Bob Enoch asks whether "the Kurds don't have a right to be
nationalists". From the point of view of bourgeois ideology, they
have all the right on Earth. Not from the point of view of socialism.
History is a terrible Goddess, all of us Marxists know that, etc.
The problem with the minor nationalities in the age of imperialism is
that _not every national struggle is, by itself, revolutionary_. The
ultimate goal of national struggles is to generate the conditions for
national independence and the constitution of a self-centered economy
that can survive in the global scenario.
Thus, in the end, any national struggle seeks "independence". Not
every "independence", however, operates in the sense of the struggle
for socialism.
I will begin by some obvious examples, such as US independence, or
German independence. The condition for their independence is the
colonization of others ("Why is it that our oil lies under Iraqi
soil"). For such nationalities, the only way to keep faithful to
themselves _and_ to the general advancement of humanity is to trascend
capitalism, step ahead, and become socialist states.
A second kind of example, which I broach now because it has to do with
the Kurdish question, is what I would term "enclave" national
questions. Israel is the most appropiate case here. Whatever many on
the Left may believe, pro-imperialist, Zionist, Israelis are
definitely NOT a Western outpost without qualifications. Whether we
Marxists like it or not, there exists an Israeli nationality, a child
of both imperialist expansion on the Middle East and the barbarian
massacre of Jews in Europe during World War II. The problem with this
kind of "national struggles" is that they can only achieve
"independence" through support from and active promotion of the
general interest of the imperialist powers in the area where they are
implanted. These enclaves, just like the peoples in the First World
great powers, need to revolutionize their capitalist structures and
step ahead towards socialism, which will be the only way they can
survive without murdering everyone around them.
A third, and more complex case, is that of peoples and countries which
have been victimized by imperialism in the periphery. Iraq, says Bob,
has been "invented" by the British while the Kurds are much older.
True enough. But it does not follow that the right to "independence"
of a Kurd nation has the same (or even a higher) level than the right
to independence of the Iraqi nation.
While an eventual Kurdish "independent" state would most probably
become some kind of Kurdish Kuwait (40% of Iraqi oil reserves lie
around Kirkuk), would depend on imperialist support and funding, and
would become a permanent menace to its neighbors, an independent Iraq
would depend on the revolutionary unification of the Arab world, thus
stabbing imperialism at its very heart.
It is very meaningful, in this sense, that the first movements of the
still inchoate but rising Iraqi resistence stress the necessity of
Arab national unity.
It has been a very old imperialist practice to put "minor
nationalities'" rights across the road to national independence in the
Third World. What about the Meo poppy traffickers in Laos, for
example? What about the Tibetan "oppressed" national theocracy?
The golden rule, here as elsewhere, is that laid by the Bolsheviks: if
it strengthens imperialists it is not good.
Peoples such as the Kurds (not the only case) are entitled to national
autonomy not to national independence. And full national autonomy, of
course, is completely linked to the socialist construction of
independence in the Third World. Not easy, but nobody told us that
making history would ever be.
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "Sí, una
sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos".
Simón Bolívar al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de Buenos Aires,
1822
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _