Nationalism.

[Post-Something]

My friend sent me the following question, and I figured you guys could offer a better answer than me:


I can't remember what I told you on MSN last night, but I'll be forever grateful if you could help me out with an essay.

It's about whether nationalism can be morally justified. I have some arguments why it is justified, which I found online. But I need some reasons why nationalism is immoral and I figured you're the guy to ask.

What's your opinion on the subjects? Who are the main theorists who would argue against it for moral reasons? Can you provide linkage?

Any thoughts?

[KC]

I am not sure if it is even possible to make such an argument, as one can argue either way, as morality varies.

If your friend wants to understand what the nation is and how it arose, then he should check out Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities. It is the most authoritative work on the subject of the nation.

Hobsbawm's book Nations and Nationalism is also a good read on the subject.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

There's a distinction that needs to be made between what Huey P. Newton, Minister of Defense for the Black Panther Party, called "revolutionary nationalism" vs. "cultural nationalism". This is how he puts it in a 1968 interview:


"There are two kinds of nationalism, revolutionary nationalism and reactionary nationalism. Revolutionary nationalism is first dependent upon a people's revolution with the end goal being the people in power. Therefore to be a revolutionary nationalist you would by necessity have to be a socialist. It you are a reactionary nationalist you are not a socialist and your end goal to the oppression of the people.

Cultural nationalism, or pork chop nationalism, as I sometimes call it, is basically a problem of having the wrong political perspective. It seems to be a reaction instead of responding to political oppression. The cultural nationalists are concerned with returning to the old African culture and thereby regaining their identity and freedom. In other words, they feel that the African culture will automatically bring political freedom. Many times cultural nationalists fall into line as reactionary nationalists.

Papa Doc in Haiti is an excellent example of reactionary nationalism. He oppresses the people but he does promote the African culture. He's against anything other than black, which on the surface seems very good, but for him it is only to mislead the people. He merely kicked out the racists and replaced them with himself as the oppressor. Many of the nationalists in this country seem to desire the same ends.

The Black Panther Party, which is a revolutionary group of black people, realizes that we have to have an identity. We have to realize our black heritage in order to give us strength to move on and progress. But as far as returning to the old African culture, it's unnecessary and it's not advantageous in many respects. We believe that culture itself will not liberate us. We're going to need some stronger stuff."

I think nationalism also varies strongly between developed countries and underdeveloped superexploited countries. Cultural nationalism in the third world is a reaction to colonialism and imperialism, but it seeks to replace a foreign bourgeoisie with a domestic one which, generally, is not much better for the proletariat. In developed countries, it is often based on concepts of racial/ethnic superiority and xenophobia or as a reaction to immigration and cultural "degradation". I like Huey's analysis though. For the full interview you can go here: http://www.hippy.com/article-76.html

[mikelepore]

Nationalism is completely pointless and harmful. How could it make any sense, instead of saying "I'm devoted to the good of the human race", to say "I'm devoted to the good of that part of the human race that lives south of the 49 degree north latitude line, and north of the Rio Grande river"? There's no reasoning in it, and nothing productive in it.

[Arise!]

"Nationalism is having the ego to think of the 191 countries you could have been born in, you happened to be born into the one that is the best."
(Clint Borgen)
"Nationalism is) a set of beliefs taught to each generation in which the Motherland or the Fatherland is an object of veneration and becomes a burning cause for which one becomes willing to kill the children of other Motherlands or Fatherlands"
(Howard Zinn)
"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first, nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."
(Charles de Gaulle)
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measels of mankind."
(Albert Einstein)

You friend just needs to ask himself, "isn't pride reserved for accomplishments?"
Xenophobia is a perfect reason why nationalism is morally unjustified, but it would be a lot easier to argue why nationalism is logically unjustified.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Good quotes. :)

[Klepto]

There are a lot of people who use the term nationalism when there really mean separatism. In my home country the Scottish National Party has the goal of making Scotland a separate nation outside the United Kingdom, but they aren't overtly nationalist.

I support separatism because it breaks down large national entities into smaller ones. I don't support nationalism because it fosters intolerance and persecution of 'foreigners'. Any attempt to build artificial barriers between people is bad. Separatism is almost the opposite of nationalism, although separatist groups can be nationalistic.

