Nationalism, Institutions and Revolution

[Pogue]

When I hear people talking about what revolutionary socialist society will look like I hear people talking about the abolition of nations, a sense of great togetherness and a clear idea of what we're progressing too. Although I understand we can assume if theres a revolution people are already conciouss to some degree, do comrades not think this is somewhat naive? For example, I cannot see the population of the whole country suddenly deciding the 'nation' of Britain is now irrelevant and they're part of an international community.

I think this fits in with the whole idea that a revolution and what comes from it is somewhat vague. If we had a revolution it'll likely be in a reponse to something, such as a really bad recession or some other event which acts as a catalyst (such as how the 1905 Russian Revolution had the events of Bloody Sunday as its catalyst). Now if we assume the people are organised to some extent and are militant and have a degree of conciousness, we must also udnerstand not everyone will be a clued up and thereotically sound socialist. So we're likely gonna have a stage when, although many measures which are revolutionary and fundamental will come about, such as working class democrcy (factories run democratically), i.e. the things which would naturally follow any proletarian revolution and have followed every single working class rebellion ever (I.e., soviets, we've always seen them, Paris 68, Prague, Hungrary, etc etc), we're all gonna have some things still in place. For example, the idea of shared community labour in jobs like being a street cleaner - that sort of tihng develops.

Basically, I think we have to be very well prepared for the fact revolutions will be messy affairs and wont alays look like its actually communism. Yes, for them to happen theres has to be a degree of conciousness anyway, but there will be a long period of a society which is neither capitalist or communist or even in the 'state socialist' phase. In this time we might have contradictions and things which are un-communist such as some wage inequality (although I'd like to think things would get much better for everyone, in this stage), and things such as nationalism. Although there will be international solidarity, the notion of a national identity will still exist. See it like Cuba, which is very much proud of itself as a nation form what I see and hear, but also internationalist, a sort of progressive and concious nationalism, the sort you see in nations which are freed from oppresion.

I know I'm being somewhat vague but I'm basically talking about this stage, and how we have to be fully aware that revolutions and society are very complex and there will be many imperfections in our society. Hopefully, and as Marx would aruge, naturally this society will develop to communism, but it will take alot of time and effort. This is not to say there must be a 'socialist' stage, I just mena the revolution will not be over until the problems have all been ironed out. We will have a truly revolutionary society because it will be constantly developing and progressing, and communism, the final goal, will not be called that and will not clearly 'happen', it'll be part of developement. Not to say I'm a Marxist-Leninist - far from it, I don't think there'll be some state stage, no not at all, throughout this period the society will be run on an anarchistic basis (although the people wont call it 'anarchism'), and the revolution will continue without a state, but our proto/semi-communist society will have its problems. This is the revolutionary transitionary stage, and will not be communism as its called in the books, but will be moving towards communism.

Just some thoughts, hope to provoke some debate, maybe get some ideas of what the solid realities of what a revolutionary society will look like.

[kiki75]

People are tribal. I think the abolition of nations is only possible in the beurocratical sense. The desire to be part of a group is largely innate, given our social requirements. Because of this, it helps to accept that there are going to be different versions of "revolutionary society". And, that's as it should be. There will be no single mentality everyone is willing to latch onto. It is not human nature to conform on that level and while some are quite capable of it, others are not.

I don't think communism will ever always look like communism. Ideals manifest with the variety of human capability and desire. Who is not prepared for revolution to be messy? The attempt to control others is always messy.

[Tzonteyotl]

As far as nationalism is concerned, I'm still unconvinced of the idea that everyone will abandon their pride for their countries. The nature of that patriotism/nationalism will change as a result of higher consciousness, but I don't see it going away completely. And this of course is not to say they won't be internationalist, but nationalism relates to cultures as well, so that's another factor behind this idea.

As a result of this, though internationally all would be united in the socialist/communist cause, revolutionary movements and societies would be fitted in many ways to the particular areas they are born in. In that sense, I find it uncertain at the least to give a solid answer to your question. And moving from this, I wonder what exactly can be said as far as what communism "looks like." Specifics here are what I'm referring to, as we can agree on major characteristics of communism, such as abolition of social classes and exploitation and money, etc. But as for what it'll look like from one side of the globe to the other, or even city to city, that depends on a lot of things.

But, as you say, it's an ongoing process. There will be kinks to iron out for sure. But it will also be diverse, which as kiki75 put it, "is as it should be."

[ComradeOm]

People are tribal. I think the abolition of nations is only possible in the beurocratical sense. The desire to be part of a group is largely innate, given our social requirementsThen how do you explain the fact that 'nations' are a fairly recent historical development?

I often feel that this is one area where previous Marxists were at a distinct advantage in that they were not burdened with things that we take for granted. Marx, for example, was a mere three decades younger than the 'French nation' and writing at a time when the 'German nation' was just taking shape. Similarly Lenin could not but be aware that for the vast majority of Russian peasants "Russian" was simply a label applied to them by others; they had no concept of belonging to a greater nation or nationality

As I see it, family is innate and community is innate, but the nation is a social construct. It may disappear and it may not but there's no 'human nature' reason as to why it shouldn't

(Which is not to ignore of course that nations exist at the present and are rather important. I've seen people argue that we should ignore them and organise only at an international level... not a good idea)

[black magick hustla]

nobody should ignore the existence of nations but they should be understood for what they are and for the communist is crystal clear that borders must be abolished, simple as that. we do not have countries.