Positive Patriotism vs. Nationalism [Archive]

A.R.Amistad

15th October 2009, 01:47

red cat

15th October 2009, 02:05

A.R.Amistad

15th October 2009, 02:11

Of course, I was not literally referring to our flag, but yes I agree 100%. By the way, not to bring down the level of this thread, but I'm new to this. How do you get an image to appear in the chat box?:)

A.R.Amistad

15th October 2009, 02:19

never mind comrade:D boy do I feel stupid

Niccolò Rossi

15th October 2009, 06:12

I have always felt a sense of patriotism to my country (USA) even though I am a communist and I disagree completely with how my state is run as an empire, as well as some serious blotches on our history.

The USA is not 'your' country. The working class have no country.

Communists do not merely disagree with how 'their' state is run. They disagree with it's very existance.

Still, in being a devoted internationalist, I feel uncomfortable "burning my flag," especially since my country was founded in revolution.

The flag is not 'yours', it is the property and the representative of the ruling class

The fact that the United States was founded by a 'revolution' is irrelevant. 'Revolution' is not some noble abstraction. The American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, Communists today fight for proletarian revolution.

Every nation has its positive points no matter what. For example, the US is full of many industrious and genuine, down to earth people.

'Nice people' are not the property or a characteristic of the USA qua nation state.

Besides, so what if 'every nation has its positive points'? What does it have to do with anything?

I think that we as leftists should take a slogan for all nations to "take back their country for its own people, the workers!" in an internationalist setting.

Not at all. Again, who are these 'own people', what is 'their country'? This is little different from the rhetoric of patriotic bourgeois populists. The communist slogan is: "Workers of the world, unite!"

Every communist is a patriot in the sense that he loves his country

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

Really though, I shouldn't be surprised coming from a maoist.

15th October 2009, 06:12

.. Every communist is a patriot in the sense that he loves his country

Agreed, but why call it patriotism? Also, just because I care about the workers of my country, it doesn't mean I don't care about the workers of other countries, an important distinction to make.

not the corresponding oppressive state.

Of course, but then this is what I see as representing patriotism and most forms of nationalism. I don't completely disregard all revolutions with tinges of nationalism however.

The American revolution and the class(American bourgeoisie) which led it were progressive with respect to British colonialism. But today, in the Leninist era of proletarian revolutions that same class is the most reactionary one.

Although this may not be a very popular perspective with regards to historical materialism, I do not see "progressiveness" in this way tbh.

The American bourgeoisie has been at the helm of so much suffering (just like every other national bourgeois) that I wouldn't call them 'progressive'. The only class that can enact a truly progressive revolution is the worker-class, with the poorer peasantry guided by the workers and the other classes closely controlled.

Tower of Bebel

15th October 2009, 11:24

The present American flag represents the American bourgeoisie; the ruling class of America. Don't confuse the masses with them. Every communist is a patriot in the sense that he loves his country, not the corresponding oppressive state. This type of patriotism and internationalism are perfectly compatible and in fact the latter cannot do without the former.

The American revolution and the class(American bourgeoisie) which led it were progressive with respect to British colonialism. But today, in the Leninist era of proletarian revolutions that same class is the most reactionary one.
Although I agree with the fact that ones love for a country or region does not mean being opposed to internationalism, the concepts you're using are over the top. Like:

The masses? Like the mass of people that witnessed the inauguration of Obama?

The Leninist era of proletarian revolutions? What defines this era?

Niccolò Rossi

15th October 2009, 12:34

Although I agree with the fact that ones love for a country or region does not mean being opposed to internationalism

What does it mean though, 'love for a country'. I love the wilderness of the North American and Australian continents. Does this constitute a love for America or Australia? I love the food of Thailand and India. Does this constitue a love for Thailand or India? I love music from...

The masses?

He is a maoist. The notion of class is foreign to him.

The Leninist era of proletarian revolutions? What defines this era?

Whilst I think it's rediculous to call the era of proletarian revolution 'Leninist' (what does that have to do with anything?), I think the concept is valid. In the words of Marx: "From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution". The Communist International described this epoch as: "the epoch of the break-up of capitalism, of its internal collapse. The epoch of the communist revolution of the proletariat"

Ovi

15th October 2009, 13:33

How can you wish for a world without borders and states and be a patriot at the same time? I don't get it.

Pogue

15th October 2009, 13:54

red cat

15th October 2009, 14:00

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

Really though, I shouldn't be surprised coming from a maoist.

It also comes from a Trot, if you haven't noticed. It comes from everyone who at least tries to practice Marxism.

Agreed, but why call it patriotism?

Well, then call it what you will. But the fact remains the same in any case.

Also, just because I care about the workers of my country, it doesn't mean I don't care about the workers of other countries, an important distinction to make.
[/QUOTE]

Did I claim that you don't ?

Of course, but then this is what I see as representing patriotism and most forms of nationalism. I don't completely disregard all revolutions with tinges of nationalism however.

