Arguing against nationalists

[maskerade]

I've recently been getting into trouble arguing with nationalists, especially the ones which denounce racism yet still cling to ethno-pluralism (separate but equal). Most of the attacks are on immigration, with a lot of nationalists going on and on about the erosion of european culture, becoming foreigners "in our own country", and pretty much just hating on multiculturalism for a variety of reason.

I've tried explaining my point of view, which is that crime, for example, (which nationalists tend to blame on immigrants) is purely socio-economic and that immigrants that come to our country are often very low down on the social pyramid, and thus commit crimes. I run into problems, however, when they start talking about things like rape - unfortunately, immigrants are overrepresented in rape in Sweden. Nationalists also go on and on about how immigrants hate swedish people etc.

A lot also seem to think that it is either undesirable or impossible for different ethnic groups to live together, with one saying that "marxists and socialists don't understand ethnic conflict", as if though it is completely natural. They have pretty much replaced their old racism with hatred for other cultures.

What does one say when people just outright reject socio-economic explanations? And how do we debate with these people? These people are becoming more and more popular in sweden, and if we ignore them, they will just keep growing :(

[Atlee]

Firstly, stop using "these people" because it is a Freudian slip.

When the issue placed out is Marx or socioeconomic this relates to an economist and money earned which has nothing to do with culture, race, faith, law, or a the content of melanin a human has under the skin. Now imagine trying to speak binary code without a computer. This can be done by translating the code to mathematical numbers, you then have to find out what the numbers mean. Next, explain what was translated. It is just that easy.

In the past nationalist the world round have worked with communist. Ever since World War II, Chiang Kai-shek, (young) Ho Chi Mihn, and even the more modern status of Iran we see "issues" that do not always meet up for long term goal achievements.

Each point has its own reason over time or place and events surrounding it.

[maskerade]

Firstly, stop using "these people" because it is a Freudian slip.

When the issue placed out is Marx or socioeconomic this relates to an economist and money earned which has nothing to do with culture, race, faith, law, or a the content of melanin a human has under the skin. Now imagine trying to speak binary code without a computer. This can be done by translating the code to mathematical numbers, you then have to find out what the numbers mean. Next, explain what was translated. It is just that easy.

In the past nationalist the world round have worked with communist. Ever since World War II, Chiang Kai-shek, (young) Ho Chi Mihn, and even the more modern status of Iran we see "issues" that do not always meet up for long term goal achievements.

Each point has its own reason over time or place and events surrounding it.

"these" is a demonstrative indicating which "people" I am referring to. But thanks, the rest of your post just seems like complete nonsense though. Perhaps you or someone else could clarify?

[Atlee]

"these" is a demonstrative indicating which "people" I am referring to. But thanks, the rest of your post just seems like complete nonsense though. Perhaps you or someone else could clarify?

Using "nationalists" works fine and is understood.

Then you did understand exactly what I was saying as talking with nationalists is "complete nonsense".

[Robocommie]

When the issue placed out is Marx or socioeconomic this relates to an economist and money earned which has nothing to do with culture, race, faith, law, or a the content of melanin a human has under the skin. Now imagine trying to speak binary code without a computer. This can be done by translating the code to mathematical numbers, you then have to find out what the numbers mean. Next, explain what was translated. It is just that easy.

The last, bolded sentence is my favorite part of this paragraph.

[mosfeld]

You should differentiate between progressive nationalism, i.e, nationalism of the oppressed, and reactionary nationalism, i.e, nationalism of the oppressor. Reactionary nationalists, e.g white nationalists, empower an already privileged group of people and have an overtly imperialist character, whereas progressive nationalists, e.g black nationalists, empower an oppressed group of people and have an overtly anti-imperialist character. Bluntly put, there's a contradiction between the two. Progressive nationalists are our allies against imperialism and should not be stamped together with reactionary nationalists.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Arguing against national chauvinists is pointless, just avoid doing that.

Discussing with someone who has such views, but can have a normal conversation, and can listen to your words is totally different. At that point I'm sure you can elaborate on how their positions are incorrect by yourself.

[Palingenisis]

You should differentiate between progressive nationalism, i.e, nationalism of the oppressed, and reactionary nationalism, i.e, nationalism of the oppressor. Reactionary nationalists, e.g white nationalists, empower an already privileged group of people and have an overtly imperialist character, whereas progressive nationalists, e.g black nationalists, empower an oppressed group of people and have an overtly anti-imperialist character. Bluntly put, there's a contradiction between the two. Progressive nationalists are our allies against imperialism and should not be stamped together with reactionary nationalists.

But even in the case of the nationalism of an oppressed nation there can be reactionaires. I know in the case of my own country there is a huge difference between a Seamus Costello and a Gerry Mc Geough.

[Animal Farm Pig]

I've recently been getting into trouble arguing with nationalists, especially the ones which denounce racism yet still cling to ethno-pluralism (separate but equal). Most of the attacks are on immigration, with a lot of nationalists going on and on about the erosion of european culture, becoming foreigners "in our own country", and pretty much just hating on multiculturalism for a variety of reason.

I've tried explaining my point of view, which is that crime, for example, (which nationalists tend to blame on immigrants) is purely socio-economic and that immigrants that come to our country are often very low down on the social pyramid, and thus commit crimes. I run into problems, however, when they start talking about things like rape - unfortunately, immigrants are overrepresented in rape in Sweden. Nationalists also go on and on about how immigrants hate swedish people etc.

A lot also seem to think that it is either undesirable or impossible for different ethnic groups to live together, with one saying that "marxists and socialists don't understand ethnic conflict", as if though it is completely natural. They have pretty much replaced their old racism with hatred for other cultures.

What does one say when people just outright reject socio-economic explanations? And how do we debate with these people? These people are becoming more and more popular in sweden, and if we ignore them, they will just keep growing :(

Look at it as a human rights issue. In many poor countries, people are living in situations that probably do not meet most people's definition of a dignified life with proper human rights. They are able to live a more dignified life in Sweden.

Don't all people deserve basic human rights? If they are unable to live a dignified life in their home countries, what choice do you have but to welcome them to your country?

You can work to improve the living situation in poor countries, and I'm all for that. Until that work is complete, are you willing to force people to live in oppression?

To be sure, other countries can also welcome immigrants. If they aren't, then we should work together to get them to change their policies. That should not be an invitation to shirk your responsibility.

With respect to higher crime rate, that's terrible. Imagine the circumstances leading to someone committing anti-social acts. The solution is not persecution of immigrants. The solution is to stand in solidarity with the immigrants to address the issues leading to crime.

That leads to culture. Maybe part of the higher crime rate is related to cultural differences-- for example, value and role of women in society. There may be other cultural differences that you just dislike and make you feel like "a foreigner in your own country." The important thing to remember is that culture is not static. It changes over time. As a society, you have to right to change the culture of your society. In fact, you have a duty to examine your cultural practices and values and to keep those that affirm human rights and dignity and to throw out those in opposition. That applies to both native culture and the culture of newcomers.


So, perhaps that's a bit long, but that's how I think about the issue, and how I would respond to your nationalist countrymen. I hope this was helpful.

[maskerade]

You should differentiate between progressive nationalism, i.e, nationalism of the oppressed, and reactionary nationalism, i.e, nationalism of the oppressor. Reactionary nationalists, e.g white nationalists, empower an already privileged group of people and have an overtly imperialist character, whereas progressive nationalists, e.g black nationalists, empower an oppressed group of people and have an overtly anti-imperialist character. Bluntly put, there's a contradiction between the two. Progressive nationalists are our allies against imperialism and should not be stamped together with reactionary nationalists.

Yea, I've studied nationalism before. But the problematic thing is that the particular nationalists I'm referring to (called national democrats) are saying that if we continue immigration, ethnic swedes will be the oppressed group in Sweden (which I think is complete nonsense seeing as all industry is still owned by Swedes etc). And I'm usually accused of hating my fellow countrymen, and I'm always asked "don't you just prefer hanging out with the same ethnic group?" and when I answer that my preference lies in personality not ethnicity they simply dismiss me as being politically correct.

And these people are very careful not to be overtly racist


That leads to culture. Maybe part of the higher crime rate is related to cultural differences-- for example, value and role of women in society. There may be other cultural differences that you just dislike and make you feel like "a foreigner in your own country." The important thing to remember is that culture is not static. It changes over time. As a society, you have to right to change the culture of your society. In fact, you have a duty to examine your cultural practices and values and to keep those that affirm human rights and dignity and to throw out those in opposition. That applies to both native culture and the culture of newcomers.

So as socialists/communists, what position should we have in regards to things like multiculturalism, integration, and assimilation? I personally think assimilation is terrible, but at the same time, certain cultural values, such as lack of respect for women etc cannot function in the same society which practice another cultural understanding of gender equality.

thanks for the responses though

[AK]

Nationalism is completely reactionary when it comes to a socialist view of it. It divides the working class and is especially dangerous when we live in a "multicultural society" or what have you. Not only that, but it's been the last major tactic of the Bourgeoisie to get the lower classes to support them in their imperialist wars and their continuous exploitation of the working class. Why the fuck does anyone want to use such a reactionary tactic?

[Quail]

Look at it as a human rights issue. In many poor countries, people are living in situations that probably do not meet most people's definition of a dignified life with proper human rights. They are able to live a more dignified life in Sweden.

Don't all people deserve basic human rights? If they are unable to live a dignified life in their home countries, what choice do you have but to welcome them to your country?

You can work to improve the living situation in poor countries, and I'm all for that. Until that work is complete, are you willing to force people to live in oppression?

To be sure, other countries can also welcome immigrants. If they aren't, then we should work together to get them to change their policies. That should not be an invitation to shirk your responsibility.


Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but if somebody believed that they were superior to people in poorer parts of the world because of their race, would they be bothered about the human rights of the people they consider to be inferior? I see a lot of comments on vaguley nationalist facebook groups where people say that they would rather provide for people born in their own country than help immigrants to have a decent quality of life. While they continue to believe that they are superior to other human beings, I don't see why they would accept your argument.

[Dimentio]

You should differentiate between progressive nationalism, i.e, nationalism of the oppressed, and reactionary nationalism, i.e, nationalism of the oppressor. Reactionary nationalists, e.g white nationalists, empower an already privileged group of people and have an overtly imperialist character, whereas progressive nationalists, e.g black nationalists, empower an oppressed group of people and have an overtly anti-imperialist character. Bluntly put, there's a contradiction between the two. Progressive nationalists are our allies against imperialism and should not be stamped together with reactionary nationalists.

It isn't really that simple nowadays. I would claim that the difference is laying in the outlook of the form of "nationalism" rather in which group is wielding it. There have been very fascist forms of nationalism in Africa and in Asia as well (Imperial Japan, Uganda under Amin, Rwanda in the early 90's).

If there was a form of black nationalism which preached black biological superiority visavi other skin colours, it should have been condemned on equal grounds with white nationalism.

Progressive nationalism is when a movement is striving for a group of people or a region which has historically been repressed, in order to attain equal rights while regressive nationalism is nationalism which exists in order to promote one group at the expense of another group, or to isolate one group and claim it to have superior rights within a specific territory.

I do not for example have any problems with Irish nationalists who want a reunited Ireland, or Scottish and Welsh nationalists who want continued devolution. Ethno-pluralists though, are creating a regressive group pattern which is terribly particularist and is defining humanity alongside vulgar biological lines which are hailing from the realm of horsebreeding, while simultaneously presenting no answer at all to any real problems.

Ethno-pluralism is basically the new toga for fascists, claiming that "blacks are not inferior to whites, but so inherently different that they cannot live together". It is basically a watered down variation of Apartheid as practiced in America and South Africa, and now imported as a fringe ideology into Europe.

In some ways, I think it is good that the fascists have stopped to openly call for the conquest of other nations. It shows that it is politically impossible to openly advocate imperialism (modern fascists are often against foreign intervention, and critical of US warfare in Yugoslavia, the Middle East and other places, though not for the same reason as progressive forces).

[Animal Farm Pig]

So as socialists/communists, what position should we have in regards to things like multiculturalism, integration, and assimilation? I personally think assimilation is terrible, but at the same time, certain cultural values, such as lack of respect for women etc cannot function in the same society which practice another cultural understanding of gender equality.

Well, I'm not so strong on theory. Someone else may be able to bring up a much better analysis than I can manage.

I think it's important to recognize the primacy of mode of production and class conflict in the formation, changes, and perpetuation of culture. For exmaple, you can look towards the demographic transition model for evidence of the role of mode of production in cultural practice. It's important to recognize calls for "preservation of culture" as nakedly reactionary. The dominant culture is the culture of the dominant class. Outcries about "loss of culture" are really outcries against degradation of dominant class power. That's my short answer.

I've noticed (especially among liberals) a fetishization of culture as such. In it's most extreme form, it leads to total relativism. I myself was made "not welcome" in a university anthropology program because I refused to accept the idea that one cannot make value judgement about the practices of other cultures. Apartheid is wrong. Women's subjugation is wrong. Imperial violence is wrong. All of these things are the practice of culture. To say "Oh, we must respect the culture," and do nothing is to be an accomplice in the practice.

I'm not arguing for "assimilation" as such. When one talks about assimilation, it typically means that immigrants should turn their backs on their own culture and adopt the dominant culture without question. This is just as reactionary as making no demands. I think that the proper attitude is to look towards synthesizing a new, more progressive culture in partnership with others.

One other point-- you won't change culture just by asking people. Liberals will often use fears of "cultural imperialism" (in fact, no such thing exists; there is only imperialism) to justify not acting to address problems outside their native culture. The idea is that a white guy from a rich country can go to (for example) Africa and change (or, liberals might say "destroy") the culture just by talking with people. This is total fantasy. It comes from class arrogance and, frankly, a racist view of brown folks who are just waiting for the white guy to tell them what to do. To change culture, you have to change the material conditions. That is how real imperialism twisted cultures throughout the global south to serve the wants of the colonial powers.


A positive example of changing culture through changing material conditions:

I used to work for an NGO that was running an anti-HIV/AIDS program modeled after the anti-colonial people's liberation movements in Africa. We received funding to expand our program in Mozambique. Before the expansion, we did ethnographic study of the new areas of operation. We found that in one of the rural areas the custom was for a woman to marry the brother of her husband if the husband died. This was adaptive in the past, but when the adult HIV prevalence rate is over 20%, it's a disaster.

We could send our most passionate field officers to the area to implore new widows not to marry their brothers-in-law. Just asking and explaining alone would do little. It's necessary to change the material conditions. So, we established a subsidized/free food program for widows and orphans. We also established cooperative income generating projects where widows receive small loans, grants, and technical assistance to start production of chickens, gardens, craft production, etc. It wasn't easy, and some people (predominantly men) disagreed with the program at the beginning, but the program was successful. Now, women no longer have to either marry their brother-in-law or starve. Together with out other actions, HIV prevalence rate is dropping in the area, and living conditions are better than they were five years ago.

We changed the culture in that place. Reactionaries can ***** about destruction of culture, "cultural imperialism", failure to respect other cultures, etc. all they want. I'm not listening. Human life and human dignity come before upholding the culture of the dominant class in any society.




Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but if somebody believed that they were superior to people in poorer parts of the world because of their race, would they be bothered about the human rights of the people they consider to be inferior? I see a lot of comments on vaguley nationalist facebook groups where people say that they would rather provide for people born in their own country than help immigrants to have a decent quality of life. While they continue to believe that they are superior to other human beings, I don't see why they would accept your argument.

No, racists who do not accept the value of other human life probably would not accept my argument. My argument is for otherwise decent people who may just have some incorrect views. To be honest, I don't bother discussing such things with outright racists. It's usually tedious and stupid.

[Agnapostate]

Nationalist arguments in the majority of American countries can be undercut easily because they were gained through the aggressive dispossession of the indigenous population, and thus don't possess much in the way of absolute moral legitimacy. Sweden's history is not free of imperial conquest, as there was once an empire established in central Scandinavia. The indigenous population is still in control, though, so it's not quite as hard-hitting.

