[AL]
Lenin, at the height of his struggle against the desertion of the second
international to nationalism and imperialism during the first world war,
described "Leftists" who reject the slogan "defence of the fatherland" as
"Caricature Marxists", in an article with those words in the title. You
might find it an interesting read.
[JPE]
While it is tempting to engage Albert in a discussion on whether or not
Lenin was in favour of 'defence of the fatherland' (if only to defend Lenin
who isn't in a position to defend himself) I can't help but think that most
participants to this column are more interested in the merits of Neither's
views now. If Albert wants to take up Lenin's views privately I'll be happy
to oblige. I'll limite myself to observing that opposition to the slogan
'defence of the fatherland' (when this applied to capitalist countries) was
the defining point of Bolshevism.
[David M]
I must try and track down the Lenin article that Albert refers to. In the
mean time I will just make the point that if you are opposed to national
chauvinism, you must support military resistence by nations when they are
subject to military aggression by the national chauvinists of some other
nation. If you do not support this, your opposition to national chauvinism
becomes pretty hollow.
The Bolsheviks were not saying that they opposed "defence of the
fatherland". They were saying that WWI was no such thing. It was a struggle
between imperialists over spoils.
[AL]
The view that all 'national parties' have racist policies simply removes
all content from the word 'racist'. That is not a political line,
leftist or otherwise, but just plain silly.
[JPE]
On the contrary, it underlines the inherent link between national chauvinism
and racism -- because when push comes to shove, the nationalist always feels
closer to his or her own ruling class than the working people from other
countries his or her own ruling class exploits. This is a very familiar
theme in Australian history -- and it is no accident that the the populist
socialists in Australia -- at the turn of the century and many years after
were the backbone of the White Australia policy. That's why the first duty
of every serious leftist goes far beyond mouthing platitudes about human
equality, and [John Paul Esposito] exposing how the ruling class in every
capitalist country uses nationalism to con the working people of that
country into forging the chains which bind them, and drive them into
confrontation with their class brothers and sisters from other nations.
So my point remains -- all parties that support capitalism are, in the long
run, racist parties and 'opposed to the people' (if by 'the people' one
means working people without distinction of birth, geography)
[David M]
It seems to me the national chauvinists at the moment are the petty
bourgeoisie exemplified by One Nation and the nationalist 'left'. The big
bourgeoisie is presently very much into internationalism and globalism. In
western Europe they are not all that far off tearing down borders and
creating a continental government. They are vigorously opposed to the return
of protectionism as a national response to present economic turmoil.
Nationalism means less and less sense as their operations become more
global. Of course this may change in the event of political and economic
crises. At the moment they do not have to adopt divide and rule measures
because they are under no threat. However, if a working class movement
re-emerges, they may reconsider.
David McMullen
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
For help with this mailing list, look at
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
