======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
http://links.org.au/node/164
The Leninist theory was set out most clearly in Stalin's 1913 work
Marxism and the National Question, which was written in close
collaboration with Lenin and summed up the Leninist side of the debate
with the reformists. The Leninist definition of a nation was summarised
as "a historically evolved, stable community of people, formed on the
basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological
make-up manifested in a common culture".
The key to the Leninist position, which identifies a nation with its
objective material conditions of formation and existence, is that the
solution to the national question lies in changing those material
conditions.
Marxists—guided by historical materialism—maintain that sustained life
within a single capitalist economic formation is what forges diverse
peoples into unified nations, with a common language and culture.
A nation cannot be reduced to a subjective common consciousness. It is
an objective entity defined by the four features identified by Stalin.
These four features are necessary. It is idealism to speak of the
formation of a nation without all four features.
Norm Dixon
---
http://internationalviewpoint.npa2009.org/spip.php?article3440
In the eyes of much of the Western left, Kagarlitsky is considered as an
eminent Russian Marxist thinker. This is despite the fact that in his
version of the history of Russia [2], there is no place for the colonial
subjugation of other peoples, for imperialist domination and Great
Russian national oppression, for the "prison of peoples” at the time of
the Tsars or in the Stalinist and post-Stalinist era, for the struggles
of oppressed peoples for their national liberation. Consequently, in
this version of history there is also no Ukrainian national question, no
historical struggle of the Ukrainian people for its unification and
independence.
That is why, for a quarter century, the author of these lines has
considered Kagarlitsky as belonging to a particular species of Russian
socialists, namely those who in the eyes of a Bolshevik known to
everyone, deserved the not very sophisticated and inelegant adjectives
"social nationalists" and "social-imperialists" [3]. It is therefore not
surprising that Kagarlitsky - following in this the Russian nationalist
far right and the separatist movement that it is leading - has recently
begun to designate southeast Ukraine by the name New Russia (Novorossia)
used at the time of the Tsars; and that to adorn his rabkor.ru site, he
has chosen a "new Russian" imperialist emblem [4].
Zbigniew Marcin Kowalewski
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
