Is Nationalism Acceptable Under Certain Conditions?

[Dóchas]

I have been meaning to post this thread for a while and im really interested in your opinions. so like the title says, is nationalism acceptable under certain conditions ie. imperialism. Two examples i can think of are Irish Nationalism (please no more arguments!!) and Basque Nationalism and i am sure there are more. They both are resisting foreign or outside powers. Is this form of nationalism acceptable? Those involved are trying to cling on to their culture and way of life while resisting outside forces. Personally i think this form of nationalism is ok although the techniques used may be questionable. Also would this type of nationalism (does it have a specific name?) and national liberation be the same or do they have slight/significant differences?

[Walt]

Nationalism in the DPRK (with the absent of religion- most people are atheists) really form and create the country for the reason it hasn't collapsed completely- even after the collapse of the USSR and even after the famine of the 90's. I think this is a good example of successful Nationalism- and quite possibly a role model for other developing nations.

[Tatarin]

Nationalism in the DPRK (with the absent of religion- most people are atheists) really form and create the country for the reason it hasn't collapsed completely- even after the collapse of the USSR and even after the famine of the 90's.

But it isn't necessary, and I doubt it can be called nationalism as such. Sure, perhaps they needed some unifying thing to fight for, but I'm pretty certain they would like to expand rather than being temporarily "nationalist" (until South Korea or China adopts "Juche", or something like that).


I think this is a good example of successful Nationalism- and quite possibly a role model for other developing nations.

Rather, other countries should not dwelve to much into nationalism, as that would only create new competition (USSR-PRC crisis in the 1960s, for example, though both were "socialist"). Other nations should on the contrary be open to merger with one another, as that would finally unify their people.

Communism is, after all, international.

[Walt]

But it isn't necessary, and I doubt it can be called nationalism as such. Sure, perhaps they needed some unifying thing to fight for, but I'm pretty certain they would like to expand rather than being temporarily "nationalist" (until South Korea or China adopts "Juche", or something like that).

Nationalism doesn't restrict relations with other countries, you know. And it may not be necessary, but you'd be a fool to say it isn't helpful.



Rather, other countries should not dwelve to much into nationalism, as that would only create new competition (USSR-PRC crisis in the 1960s, for example, though both were "socialist"). Other nations should on the contrary be open to merger with one another, as that would finally unify their people.

Communism is, after all, international.

[the last donut of the night]

I have been meaning to post this thread for a while and im really interested in your opinions. so like the title says, is nationalism acceptable under certain conditions ie. imperialism. Two examples i can think of are Irish Nationalism (please no more arguments!!) and Basque Nationalism and i am sure there are more. They both are resisting foreign or outside powers. Is this form of nationalism acceptable? Those involved are trying to cling on to their culture and way of life while resisting outside forces. Personally i think this form of nationalism is ok although the techniques used may be questionable. Also would this type of nationalism (does it have a specific name?) and national liberation be the same or do they have slight/significant differences?

Nope. Nationalism is a bourgeois ideology. It is pitted against the workers. An example is the nationalist Palestinian leaders who as soon as they got power, betrayed the common Arabs of Palestine.

[ls]

Nationalism doesn't restrict relations with other countries, you know.

Oh right, silly me. Nationalism of countries where the government has systemically attacked the people of another does in no way make workers think the other country is evil.


And it may not be necessary, but you'd be a fool to say it isn't helpful.

Nationalism can be extremely helpful if you're bourgeoisie, it's certainly not a conducive factor for revolution.

Go on, tell us how it helped the DPRK. :rolleyes:

[Walt]

Oh right, silly me. Nationalism of countries where the government has systemically attacked the people of another does in no way make workers think the other country is evil.

I'm not defending everything that is done, if you want to relate that to nationalism, go for it.



Nationalism can be extremely helpful if you're bourgeoisie, it's certainly not a conducive factor for revolution.

Go on, tell us how it helped the DPRK. :rolleyes:
Simply put, and I've said this before, without nationalism, the DPRK would have most likely collapsed with the USSR, along with the 90's famine/drought. Nationalism in the DPRK has kept unity within the workers, has made crime virtually non-existent, and many more things. Saying that nationalism is only helpful to the bourgeoisie, and is oppresive towards workers, is wrong.

[khad]

Nationalism is a fact of life and an important praxis of mobilization. Even the Paris Commune used patriotic rhetoric of fighting the invading Germans as part of its appeal.

Ideally speaking, nationalism is a force that is better relegated to the intellectual dustbin, but the problem is that real life politics are going to be nationalist in one way or another, and the challenge then is to steer nationalism in ways that are productive and not completely antithetical to class struggle. For oppressed populations, nationalism is an important psychological factor which imparts a measure of dignity to peoples who have been denied it. The same thing can be said for religion, which depending on situation can have a socially progressive (ie the Civil Rights Movement) or reactionary (Spanish Civil War) role.

Even as we leftists are skeptical of nationalism and its tendency to turn reactionary, we should be aware of the possibilities it offers.

[Tatarin]

Nationalism doesn't restrict relations with other countries, you know.

Not necessarily, no. But relations are for the good of the rulers of that nation, and in no case is this "temporary nationalism" going towards merger with other countries.

The establishment of communism is like the Paris Commune - it will never be recognized and it will be invaded by one power or another. Even if we extend Stalin's thinking of "socialism in one country" to the best of socialist societies, they would still need a huge army to defend themselves against outside invaders, borders, restrictions, and so on.


And it may not be necessary, but you'd be a fool to say it isn't helpful.

But helpful how? Maybe Kim Il Sung's vision was a temporary nation until the rest of the world adopted socialism, and then dissolve the DPRK. Yes, if we knew that that would happen, sure. But it did not. His son took over, the USSR dissolved instead, and now they're left defunct with an half-ally in the north (China).

In that sense, it is not nationalism, but strategic positions. In any revolution, the revolteers take control of positions and reinforce them until the revolution is over and the new society established. But if you start to dress up that position with it's own flag, songs, "way of life" and such, then you have a problem.


Nationalism in the DPRK has kept unity within the workers, has made crime virtually non-existent, and many more things.

That isn't nationalism, that's tougher takes by the police force. What crime can there be when people doesn't have anything to be stolen?

Workers unity isn't nationalism, it depends on the situation. Workers in the Microsoft Corporation are "united" because they work for the same employer.


Saying that nationalism is only helpful to the bourgeoisie, and is oppresive towards workers, is wrong.

Nationalism is on the list of things to be exterminated by most people here.

[RadioRaheem84]

I dont advocate it. But it is certainly a thing that you cannot exterminate in the people. People generally have an outlook of themselves as being of a certain nationality and or ethnic group. While those lines are constantly blurred, they're still there. Sometimes nationalism is a powerfull motivating force. Socialists and Syndicalists in transition to Fascism realized that you were not going to motivate the workers through this utopian idea of a world union, but through pure nationalism. Sometimes a mythologized version of that nation as in George Sorell's case. While I disagree, I can where they were going with that and yes the idea of nation will and should come into play when mobilizing workers against the capitalist class who itself advocates an internationalism of sorts; globalization.

[Walt]

That isn't nationalism, that's tougher takes by the police force. What crime can there be when people doesn't have anything to be stolen?

Yes, nationalism does indeed play a major part why there is virtually no crime. The songun policy also plays a part, but not near as much as nationalistic virtues. In a hypothetical situation, all North Koreans were stripped of their nationalism, I can guarantee you there would be a huge spike increase in crime, even with a police force. Your argument is null and void. Same with your argument below:


Workers unity isn't nationalism, it depends on the situation. Workers in the Microsoft Corporation are "united" because they work for the same employer.
Comparing a socialist country to a capitalistic organization is absurd. Again, if all North Koreans were stripped of their nationalism, I could no longer say that the citizens of the working class would, in a sense, no longer be united.

[Revy]

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.

[Tatarin]

Yes, nationalism does indeed play a major part why there is virtually no crime.

Why do you define it as nationalism? Even if the DPRK is that perfect, it is so because of its government. If they want to call it nationalism or socialism, that is up to them.

In that case, Nazi Germany was the most nationalist regime in history. Did they have less crime than today's Federal Germany? Can you see the argument here?


In a hypothetical situation, all North Koreans were stripped of their nationalism, I can guarantee you there would be a huge spike increase in crime, even with a police force.

So you mean that if Kim Jong Il died and was replaced by some other guy, who "opened up" the country, and at the same time took away cheap food and free medicine, North Koreans wouldn't react?

In that case, China did not lose anything of it's "nationalism". They still have a communist party. They are still "nationalistic" about their great country, yet it is very different from when it was ruled by Mao Zedong. There are riots and uprisings in all parts of China. So this must be because the Chinese lost their nationalism?

Consider other nations, such as the United States, where you can find a lot of nationalists.


Comparing a socialist country to a capitalistic organization is absurd.

That depend all too much on what worldview you have.


Again, if all North Koreans were stripped of their nationalism, I could no longer say that the citizens of the working class would, in a sense, no longer be united.

So communism can never exist because it will mean the end of nationalism?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Only in soccer. In real life no. Now preserving a culture does not require nationalism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

In these cases it is Nationalism which weakens our struggle. No I don't think Nationalism is acceptable in your conditions. I think we should advocate class struggle politics.