Nationalism simply doesn't have any grounds, in my opinion. National citizenship is generally not a matter of personal or conscious decision, and therefore doesn't constitute an accomplishment. Try Rocker's Nationalism and Culture (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/rocker/nc.htm) if you've not read it before.

[Dimentio]

Nationalist arguments in the majority of American countries can be undercut easily because they were gained through the aggressive dispossession of the indigenous population, and thus don't possess much in the way of absolute moral legitimacy. Sweden's history is not free of imperial conquest, as there was once an empire established in central Scandinavia. The indigenous population is still in control, though, so it's not quite as hard-hitting.

Nationalism simply doesn't have any grounds, in my opinion. National citizenship is generally not a matter of personal or conscious decision, and therefore doesn't constitute an accomplishment. Try Rocker's Nationalism and Culture (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/rocker/nc.htm) if you've not read it before.

The Swedish Empire was never discriminatory or imperialist in the same sense as the American acquisition of the west, nor the British establishment of their holdings in Canada and Oceania. The Swedish Empire, consisting of Finland (which was an integrated part of Sweden), Estonia, Latvia and some holdings in northern Germany, was largely built on multi-culturalism, where each region kept its own national culture and the governors and local elites were of the same origin.

The only exception to this in this aspect generally benevolent rule was the treatment of Scania during Charles XI. Scania had been a Danish region for about a 1000 years when it was annexed by Sweden, and its population answered by a vigorous guerilla resistance, culminating in the murder of a large part of the provincial population and forced Swedification which was very cruel.

Scania nowadays is bizarrely enough the area in Sweden where Swedish vulgar nationalism is most fervent. If it wasn't for that area, the Swedish fascists would lose about 95% of their support base.

Racism was influential in Sweden during the first half of the 20th century though, with Apartheid-like conditions for the native Sames, forced Swedification of the Tornedal-Finns in the 50's and 60's, sterilisation campaigns against "undesirables" and the establishment of a social-darwinistic institute in Uppsala.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Three terms for arguing against nationalist hypocrisy: capital mobility, labour arbitrage, and outsourcing.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Three terms for arguing against nationalist hypocrisy: capital mobility, labour arbitrage, and outsourcing.

What on earth are you on about?

Nic.

[SammXVX]

The nationalists are trying to "improve" their nations, even when nothing has been done to it. Trying to appeal to the public by using what sound like "anti-racist" deals, when they are just as bad.

For example, the Mexican border in America.
They hide racism with "trying to keep our people safe", blaming them for murders, rapes and stealing jobs, pay and education.

The concern of many people (those with families) is keeping their families safe, and if "safety" is offered, they will go against basic things to insure it.

They take into toll only what immigrants have done, and not their own people. Whether it be current or in the past, they will not take account for their actions because for some reason, they don't realize you really can't hide bullshit.

I'm probably off topic and ranting, but eh.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In some ways, I think it is good that the fascists have stopped to openly call for the conquest of other nations. It shows that it is politically impossible to openly advocate imperialism (modern fascists are often against foreign intervention, and critical of US warfare in Yugoslavia, the Middle East and other places, though not for the same reason as progressive forces).

Some Internet fascists have stated that they have an introverted policy precisely because the previous fascist imperialism allowed for migration of scores of people from conquered nations into conqueror nations. To today's scum, even imported slave labour plants the seeds of corruption of their soil.

[Kowalski]

The main points of nationalist positions I faced in my country, listed here:
- "crime increasing thank to immigrants"
- "if we continue immigration, ethnic russians will be the oppressed group in Russia" & "if you are defending immigrants then you hate your fellow countrymen"
- "we'll lost our culture because of immigrants"

And of course, nationalists always have nothing against Russian's expansion towards originally non-russian regions like Volga, Ural, Siberia, Far East, Caucasus, Central Asia, Baltic region. They often said it was "peaceful" or that our nation had "civilised" other nations in these regions so it was good. Russians may live everywhere, but other nations in Russia are bad. Maybe same thing is natural for other countries' nationalists so it's the way to discover their nazi-style chauvinism in public discussion.