[LOLseph Stalin]

There are a lot of people who use the term nationalism when there really mean separatism. In my home country the Scottish National Party has the goal of making Scotland a separate nation outside the United Kingdom, but they aren't overtly nationalist.

Sounds like the situation Canada is having with Quebec. There's Quebec political parties that want to separate Quebec from the rest of the country. There has been a referendum twice.

[Rjevan]

Nationalism is totally pointless, I mean, first nobody chooses to be born in a specific country and second I don't see why I should be proud of things people done a few hundered years before me in this country. Well, it's nice to see how many important things the Germans contributed to the world but has that anything to do with me? Is this my achievement? No, so why should I be more proud of it than of e.g. French achievements?
Through history nationalism often caused massive discrimination for ethnic minorities in a country, pointless hate against "heredity enemies", wars and terrible suffering like in the war the Serbs started after the downfall of Yugoslavia.
After all, nationalism managed to blind people of the fact that we're all equal.

[Tatarin]

I've always wondered how thick those lines were, you know, on the world/continental map. Surely, they can't be as thick as on the world map, they'd fit thousands of people, and who owns the lines?

How close can I then, when I go to a border, be to another country before I'm actually in it? What's the measure? 1 atom? 1 milimeter? How about all the talk of how the continents move all the time? Are countries bigger the higher up you go in the air (as the world is round, then the sphere must become bigger higher up)? In that case, where do they stop?

Could a really powerful nation claim ownership, for example, set a "nation hight limit" to 1000 km, and then claim that everything else above that is owned by that powerful nation?

Okay, I realise this may be overboard, but it makes you think about borders, one of the important ingredients of nations. But I think there are some other questions as well, like mentioned above, separatism. When is it acceptable for a region to break free of one or more nation/s and create it's own? If the people in a small region wants to be independent, why shouldn't they?

So what I'm trying to say is that nationalism, nations in general, are powergrabs. They haven't existed for all time before now, and they surely won't play a bigger part in the future. It's just like, for a lack of better words, "loyalty to the corporation"-ism. You work for it, and it provides you with money so that you can live. If you aren't loyal, you get fired. What's really the big difference, if you think about it? (Well, except in some countries you get fired at if you aren't loyal.)

[NecroCommie]

Nation is an artificial construct, only existent in the mind of the nationalist. Sure there are some cultural and linquistic differences varying from region to region, but these change and shift constantly and therefore ideologies based on them are doomed to dissolve with time.

This is true especially in the global times of modern day.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's even more arbitrary than ethical egoism.

[ComradeOm]

Nation is an artificial construct, only existent in the mind of the nationalistNo. Disliking nationalism is all well and good but this sort of wishful thinking has to be put to rest

The reality, like it or not, is that nationstates do exist and have done so, in Europe at least, for over a century. Today's states are organised on a national basis and the nation is an inescapable facet of everyday life. That is not in itself a bad thing. The fact that I am Irish merely signifies that I have grown up in a different place and a different culture to, for example, an Italian. This is a rather inescapable fact of life and while nationalism - that is, a political programme that accentuates and assigns undue importance to national differences - must obviously be combated, insisting that these differences do not in fact exist is laughable

[Dimentio]

Nationalism (not in the sense of chauvinism) is probably a necessary ingredient to make a transition from a pre-capitalist system towards a capitalist system. For capitalism to work, it is necessary to have a concept of citizenship and a sort of common myth. Otherwise, its predatory tendencies will run wild.

One could call nationalism a cultural stage in the development of the capitalist model.

[brigadista]

read Franz Fanon -the wretched of the earth

[NecroCommie]

No. Disliking nationalism is all well and good but this sort of wishful thinking has to be put to rest
The reality, like it or not, is that nationstates do exist and have done so, in Europe at least, for over a century. Today's states are organised on a national basis and the nation is an inescapable facet of everyday life. That is not in itself a bad thing. The fact that I am Irish merely signifies that I have grown up in a different place and a different culture to, for example, an Italian. This is a rather inescapable fact of life and while nationalism - that is, a political programme that accentuates and assigns undue importance to national differences - must obviously be combated, insisting that these differences do not in fact exist is laughable
Excuse if you understood me wrong, I do not try to deny the existence of nations, but as I said, nations are artificial constructs. So basically I said that while they do exist, there is little philosophical basis to prioritize nation above... say...class?