Patriotism can either expand to internationalism or disintegrate into national chauvinism.

Although this may not be a very popular perspective with regards to historical materialism, I do not see "progressiveness" in this way tbh.

The American bourgeoisie has been at the helm of so much suffering (just like every other national bourgeois) that I wouldn't call them 'progressive'. The only class that can enact a truly progressive revolution is the worker-class, with the poorer peasantry guided by the workers and the other classes closely controlled.

True, but a bourgeois democracy is much better than colonialism.

Although I agree with the fact that ones love for a country or region does not mean being opposed to internationalism, the concepts you're using are over the top. Like:

The masses? Like the mass of people that witnessed the inauguration of Obama?

By masses I refer to all the oppressed classes.

The Leninist era of proletarian revolutions? What defines this era?[/QUOTE]

The chief defining factors of this era are:

1) Capitalism has reached its highest stage: imperialism.

2) Due to the above factor, the only class capable of providing class-leadership to conduct a successful revolution at present is the proletariat.

red cat

15th October 2009, 14:17

What does it mean though, 'love for a country'. I love the wilderness of the North American and Australian continents. Does this constitute a love for America or Australia? I love the food of Thailand and India. Does this constitue a love for Thailand or India? I love music from...

Pogue has answered all that.

He is a maoist. The notion of class is foreign to him.

Indeed. The notion is so foreign to us that we end up organizing the masses in the class wars. May be if we knew what it was all about then we would slander revolutionaries and falsify history instead.

BobKKKindle$

15th October 2009, 15:37

Pogue has answered all that.I don't think you and Pogue are on the same page at all. You can enjoy living in a particular place without believing that you have moral obligations towards the people who happen to be from the same place as you, which is what your understanding of patriotism is about. I wouldn't be surprised if, in addition to thinking that the UK as a whole is a nice place to live, Pogue also thinks that the particular part of the UK he is from (London) is a great place, and would rather live there than a place like Scotland, or Nottingham - and yet that wouldn't make him a patriot of London, insofar as that idea even make sense, any more than someone in China who comes from and admires, say, Guangdong Province, is a patriot of Guangdong Province, or a patriot of Guangzhou, if they come from Guangzhou. By the same token, it's possible to like living in a particular place without being a citizen of the country in which that place is located. I'm a British citizen but I'm not a fan of the UK, mainly on account of the weather and food, but I do love living in Hong Kong, despite not being a Chinese citizen, or being ethnically Chinese.

I love the food of Thailand and India. Does this constitue a love for Thailand or India? I love music from... In another discussion you also made the good point that it's impossible to see any form of cultural expression - be it a violin concerto or a well-made tom yum soup - as the product of one country alone.

Dr Mindbender

15th October 2009, 16:10

Ive always felt a stronger sense of 'civic pride' than patriotism. I like Belfast and many of the surrounding towns, but i still think large parts of the country are a shithole.

Holden Caulfield

15th October 2009, 16:55

I agree with Pogue and BobKKKindles, when I come home from Newcastle get off the train with a bag on that weights a ton and see grey dreary Carlisle it actually makes me happy. Makes my heart lift.

When I walk home from work and I can see the Hills on the horizon it makes me happy.

I love where I am from, I love England. I love other places of course, Berlin, Newcastle, etc etc.

None of this is reactionary.

I also think Nico answered the question of a new user in a condecending tone which i dont make me happy

Stranger Than Paradise

15th October 2009, 17:05

There is a distinction between a love of a place where you have lived or has some meaning for you in your life and blindly supporting that countries rulers.

Ovi

15th October 2009, 23:55

Its natural to have a fondness for where you live. Thats not absurd. I like the country I live in. That doesn't stop me hating its fascists and bourgeoisie and believing it needs a revolution. I like it because I like the culture, alot of the scenery and because its my home. I watch England play football and hope they win and if I ever saw a revolution I'd like it to be in this country. This doesn't contradict internationalism.
Does that make you a patriot? I believe not.

Every time I come back to the town I grew up it makes me happy somehow because of all the memories I have there. Every times I see my primary school it makes me think of all the friends and good times I had there. Even when just taking a walk on the hills with friends makes us remember the good old times riding the sleds down the hill or riding our bikes in the blizzard (dumb kids).

However I am in no way devoted to my country nor support any measure the government takes simply because "it's my country'. I certainly would not sacrifice myself for the "good of the country" and feeling proud of something I did not achieve (e.g. being born somewhere) seems stupid to me.

cenv

16th October 2009, 00:25

Comrades,
I have always felt a sense of patriotism to my country (USA) even though I am a communist and I disagree completely with how my state is run as an empire, as well as some serious blotches on our history. Still, in being a devoted internationalist, I feel uncomfortable "burning my flag," especially since my country was founded in revolution. Every nation has its positive points no matter what. For example, the US is full of many industrious and genuine, down to earth people. Of course, I am opposed to nationalism (unhealthy) and am always an internationalist first (I am a trot after all lol) but I think that we as leftists should take a slogan for all nations to "take back their country for its own people, the workers!" in an internationalist setting. I call this "Positive Patriotic Internationalism." I am highly interested on further elaboration on this from my fellow comrades.:lol:

Patriotism of any flavor is a tool of oppression because it falsely equates the people with the state, when in fact the state behaves contrary to the interests of the majority of people (specifically, the working class). Patriotism is based on the subordination of people to a meaningless abstraction. Grouping people into arbitrary categories only serves to divide them.

Yes, there are many industrious, genuine, down-to-earth people in the USA -- just like in all other countries. But before we can start seeing things from the perspective of our class (ie. develop class consciousness), we have to stop seeing things through the lens of bourgeois culture and let go of the idealized image of being American, the lie that the American flag represents anything more than the oppression of millions, and the impulse to identify with (and therefore define ourselves through) arbitrary abstractions.

A.R.Amistad

16th October 2009, 01:48

red cat

16th October 2009, 02:48

I don't think you and Pogue are on the same page at all. You can enjoy living in a particular place without believing that you have moral obligations towards the people who happen to be from the same place as you, which is what your understanding of patriotism is about. I wouldn't be surprised if, in addition to thinking that the UK as a whole is a nice place to live, Pogue also thinks that the particular part of the UK he is from (London) is a great place, and would rather live there than a place like Scotland, or Nottingham - and yet that wouldn't make him a patriot of London, insofar as that idea even make sense, any more than someone in China who comes from and admires, say, Guangdong Province, is a patriot of Guangdong Province, or a patriot of Guangzhou, if they come from Guangzhou. By the same token, it's possible to like living in a particular place without being a citizen of the country in which that place is located. I'm a British citizen but I'm not a fan of the UK, mainly on account of the weather and food, but I do love living in Hong Kong, despite not being a Chinese citizen, or being ethnically Chinese.

In another discussion you also made the good point that it's impossible to see any form of cultural expression - be it a violin concerto or a well-made tom yum soup - as the product of one country alone.

True. But the fact that one generally loves his cultural, natural and social surroundings is what I am referring to.

This sharply differs from bourgeois patriotism in the sense that the bourgeoisie loves the system of exploitation, not the oppressed people. This is exactly the opposite of proletarian patriotism.

Communists work among the oppressed classes. So they stand for developing the corresponding culture, politics etc. and replacing the official ones with them. Bourgeois patriotism ultimately leads to the oppression of the broad masses in every country while proletarian patriotism leads to their liberation.

cenv

16th October 2009, 02:56

I am not saying that nationalism is not oppressive nor that modern patriotism is revolutionary. I am merely saying that we the working class as of now is anti-internationalist, and we need to show them the merits of internationalism. The reason why "patriotism" is so popular to the working class these days is because in the age of imperialism (as Lenin predicted) a "country" seems like the only thing for someone to claim as their own. (and yes, I know that nationality is nonexistent in reality to the working class worldwide). There is a direct reason why the working class turns to patriotism: it seems like the easiest (less radical) way of challenging capitalism(which is criticized by reactionaries for being to globalist). As leftist progressives, it would be beneficial to harness the idea of "our nation for the workers" while we develop socialism. I am a firm believer in Permanent Revolution, and I don't think that can be achieved by immediately pursuing an anti-national agenda. We have to build toward that future. In other words, stick to your principles (internationalism) while at the same time executing it responsibly. (understanding)

Actually, people don't buy into patriotism because they see it as a way of "challenging capitalism." Even the least class conscious worker is aware enough to understand that fetishizing the bourgeois state has nothing to do with challenging it. People only internalize patriotism because from a very early age, they're conditioned to compartmentalize people and things in terms of nationality and to develop a false consciousness based on an idealized image of what it means to be X nationality.

Patriotism is not just an idea. It's an ideology. Not only does it divide people based on arbitrary abstractions, turning the working-class against itself. It also forces people to see the world, each other, and themselves through the lens of bourgeois culture.

The issue at stake isn't just whether we can reconcile nationalism and internationalism (we can't). It's whether we can simultaneously promote class consciousness and false consciousness. Whether it's possible to smash bourgeois ideology and cater to it at the same time.

If we try to outline communism in terms of bourgeois ideology, we will fail. Spreading class consciousness means tearing down the ideologies that divide the working class, which requires breaking with bourgeois culture and its instruments of repression. There is no middle ground.

A.R.Amistad

16th October 2009, 03:09

I think this thread would have gotten better responses if I had used the term "proletarian patriotism" as Red Cat had said. I agree, we should not compromise our fundamentals, but we can't be dogmatic either. I think the Cuban Revolution is a good example of what I'm talking about.

Niccolò Rossi

16th October 2009, 04:35

A general response; Certainly I agree it is possible to enjoy, to love, to have a passion for (etc.) a region on the basis of natural beauty or cultural factors (traditional cuisine, music, dress, etc.).

However, when one begins to transform this into 'love for country' or 'patriotism', then I think you start playing with fire. In this sense I think some of the posts in this thread are at best bewildering (Pogue: "if I ever saw a revolution I'd like it to be in this country" :huh:) and at worst, downright nationalist (see red_cat's pseudo-socialist 'proletarian patriotism').

Also, apologies if my first post came off as rude or condescending, as pointed out by Holden. I realise I can be a little agressive when it comes to attempts to recuperate nationalism and the patriotic ideology of te ruling class in the name of the working class and internationalism!

Stranger Than Paradise

16th October 2009, 08:08

Nationalism manifests itself in many ways, but blind love for your country falls under this. I am not sure many here have been guilty of that however. They were merely talking about love for a certain region which holds some meaning to them due to their experiences there. That is only natural that someone will build an opinion of a certain area or region based on their own experiences, this does not constitute nationalism or patriotism. For example I have a fondness for certain parts of Cornwall but that does not mean I think there is something inherent in the working class of Cornwall which makes them more worthy than the working class of the rest of the world. Or that I would want Cornwall to have a revolution more than anywhere else (because I want a revolution everywhere, and I'm sure everyone else feels the same).

black magick hustla

20th October 2009, 07:36

communists are stateless. i love mexican folk music, i love mexican food and holidays. i like the folklore of my homecountry. i like the "lazy" culture of mexico generally, with its informalities. i dont like formal deadlines.

i however, want to see all borders burn burn burn and burn and the creation of a world socialist society. the mexican flag can burn, the mexican state can burn, the mexican borders can burn.

i believe communism will bring about a new, international world culture characteristic of this new man that will ascend from the final dissolution of the old social order.

Wanted Man

20th October 2009, 12:20

I also don't put much stock in patriotism, no matter if it is from a "left" or "proletarian" perspective. Those are nice buzzwords, but they still suggest a sort of classlessness. I don't like the "left" glorification of "the white working class", as if a white, christian, unionised office worker has a better claim to being "proletarian" and "revolutionary" than the Moroccan guys who wash our windows.

I know a lot of people who claim to be "left patriots" don't explicitly say this, but this kind of patriotism does usually lead to more reactionary positions. Take the Falklands War, during which the British Militant claimed that if Labour were voted into power, it would turn into a war of socialist liberation against "fascist" Argentina. Since even they probably did not claim that voting Labour into power = means of production into the hands of the proletariat, they must have known that a Labour government is not socialist. There was only the illusion that Labour somehow uniquely represented the "British workers". Maybe those foreigners were "stealing land from British workers", represented by Labour? In any case, there must have been some support for the idea of Britishness, or of a British right to certain territories that should be considered inalienable. I think it was also the CWI who refused to support open immigration because of "the very real fears of the white working class"!

Another position like this is the idea that we should "oppose the war, but support the troops" because they are American/British/Dutch working-class boys who are fighting bravely (their enemies are just terrorists, of course), even if it is for misguided reasons. The fact that they belong to our "fatherland" and fighting for it is reason enough to support them. After all, not even the biggest opportunists on the left would claim that they are fighting for the working class or any kind of liberation. So it must be about the fatherland.

Another post that I found interesting is this one (http://www.revleft.com/vb/multiculturalism-identity-politics-t119045/index.html?t=119045). It attacks some serious problems from a "workerist" perspective, and it calls for a rejection of liberal multi-culturalism, a rejection of celebrations of "identity", and to fire our guns in both directions. So far so good. But it basically falls into a lot of nationalist traps. It singles out the white working class who just want to be proud to be English or British, and it implies that other ethnicities are being given an unfair advantage over the native, white, British working class by multi-culti liberals who hate white people and western nations. This may sound uncomfortably familiar, but it has nothing to do with the BNP or anything. No, the BNP are simply multi-culturalists in their own right! No class roots to the problem, no, it's just a problem of liberal guilt...

With these examples in mind, I think that any kind of "social patriotism" is conservative or reactionary for the left in imperialist nations. It opens you right up to all sorts of concepts of "white working class identity", national identity (Britishness, Americanism, etc.), opposing immigration and supporting imperialism for populist reasons (the white workers agree, we should tail them!), and so on and so forth. It is important to understand the political implications of claiming to be a patriot of any sort, and not conflate it with loving the beautiful city that you currently live in or whatever. There is nothing wrong with the latter, but an Antillean might also enjoy our beautiful city without ever being compelled to feel any kind of "Dutch national identity" because the Dutch nation built this beautiful city. People who claim otherwise are in denial.

A.R.Amistad

20th October 2009, 13:43

I don't like the "left" glorification of "the white working class", as if a white, christian, unionised office worker has a better claim to being "proletarian" and "revolutionary" than the Moroccan guys who wash our windows.

So you are saying that a white office worker is not proletarian as well? This to me is more reactionary because it divides the working class, pitting race against race and alienating members of the working class just because they don't resemble a certain aesthetic. I am not saying they have a better claim, but really they are all proletariat and are all welcome in the movement. It is exactly this kind of thinking, I believe, that sets the revolution back.

Guerrilla22

20th October 2009, 13:50

Every nation has its positive points no matter what. Well technically the US is a state, not a nation. Patriotism is the fondness for a state while nationalism has to do with groups of people that feel superior to others.

A.R.Amistad

20th October 2009, 14:13

I have no fondness for the American state. I only have fondness for the American working people and the landscape. I also can't deny that I am a member of American culture. Of course, I am an internationalist first and have a deeper love for the world proletariet, but to believe that we will have one big unified world culture after the revolution would be an ultraleft stance and misconception.

Revy

20th October 2009, 14:16

I will repost what I wrote in the other thread:

I distinguish nationalism and national liberation, and furthermore I distinguish nationalism and patriotism. They are three different but related things.

In the American context, patriotism may not always have reactionary undertones. However, nationalism always does.

I don't blame Puerto Ricans for wanting independence and I consider that more of a case of "national liberation" than nationalism.

Overall, I oppose nationalism as my understanding of it is an ideology subservient to the interests of the bourgeois nation-state at the expense of internationalist solidarity.

In cases of national liberation, you have people who have united for the independence of their country for reasons that are in the immediate period progressive.

Wanted Man

20th October 2009, 14:39

So you are saying that a white office worker is not proletarian as well?

Umm, no. I'm saying the exact opposite.

I have no fondness for the American state. I only have fondness for the American working people and the landscape. I also can't deny that I am a member of American culture. Of course, I am an internationalist first and have a deeper love for the world proletariet, but to believe that we will have one big unified world culture after the revolution would be an ultraleft stance and misconception.

What American culture is that? It is very difficult to generalise these things. Culture in the US involves different classes, ethnicities, languages, etc. There is also no single "European culture" or whatever.

When we say that "workers have no country", it is not a denunciation of unique cultural aspects. However, it is not bound by the borders of a state. Class struggle on an international scale amounts to a lot more than just an assertion of national identity with a "working-class" twist.

red cat

23rd October 2009, 06:52

Niccolò Rossi

23rd October 2009, 07:24

Can you please explain how it is "pseudo-socialist" ?

Because it is nothing more than a justification of the most collaborationist, nationalist, reactionary maoist poison.

red cat

23rd October 2009, 08:32

Because it is nothing more than a justification of the most collaborationist, nationalist, reactionary maoist poison.

Your usage of adjectives is most impressive.
But you still did not answer my question clearly.

Niccolò Rossi

23rd October 2009, 08:45

Your usage of adjectives is most impressive.

:lol:

I'll give you a thanks for that.

But you still did not answer my question clearly.

What would you call a 'clear answer'? I think I answered your question perfectly clearly.

red cat

23rd October 2009, 08:56

:lol:

I'll give you a thanks for that.

What would you call a 'clear answer'? I think I answered your question perfectly clearly.

I think you should judge this argument by its own merits or faults rather than by what it justifies.

Niccolò Rossi

23rd October 2009, 10:55

I think you should judge this argument by its own merits or faults rather than by what it justifies.

I don't think it has an existance independant of Maoism and the anti-worker policies and practices thereof.

Besides, I think any notion of a 'proletarian patriotism' has been discredited already in this thread. The workers have no country.

red cat

23rd October 2009, 11:19

I don't think it has an existance independant of Maoism and the anti-worker policies and practices thereof.

I will say that its association with Maoism is its most positive quality then. Inspite of all the great theoretical stands of the other tendencies, they have failed to make a single step towards actually liberating the proletariat and so most of them have now sunk to the level of falsifying and discrediting even the ongoing maoist movements.

Besides, I think any notion of a 'proletarian patriotism' has been discredited already in this thread. The workers have no country.

This is quite a mechanical understanding of marxism. If you ask a worker about internationalism, or whether he sympathizes with workers from other countries, you will probably get nothing more than a blank look. A worker's love for his surroundings, his co-workers"(what I am refering to as proletarian patriotism) has to be expanded to internationalism through rigorous poiltical practice. Let the worker fight his own employer. Let him fight his government. If you can involve him in class politics even at a city-level organization, he will automatically grasp internationalism.

Wanted Man

23rd October 2009, 11:49

Can you please explain how it is "pseudo-socialist" ?

I guess the whole "patriotism" and "love your country" thing gave it away. I say fuck that, I happen to like other countries better! A lot of people do, but that doesn't stop them from waging class struggle wherever they happen to live at that moment. How can you possibly generalise the entire working class as "loving their country"? Later, you go on to say:

A worker's love for his surroundings, his co-workers"(what I am refering to as proletarian patriotism) has to be expanded to internationalism through rigorous poiltical practice.
(emphasis mine) The emphasised part has nothing to do with patriotism in any meaningful sense of the word, and it has nothing to do with "loving your country", which you tried to justify as "proletarian" before.

You contrast this with "bourgeois patriotism" which "loves exploitation". But how often do you actually see "bourgeois" expressions of patriotism glorifying exploitation? Most populists and nationalists actually claim to stand up for the British (or American, Dutch, or "white") working class, who are being oppressed by snooty politically correct liberals, foreigners, homosexuals, etc. The point is that this distracts from class struggle, enables exploitation by dividing and conquering, and that's why communists bring in class solidarity and internationalism against it.

And that, of course, is completely different from talking to a worker and asking "are you an internationalist?/do you sympathise with foreigners?" and getting blank stares... That is not the point of internationalism at all. To be honest, it seems like words as we understand them seem to have completely different meanings to you alone. :confused:

Honggweilo

23rd October 2009, 12:17

You contrast this with "bourgeois patriotism" which "loves exploitation". But how often do you actually see "bourgeois" expressions of patriotism glorifying exploitation?

Cato Institute, Jonh Birch Society, Edmund Burke Stichting, Milton Friedman, Jort Kelder :rolleyes:

ComradeRed22'91

23rd October 2009, 12:24

i hate the USA's policies, and in a sense hate the USA, but i know on the international scene, though i'm very international minded, and am very open to other countries and can admit when they do things better than 'we' can (i.e, punk rock,) i know who i am in the world, and that's American, and by saying that i'm reffering to the people, not the nation or flag. (seeing as i actually did desecrate a flag last 4th, no joke :lol: ) However, saying that it was founded in revolution is seriously flawed, unless you mean the worker's struggles of the 20's and 30's.

red cat

23rd October 2009, 13:36

I guess the whole "patriotism" and "love your country" thing gave it away. I say fuck that, I happen to like other countries better! A lot of people do, but that doesn't stop them from waging class struggle wherever they happen to live at that moment. How can you possibly generalise the entire working class as "loving their country"? Later, you go on to say:

(emphasis mine) The emphasised part has nothing to do with patriotism in any meaningful sense of the word, and it has nothing to do with "loving your country", which you tried to justify as "proletarian" before.

Earlier I had identified culture and surroundings with country by mistake. This generalization does not remain true when the country is multi-cultural.

Also, a person might be engaged in political activity in a place where he was neither born nor brought up. But note that still then, he has to develop an intimate relationship with the local oppressed people.

You contrast this with "bourgeois patriotism" which "loves exploitation". But how often do you actually see "bourgeois" expressions of patriotism glorifying exploitation? Most populists and nationalists actually claim to stand up for the British (or American, Dutch, or "white") working class, who are being oppressed by snooty politically correct liberals, foreigners, homosexuals, etc. The point is that this distracts from class struggle, enables exploitation by dividing and conquering, and that's why communists bring in class solidarity and internationalism against it.

Bourgeois patriotism identifies the country with the state. That does glorify the system of exploitation indirectly.

And that, of course, is completely different from talking to a worker and asking "are you an internationalist?/do you sympathise with foreigners?" and getting blank stares... That is not the point of internationalism at all. To be honest, it seems like words as we understand them seem to have completely different meanings to you alone.:confused:

May be. But irrespective of whether you use that one particular term, whatever I claimed about the nature of the working class, is true.

24th October 2009, 02:00

Earlier I had identified culture and surroundings with country by mistake. This generalization does not remain true when the country is multi-cultural.

So what do you advocate in the case of a multicultural society? After all, almost every society is multicultural to some extent (and most always have been, although perhaps to a lesser extent, but also in cases to a much higher extent).

red cat

24th October 2009, 09:59

So what do you advocate in the case of a multicultural society? After all, almost every society is multicultural to some extent (and most always have been, although perhaps to a lesser extent, but also in cases to a much higher extent).

In multicultural societies there can be different communities of workers who live side by side but do not identify with each other as a class. Moreover they can be convinced by the bourgeoisie that the other community is the root of their misery.

25th October 2009, 17:14

In multicultural societies there can be different communities of workers who live side by side but do not identify with each other as a class. Moreover they can be convinced by the bourgeoisie that the other community is the root of their misery.

So what do you propose to combat this?

red cat

25th October 2009, 17:36

So what do you propose to combat this?

I know such situations exist, but I haven't been able to study them closely. So what I propose might not be practical at all.

When workers are divided community-wise, we can assume that the bourgeoisie has been efficiently covering up the primary contradictions. For this they would require to have a trade-union in each community which liquidate the real issues. Infiltrating those and taking over by raising the main issues and slowly stepping up the struggle might be a good idea. If all the trade-unions manage to engage in class-politics parallely then most likely the communal differences will dissolve very quickly.

Comrade Anarchist

25th October 2009, 23:57

Patriotism is nothing more than the mind washing. To feel love and pride in your country makes you think that your country is above others which allows countries to turn into empires. People belong live on the world and to think that america is awesome just b/c of some people born here do amazing things makes no sense b/c they amazing people did things not the country.

A.R.Amistad

31st October 2009, 02:05

The reason I posted this thread was because of the argument that socialism is inherently "un-American. (Please note the rest of this is from an American perspective, I cant speak for other national origins.) Basically, I could approach this in two ways:
1. I could say "screw America" and postpone the revolution another century.
2. I could counter the argument by divulging in the democratic elements of the 1776 Revolution and the enlightenment, the revolutionary ideals of Thomas Jefferson(yes he was a slave owning pig too) and other American revolutionaries. I could talk about the revolutionary character of Americans like Nat Turner, Frederick Douglass, Abigail Adams, Mark Twain, Henry David Thoreau, Mother Jones, etc. I could talk about how popular the American socialist Eugene Debs once was (he was actually from a town not too far from were I was born and grew up). And how about the fact that American youth culture hs led the way in challenging reactionary tyranny through music, writing, fashion, dance, art, etc. I could talk about how beautiful the land is here and how a revolution could protect it from capital's poison. I could talk about the rugged pioneer character that is attributed to Americans and how it is in opposition with the destructive ways of capitalism. I could talk about how capitalism and imperialism are the real "un-American" things because they outsource jobs, send our brothers and sisters to war, destroy and pollute our land, destroys the rudiments of our revolutionary created republic, destroys our culture through corporate media control, dumbs down our populous, turns us against each other with hate and ignorance and outright exploits 84% of American people at least, and thats during a good economy. I could show how all of this is more than compatable, even very much ripe, for Marxism-Bolshevism.

This is what I was getting at with this thread. How can we work this into our internationalist program? I know we can, as can every national identity, however you want to define it. I agree that "the workers have no country" but the majority of workers do not believe that. How can we appeal to the masses in this arena? These are the questions I am putting before us to help stregthen our internationalist movement.

Some comrades of mine in the IMT have a book on this very subject that I plan on reading soon when I get enough money to ship it.
http://www.wellredusa.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=10&products_id=332

I'd like to see books like this for every place on Earth, like "Marxism in Spain, Marxism in Sri Lanka, Marxism in Tanzania, Marxism in Nicaragua, etc. etc. etc. I say this because I am worried that some comrades may think I am trying to assert US superiority and chauvanism, which is the exact opposite of what I intend to say or do. I encourage comrades all over the world to explore this approach.

MarxSchmarx

1st November 2009, 23:48

2. I could counter the argument by divulging in the democratic elements of the 1776 Revolution and the enlightenment, the revolutionary ideals of Thomas Jefferson(yes he was a slave owning pig too) and other American revolutionaries. I could talk about the revolutionary character of Americans like Nat Turner, Frederick Douglass, Abigail Adams, Mark Twain, Henry David Thoreau, Mother Jones, etc. I could talk about how popular the American socialist Eugene Debs once was (he was actually from a town not too far from were I was born and grew up). And how about the fact that American youth culture hs led the way in challenging reactionary tyranny through music, writing, fashion, dance, art, etc. I could talk about how beautiful the land is here and how a revolution could protect it from capital's poison. I could talk about the rugged pioneer character that is attributed to Americans and how it is in opposition with the destructive ways of capitalism. I could talk about how capitalism and imperialism are the real "un-American" things because they outsource jobs, send our brothers and sisters to war, destroy and pollute our land, destroys the rudiments of our revolutionary created republic, destroys our culture through corporate media control, dumbs down our populous, turns us against each other with hate and ignorance and outright exploits 84% of American people at least, and thats during a good economy. I could show how all of this is more than compatable, even very much ripe, for Marxism-Bolshevism.

That is all well and good; in fact to some degree the appeal of socialism has to be made context specific. These are, by and large, not uniquely american values. I don't think one has to be an american to admire Fredrick Douglass or want to preserve ones land. What you seem to infact be saying is that Americans can be just as radical as anybody else. With which I generally agree.

I agree that "the workers have no country" but the majority of workers do not believe that. How can we appeal to the masses in this arena?

Unionize into international unions. On some level the skepticism is justified as almost all workers are citizens and rely heavily on the state in one way or another. Organize solidarity actions with workers from other countries.

RotStern

1st November 2009, 23:52

If a communist didn't love their own country whats all this talk about revolution?

Thirsty Crow

4th November 2009, 18:51

There is a significant difference between (positive) patriotism and nationalism, in my opinion.
I do espise nationalism in its various forms, every single one of them significantly marked by bigotry, narow-mindedness and intolerance bordering on fanaticism, with this slight hint of "being proud of your origin/country/nation/whatever".
However, I do, in fact, feel a sense of belonging (there's a BIG difference between a sense of belonging and nationalist pride) to my...that's the trickiest part, naming it. I'd say - culture and people associated with it.
It's a not-so-strong of an attachment to a particular locality where I began to form myself as a person, being influenced by language (the most important attachment I feel), customs and history, wether I like it or not, wether I despise the hegemonic elements of the before mentioned cultural sphere or not, wether I disagree with Croatian official policies or not (and I do despise and disagree).

