to secede from Russia and bacome Tatarstan for the Tatars. Well, for one thing, that would be a little hard to pull of in practical terms, since Tatarstan is physically inside Russia. For another, Tatars are only about 51% of the population of Tatarstan. What do you want, mass ethnic cleansing? In Bashkortostan, the Bashkirs are a minority (coming in third after Russians and Tatars), even though they are enormously overrepresented in the elite. Anyway, in the case of Chechnya, national self-determination is not the issue. The issue is comparable to what you would if, to use your example, the Nation of Islam took control of Mississippi, and then started to attack neighboring states. Reply I had an intuitive instinct about the break up and evolution of the state that was the USSR and the various nationality groups within it, that is not in fact intuitive at all. I have a vision informed by history and in this case the history of the evolution of what can be called the Russian State. Pen-L is anchored on a center of gravity that is Marxism with ultra heavy emphasis on economic gravity as opposed to political ideology. Chechnya, as an economic unit is very different from an ideological concept of Chechnya, as a distinct historically evolved specific people, who during the transition from agricultural relations to industrial relations were defeated in their striving to constitute a distinct national state riveted to the economic formations we identity with the modern world market as class relations. Chechnya, is identified as an autonomous region under the Soviet system and not a national state formation with clear and distinct modern classes, independent of Russian economic development at the turn of the past century. The good thing is we get to see exactly what is what in the former Soviet Union and ascertain the striving of political groups based on their economic striving in the world of today. Free Chechnya . . . fine and from whom? Hey . . . Free Detroit . . . and Los Angeles from the new taping of another LAPD beating of a citizen. There is a point at which it makes no sense to respond to ideologists. WHJy on earth would revoutionaries and progressive in AMerican be more upset about what is happening in Chechnya, than what is happening in . . . name your country. I'm through . . . Can you ding a song for me blue? Melvin P.
Re: Putin - Texas and the national factor- last post on this subject
Melvin: What of the question of Appalachia! The right of nations to self determination can be tricky if the dominate political group that advocates such right makes an assessment that ones group is not a nation. Exactly what is a national minority? What is a minority? What is an autonomous region within a multinational state structure? Better yet, what where these political and economic units and categories to the Soviet State and their ruling party? Me: The situation is particularly complicated in a state like the USSR and Russian Federation, neither of which were/are nation-states. (None of the ex-Soviet republics are nation-states, which maybe the exceptions of the Baltic States, Belarus and Ukraine.) Russia is probably the most multiethnic and multicultural country in the world, and ethnic minorites are not localized in particular areas. Let's look at Tatarstan: Some Tatar ultranationalists want Tatarstan to secede from Russia and bacome Tatarstan for the Tatars. Well, for one thing, that would be a little hard to pull of in practical terms, since Tatarstan is physically inside Russia. For another, Tatars are only about 51% of the population of Tatarstan. What do you want, mass ethnic cleansing? In Bashkortostan, the Bashkirs are a minority (coming in third after Russians and Tatars), even though they are enormously overrepresented in the elite. Anyway, in the case of Chechnya, national self-determination is not the issue. The issue is comparable to what you would if, to use your example, the Nation of Islam took control of Mississippi, and then started to attack neighboring states. (PS. to a certain other person: I'm not reading your posts. You've lost. Face it.) Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
Re: Putin - Texas and the national factor- last post on this subject
In a message dated 6/24/2004 7:57:32 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From what I have been able to find, the Bolsheviks did not consider Chechnyans as a national minority with a right of succession. --- Reply I read the material suggested at http://www.chechnyafree.ru/index.php?lng=eng§ion=historyeng&row=6#gak_3 and found it very enlightening and interesting to say the least. The field of politics that has been called the "national question" is very difficult and generally involved the issue of a lesser economically developed people drawn into or forcibly annexed by a dominating state. All state structures are made up of and made real by real people. Thus the dominating state is the dominating people or peoples. The only reason the national question is a question is because someone else is debating your fate and future if you happen to be the sucker on the short end of the stick. Let's talk about the national factor and overthrow Leninism . . . again. I am for discarding the slogan "right of nations to self determination" and replacing it with something more accurate to today. Exactly what I do not know! What if you are not a so-called nation and getting the crap kicked out of you? In the case of the Indian people in America we all know their plight and the wars of genocide against them. In the case of the African American we all know about slavery and segregation on one level or another. In the case of Mexico and the Mexican nationals and Chicano's we have an awareness of the theft of half of Mexico/s territory on one level or another. Puerto-Rico and the Philippines need not be examined but pointed out. There are of course many other oppressed peoples within the filed of the multinational state that is the United States of North America. What of the question of Appalachia! The right of nations to self determination can be tricky if the dominate political group that advocates such right makes an assessment that ones group is not a nation. Exactly what is a national minority? What is a minority? What is an autonomous region within a multinational state structure? Better yet, what where these political and economic units and categories to the Soviet State and their ruling party? What did these categories mean to the people ruled by the Soviet State? On Pen-L I am willing to bet you cannot get three people who agree as to the political and economic meaning of the concept "national minority." There is a political and economic logic behind oppression and subjugation of less economically developed and militarily protected peoples. Slavery in America was an economic category of the highest importance. On Pen-L I am willing to bet you cannot get a dozen people who agree as to whether or not the African American people are a historically evolved people with a distinct culture that in history set them apart from say the Anglo-American people of the Northern portion of the American Union. My point is simple: anyone that believes there is a simple answer to the "national factor" is following and fooling themselves. Self determination for nation's up to and including the formation of an independent state . . . what if you ain't a nation and this formula is only applicable within the context of the struggle against capital . . . foreign and domestic, during a historically specific time frame? I am just saying that 1900s Russia is a hell of a lot different from 2004 America or 2004 Russia. Why drive your grandfathers Oldsmobile when you can get some new more green friendly ride? One can of course really examine the internal dynamics of the "Black power" movement of the late 1960s up to the mid 1980s and come to some conclusions. This period of reformulation of the national factor needs to be looked at. Lets take an example closer to home than the blacks in America, because the moment one says "black" everything gets screwy. Take Texas . . . the Lone Star State. The Lone Star State . . OK . . . meaning one star on the freaking flag. I currently live in Texas - recently, but this is not the first time I have been to Texas. My travel to Texas dates back to 1982. There are current s in Texas pushing for secession since the Alamos. In the latest edition of Texas Monthly there is a lead article basically called "Why They Hate US " and what is meant is not Americans being hated; but why the rest of America and the world hate "us" in Texas. Is not Texas basically larger than Germany? All the secessionists minded in Texas most certainly want to leave the American Union. Some gravitate back to Mexico and others gravitate toward absolute independence from everyone with the Mexicans on the bottom of the social order. Somebody got to mow the grass is the thinking of the latter trend. Is Texas a nation? Are the Mexicans in Texas national minorities or is the question a tad bit more c