1) So-called "immigrant criminal nature" is just a piece of lie, I've seen the police statistic statement on this. Rate of crimes for migrants was lower than for non-migrants. And it has very simple explanation, as well as this prejudice's source. First, labour migrants here in Russia are very often illegal, or legalised but without at least a little guaranteed rights defending. Therefore immigrants are very careful not to meet with policemen. Because policemen are very often just racketeering them by any occasion or without occasion at all. Migrants are often even go by subway or by street with fear because any policeman can stop them and do anything. As a rule labour migrants can't even think about smth more illigal then to work and to go on street. Because they came here for feeding their families, not for paying money to policemen.

And we have here not only labour migrants but also business immigrants. People with a lot of impudence because of their privileged positions in comparison with majority of people. And of cource many people don't distinguish between working migrants and business migrants in topic of crimes. But it's the main thing here. Migrant businessmen can pay bribes to police and be unworried. They can do what they want, including crime. And they really do the crime. So the main argument in this point is to show differences between workers and capitalists or petit-bourgeoisie among immigrants.

And second, medias are often tell about nationality if a criminal was immigrant, but they don't say about it if a criminal wasn't immigrant, so the medias create impression that immigrants do more crime then locals.

2) - about "oppressed locals". Certainly, you may repeat this thing about difference between working and business migrants. Oppression is a result of competition. Competition is the nature of business, not of co-working. What about "immigrants stealing our labour places" you can answer that not migrants decide whom to hire, but enterprises' owners. They are mostly locals, but even not, it doesn't matter because we have to struggle against all big business owners, not only against non-locals of them :confused:
And we must defend our class interests, including labour places, collectively - all together local and immigrant workers because we'll have stronger force that cause. Bosses prefer to hire immigrants for certain jobs because they are more deprived of rights, more submissive.

Boss can pay them less, force them work more and harder. It's the cause of hiring immigrants. And the main thing is that nationalists when demanding more oppression against migrants (for example to drive them out of country) - they don't eliminate the economic cause of hiring migrants, but they even strengthen it. Because more oppression force immigrants to agree with worse conditions of labour, less wage. But even so conditions in their native country may stay worse. So because of this nationalist oppression against immigrants their labour force become even more cheaper and competition for labour places between immigrants and local workers grow up.
Nationalists therefore fight against locals as well.

The way to decrease this competition is directly opposite. To struggle for better labour conditions and better wages for immigrans workers. To struggle for these better conditions for all workers, locals and immigrants altogether. To make united force of locals and guest workers against bosses' oppression. Then all them can control labour places and fight against unemployment. Nationalist fight to cleave this workers force is direct fight for bosses against all workers, locals as well as immigrants.
And second cause of nationalist propaganda is simply to defend one's own business in competition with immigrants business. So it really doesn't matter for us, common people, who's business will oppress us.

3) And the last point, culture. The great example here is Soviet Union, even if trots hate it. The main national culture politics was to help all ethnic cultures' growth. They got alphabets, schools with native language teaching for all subjects, national literature and other arts growth. Even cinematograph (native cinema studios of national republics were producing incomparable more better films, then todays "National Independent Russia" is making). Etc.
As a result, we've got a great multinational synthesized Soviet culture with great literature, cinema, education, science, etc. And we've lost all this without any exclusions after the breakdown of the USSR.

And russian nationalists can never prove that all this soviet multinationalism and cultural equality have damaged the russian ethnic culture :blink: Contrariwise, russian culture grew up together with all, had excellent literature and cinema too. But now, without "national extraneous" Republics, the culture level of Russia is so poor that we can only cry and laugh on it simultaneously..... :( For example the most of today's russian big and expensive well-advertised films smell really like shit... :blink: Especially historical propaganda. Not only in ideas of them, but in workmanship too. And it's obvious that we've lost our culture not because of migrants and not because of "Great Jews' Conspiracy" :blink: - but only because of ruling class' cultural politics, business instead of true humane culture.

So in conclusion, multinational equality doesn't damage true ethnic culture, the culture of people, it damages only reactionary remains of ruling class' "culture" like women oppression and etc "traditions" :blink: but contrariwise this equlity helps the culture to grow up, including with contacts of other cultures.

Sorry for such a lot of text =))))))))