The thing is...I don't see why such a feeling should, or even COULD prevent someone from developing an internationalist perspective, as well as compassion and understanding of different people. In fact, I view it as a prerequisite for such a development. In any way, the two influence and strenghten each other.
At least when it comes to me.

Soldier of life

9th November 2009, 03:32

I think there is a vast array of mindsets and attitudes that could be perceived as 'nationalism', and nationalism can indeed be positive in some aspects IMO. For instance in Ireland or other nations who are the victims of imperialism, nationalist sentiment can be progressive. But as socialists this sentiment must be harnessed, moulded into a two-pronged approach which encompasses both the fight for socialism as well as the fight for self-determination from the native and foreign oppresser respectively.

In Ireland for instance, among the working class Irish Republicanism/nationalism will always draw a great deal of sympathy from people, and is a perfect platform from which to build a genuinely socialist revolutionary movement. This cannot be neglected, as the question of the occupation must be solved before socialism can flourish.

There are of course other types of nationalism as I mentioned above, which are connected to fascist and right wing ideology, but nationalism certainly may have a progessive role in the fight against imperialism.

Sugar Hill Kevis

24th November 2009, 23:43

In addressing this issue it's probably pertinent to look at the idea of nationalism and what constitutes a nation.

The roots of nationalism, as a notion closely tied to modernity, is probably best placed circa the 1846 revolutions. Enforced by the idea that people are sovereign over monarchs. There are various organisations; Young Italy, Young Ireland etc which work together. Most logically, these kind of movements would be placed on the left, given their fight against absolutism. Obvious contrasts here with the latter apparation of nationalism as a divisive force. Still, it's not a universally progressive notion at this time; best exemplified in Hungary when it was part of the Habsburg Empire. In this situation, nationalism was an idea being circulated by the social elites, who deliberately ostracised it from the mass populace for fear of them acting unpredictably and uncontrollably. Again, in Austria, where after achieving a national parliament was ardently against other nationalist movements for fear of having to secede its own territory.

The idea of a 'nation' isn't solely a geographical concept. In some instances not at all. It's the idea of a collective group of people identified as sharing a number of perceived characterists. Sure there are notions of 'common ancestry' or shared territory. It can also be characterised by a common culture. We can view nationalism as the idea that the 'nation'/'national community' have a legitimate right to form a seperate entity independent from others - in most cases sovereign nations.

Often nationalism has materialised where there is already existing conflict, as such it's often been put to the services of other movements. Nationalism became a tool of the ruling elites, who realised they could exploit the collective identity, Obviously it's just one form of social organisation - and not necessary a pertinent one to leftists. I'd hope everyone here sees class as the ultimate form of social organisation. Nevertheless, to some people here at least, it can be considered progressive in certain circumstances. To return to the idea of nationalism arising where there's already conflict, it can incarnate itself against internal oppressors or occupying powers which is 'more progressive' per se than being bitted against other 'nations'. This doesn't mean we should unconditionally support any national liberation struggle, which often just replaces one reactionary regime with another. However it does entail that it can be progressive, as socialists we should be active in these struggles trying to organise people provoked perhaps through 'nationalist' (not reactionary) ideas and being them in to the class struggle.

red cat

24th November 2009, 23:55

Here is an outline of our stand:

PATRIOTISM AND INTERNATIONALISM

Can a Communist, who is an internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but must be. The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions. There is the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler, and there is our patriotism. Communists must resolutely oppose the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler. The Communists of Japan and Germany are defeatists with regard to the wars being waged by their countries. To bring about the defeat of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler by every possible means is in the interests of the Japanese and the German people, and the more complete the defeat the better. This is what the Japanese and German Communists should be doing and what they are doing. For the wars launched by the Japanese aggressors and Hitler are harming their own people as well as the people of the world. China's case is different, because she is the victim of aggression. Chinese Communists must therefore combine patriotism with internationalism. We are at once internationalists and patriots, and our slogan is, "Fight to defend the motherland against the aggressors." For us defeatism is a crime and to strive for victory in the War of Resistance is an inescapable duty. For only by fighting in defence of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and achieve national liberation. And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and other working people to achieve their own emancipation. The victory of China and the defeat of the invading imperialists will help the people of other countries. Thus in wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism. For this reason Communists must use their initiative to the full, march bravely and resolutely to the battle front of the war of national liberation and train their guns on the Japanese aggressors. For this reason, immediately after the Incident of September 18, 1931, our Party issued its call to resist the Japanese aggressors by a war of national defence, and later proposed a national united front against Japan, ordered the Red Army to reorganize as part of the anti-Japanese National Revolutionary Army and to march to the front, and instructed Party members to take their place in the forefront of the war and defend the motherland to the last drop of their blood. These are good patriotic actions and, far from running counter to internationalism, are its application in China. Only those who are politically muddle-headed or have ulterior motives talk nonsense about our having made a mistake and abandoned internationalism.

- Mao Dze Dong, "The role of the Chinese Communist Party in the national war"