The nationalist question in socialism.

[Black&Red]

It is commonly accepted that socialists are internationalist. And as far as I'm concerned it's true.

But if you look closely, you can also see the need for some nationalism in the socialist process. Take for example the USSR, during WWII, they called the defence of the socialist nation "the great patriotic war". When giving a speech at the UN, Che Guevara said: "Homeland or death!".
In these cases, the need for patriotism was exacerbated by the menace that other non-socialist countries posed to them.
In an economic point of view, socialism advocates the consumption of home-made products to create profit to the nation (i.e. the people), and nationalizes the main sector of the industry for it to benefit to the people.

So my question is, can we say that to a certain extent, nationalism and patriotism are necessary to the socialist struggle? And by necessary, I mean in short-lived way, not indefinitely but as a way to make people understand the need for a socialist country and how this makes them different from other capitalist country.

[BobKKKindle$]

But if you look closely, you can also see the need for some nationalism in the socialist process.

When you say that socialism "needs" nationalism, you mean that nationalist slogans can sometimes be used as a way to convince people to do certain things that they wouldn't otherwise do, like join the army of the country where they happen to live, and sacrifice themselves for the victory of that country. If there's a situation where this kind of dynamic of "conning" people into doing something is taking place then that instantly supposes that the working class isn't in a position where it is aware of its own class interests, and has sufficient power to pursue those interests. If that's the case, then it isn't socialism, but some form of class society, based on hierarchy and deception. The USSR wasn't socialist in any way by the 1930s, and WW2 was a conflict between imperialist powers, which had nothing to offer the working class.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

What Bob said, pretty much. Nationalism is only useful to the ruling class of a country. Sometimes this ruling class calls itself socialist, but that doesn't actually make it so. The working class still has no country.

[ls]

When giving a speech at the UN, Che Guevara said: "Homeland or death!".

Socialism does not need nationalism, that's just not true.

Quotes like that do nothing to help any of our causes, the further away you can push socialism from nationalism, the better. The greatest movements have had expressions for the wish of autonomy divorced from the nation-state and you simply cannot fault them, as a Marxist or otherwise, anything other than that is pure dogmatism for something that has no need to be encouraged.


In these cases, the need for patriotism was exacerbated by the menace that other non-socialist countries posed to them.

Encouraging entirely unnecessary nationalism as you are doing, is completely and utterly pointless. If we go by that point of view, why shouldn't we advocate soc-dem nationalism like in Scotland for example? It's a really pointless idea, I'm not amazingly big on nationalism but am willing to support some supposed "left-nationalist" movements.


In an economic point of view, socialism advocates the consumption of home-made products to create profit to the nation (i.e. the people), and nationalizes the main sector of the industry for it to benefit to the people.

Why are you specifically advocating this though. If the resources in a socialist society (whether recognised as 'nationalist' or not) need to be shared beyond "recognised national borders" because the proletariat in another country is in trouble, opposing that is purely reactionary. Other than that, it's pretty much common sense that products in the locale itself are going to be used mostly by locals.


So my question is, can we say that to a certain extent, nationalism and patriotism are necessary to the socialist struggle? And by necessary, I mean in short-lived way, not indefinitely but as a way to make people understand the need for a socialist country and how this makes them different from other capitalist country.

Nationalism is simply not necessary, it is however a fact in some progressive movements and encouraging it further where it doesn't exist is pointless.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Stalin's Marxism and the National Question asks the reader to reconsider what may or may not constitute a nation, although it is one of my favourite of Stalin's works it tends to leave you with more questions than answers. For that reason I find that nationalism is a pretty useless term due to its different interpretations and loose definition. Are the British National Party nationalists? Was M-26-7 nationalist? Is there such a thing as Romani nationalism? Though not necessarily obligatory I think that a degree of nationalism can be good for the socialist cause, but it's important to note that it is possible to be a nationalist who loves the people of his or her nation, without being a nationalist who hates people of other nations. Nationalism doesn't necessarily cancel out internationalism, they can exist side be side, wartime USSR proved that.

[Revy]

If the national struggle is progressive, then socialists may be inclined to support it. National liberation is a more palatable term than nationalism, which connotes an ideology subservient to the nation-state.

[JJM 777]

Nationalism is useful in the same sense as any local governing bodies are necessary. Town leadership, county leadership, state leadership, international leadership. All of them are useful for some purpose.

If equal distribution of economical well-being stops at some lower level than the highest international level, then it is not truly "Socialism" in my opinion, it is Capitalist separation from other Socialists, with the motive to keep more to yourself than others have.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

If anyone's interested in a fairly in-depth read on why communists are against nationalism, I'd highly recommend reading this (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/afed_against_nationalism.pdf).

[Black Sheep]

When giving a speech at the UN, Che Guevara said: "Homeland or death!".
This is not necessarily nationalist neither the 'defence of our country' promoted by the USSR (though the use of the word 'patriotic' is suspicious)

Homeland can (and i think in cuba's case) refers to "our socialist society,the one we built,fought for and died for" and i tend to believe Che thought that when he made that speech.

[blake 3:17]

Che wasn't even Cuban. He was a profound socialist internationalist who also stood for oppressed peoples right to self determination. Under imperialism this can tend towards revolutionary socialism but also effed up stuff like the theocracy in Iran.

One of Lenin's greatest contributions was the rethinking of the national question. Socialists should stand for the liberations of oppressed nations, regardless of whether they have a recognized state. An abstract internationalism which doesn't recognize that there are different peoples and nations just doesn't work.

Racism and national chauvinism have no place in socialist movements. Accepting and fighting for the rights of oppressed peoples and nations, against war, economic barbarism is key to an authentic socialist internationalism.

Many of us are involved in Palestinian solidarity work. Does that mean we necessarily support Hamas or Fatah or reactionary Islam? No, not at all.

Edited to add: Here's a link to medium length article by the Belgian Trotskyist Ernest Mandel on national and antifascist resistance in the Second War. I found it quite illuminating. http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article800 I hope it is of some use.

[Zolken]

Regardless what particular 'ism' it may call itself, at it's core one finds political opportunism ... everything is geared towards the struggle for power, with liars using words to compensate for the lack of numbers.