1/29/98, Georgi M. Derluguian wrote:
>The question, however, is, what does this have to do with socialism? How
>can you distinguish this program from nationalism?
They are orthogonal categories. Nationalism, allow me to suggest, refers
to the organization of systems (transport, finance, agriculture) on a
national basis, with international systems being based on relations between
nations. It can also refer to a competitive attitude toward other nations,
and to patriotism (ie pride in nation).
Socialism says, if I may be so bold, that whatever systems you have,
whether organized locally, nationally, regionally, or globally, should be
organized with the objective of public utility, rather than with the
objective of private profit. Private profit can be (or not) allowed to
operate, but only _because_ of whatever public utility it serves, and only
under adequate public constraints.
One can have socialism within nationalism, or one could have a global
socialist system in which national boundaries are considered
insignificicant. The two concepts are independent.
In Cuba's case, it seems the regime gets support from both nationalism
(defense against the US, pride in Cuban successes) and socialism
(people-serving policies). Cuba is nationalist and socialist, but its
nationalism doesn't extend to competitiveness - Cuba isn't trying to
exploit or dominate other nations.
In the West, nationally organized systems are being dismantled and are
being replaced by globally organized systems (finance, policy setting,
"peace-keeping", etc.). So "Cuba vs US" is really nation-based socialism
vs global-based capitalism. Natonalism remains, residually, primarily in
the minds of citizens, as "identity" and "patriotism". US nationalist
feelings would be exploited in any invasion of Cuba, to generate public
support, but it would in fact be an act of global capitalism aimed at
removing a splinter in its eye: a shining empirical counter-example to
everything capitalism claims to be true.
rkm