And when I said that nations only exist within the head of the nationalist, I was saying that nations only have the value of definition as opposed to the material value of class. In practice this would mean that one can be without a nationality (or of strongly unclear nationality), while everyone must possess a class relation due to the very definition of nationality and class.

I would like to point out that I see nationality as a separate thing from citizenship.

[Pogue]

Regional pride exists. I'm very fond of where I live and jokingly mock other areas of England. Its not that serious really. The idea of naitonal identity and unity is create dby the media and state, because in reality most people know about 0.0001% of the population of the nation they live in and have been to about 5% of it max, and spend mos tof their time in 0.05% of it. I don't think a sense of identity and pride in ones area will disappear easily but hopefully aggressive nationalism will disappear and eventually all nationalism will go. Its idiotic but it exists, and I don't think its always bad becaue theres a subtle way you could look at ti in which its acceptable, i.e. I am from x and I like x but y are valuable and equal too'.

[BobKKKindle$]

Nationalism (not in the sense of chauvinism) is probably a necessary ingredient to make a transition from a pre-capitalist system towards a capitalist system.Actually, it's the other way round - nationalism is a product of capitalist economic development, and there is no sign that nationalism is about to disappear any time soon. The concept of a nation state initially emerged as a result of economic transactions and labour migration becoming more intense between areas that had previously been isolated from each other, as this process led to the construction of a common language, as people needed to be able to communicate with each other in order to exchange commodities and enter into wage-labour relationships. This process was strengthened by the growth of embryonic media outlets in the form of newspapers and political pamphlets, as these forms of media allowed communities to learn about events and developments elsewhere, such as war victories, and changes in leadership at the apex of the political system, thereby encouraging a sense of common identity between people who were unlikely ever to meet directly with each other. The bourgeoisie also actively fought for the removal of sub-national tariffs as these barriers to trade limited the growth of the market and restricted the volume of output that individual members of the ruling class could expect to sell. These processes created a basis for nationalism during the initial stages of capitalism, and nationalism has become even more important during the imperialist stage when the drive to accumulate capital and avoid a decline in the rate of profit gives rise to the political domination of underdeveloped areas of the world, forcing the national bourgeoisie to find an ideology with which to rally the working class and peasantry against imperialism.

[ComradeOm]

Excuse if you understood me wrong, I do not try to deny the existence of nations, but as I said, nations are artificial constructs. So basically I said that while they do exist, there is little philosophical basis to prioritize nation above... say...class?They are social constructs as real as justice, currency, or, according to some, gender roles. Like these examples, the emergence of the nationstate was driven by real material factors and the nation continues to exert enormous influence on society

[Cumannach]

Actually, it's the other way round - nationalism is a product of capitalist economic development

Yes, but Capitalism did not construct all the elements of Nationalism, it only harnessed them and organized them for it's own purpose. Ethnic groups, self-identifying communities, different languages and cultures are not inventions of capitalism. The evolution of all of these elements was not independent of the mode of production either but was not wholly determined by it.

[komintern]

Yes, but Capitalism did not construct all the elements of Nationalism, it only harnessed them and organized them for it's own purpose. Ethnic groups, self-identifying communities, different languages and cultures are not inventions of capitalism. The evolution of all of these elements was not independent of the mode of production either but was not wholly determined by it.
In fact I think that even if Comrade is right, the question is irrelevant. The real problem for revolutionaries is how at the stage of today’s imperialism any working class can support its own national bourgeoisie. Because this is what nationalism is all about.
Any national bourgeoisie for instance Scottish or Quebec (where I live) is ready to use the working class to achieve its own goal. In today’s struggles where the bourgeoisie is masterizing the art of manipulation, nationalism is a real poison massively injected by the dominant ideology in the throat of the workers.
All this nonsense of proximity struggle (it is easier to influence the political agenda in a smaller community/nation/country) can be historically proven as being wrong.
There is actually no interest in any country for the working class to support any portion of its own ruling class.

[KC]

Yes, but Capitalism did not construct all the elements of Nationalism, it only harnessed them and organized them for it's own purpose. Ethnic groups, self-identifying communities, different languages and cultures are not inventions of capitalism. The evolution of all of these elements was not independent of the mode of production either but was not wholly determined by it.

What you have listed are not nationalistic elements but cultural elements. The concept of the nation certainly did emerge out of capitalist technological development and alienation.