German nationalism and the World Cup

[Wanted Man]

Article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,703533,00.html

(yes, a reliable source ;))

Probably one of the stranger World Cup stories I've read, but what do people here think?

[Honggweilo]

not as strange as germans wanting to kill paul the octopus, to the point that spain and the netherlands wanted to provide "political amnesty" :lol:

[Wanted Man]

Well, after his latest prediction, I definitely agree that it's high time for Paul the Octopus to meet the chef of the nearest tapas restaurant.

Anyway, you've got to give it to Germans: whatever they do, they do it hardcore: immigrant integration, nationalism, anti-nationalism, dealing with octopuses who make the "wrong" predictions, etc. They are still as determined and industrious as ever.

[ComradeOm]

Probably one of the stranger World Cup stories I've read, but what do people here think?Nothing wrong with waving a flag, its what it stands for that matters. From what I've witnessed, and I was there in 2006, the past few years have seen a real shifting in the role/connotations associated with the German flag. From from being a nationalist symbol, I'd argue that the Nationalmannschaft has progressively stripped it of the old nationalism and rehabilitated it as something that all Germans, of immigrant descent or not, can identify with and display

[Wanted Man]

That would be my first reflex as well, although it's kind of funny that the media are using the opportunity to bang on about horrible anti-patriotic anarchists who are trying to spoil the national party.

That said, the German radical left do seem to be insanely "anti-national" and politically correct in general. I know this German radical girl who studies over here, and she literally seems to think that all Dutch people are racist, sexist troglodytes, because all kinds of politically incorrect humour is accepted here.

Personally, I think there is an important difference between real internationalism and whiny liberal "anti-nationalism".

[Widerstand]

Article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,703533,00.html

(yes, a reliable source ;))

Probably one of the stranger World Cup stories I've read, but what do people here think?

That they insist on mislabeling Anti Germans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_(political_current)) as "Anarchists" or "Left Wing" is a low blow to all legit leftists and anarchists. Why Anti-Germans insist on attacking immigrants is beyond me. That the interviewed guy supposedly feels like a "proper" German, whatever the fuck that means, just proves their point though - The Anti-German's opposition to soccer-related nationalism is one of their few points I agree on. I laugh at the attempt to pass this off as proper integration, when there are still lots of immigrants living in ghetto-like isolation; let alone our horrid deportation politics. This article makes me sad. Ah well, Spiegel blows anyway.


Anyway, you've got to give it to Germans: whatever they do, they do it hardcore: immigrant integration, nationalism, anti-nationalism, dealing with octopuses who make the "wrong" predictions, etc. They are still as determined and industrious as ever.

Yeah.

Hold on, are you suggesting that immigrant integration is GOOD in Germany? Because that's simply false.


That would be my first reflex as well, although it's kind of funny that the media are using the opportunity to bang on about horrible anti-patriotic anarchists who are trying to spoil the national party.

That said, the German radical left do seem to be insanely "anti-national" and politically correct in general. I know this German radical girl who studies over here, and she literally seems to think that all Dutch people are racist, sexist troglodytes, because all kinds of politically incorrect humour is accepted here.

Personally, I think there is an important difference between real internationalism and whiny liberal "anti-nationalism".

Well, a big part of the German left (and the German right for that matter) have this butthurtness about political correctness, that's definitely true. It's a post-WW2 thing.

[Wanted Man]

Hold on, are you suggesting that immigrant integration is GOOD in Germany? Because that's simply false.

I knew I had forgotten sarcasm.

[Widerstand]

I knew I had forgotten sarcasm.

Well you were right on nationalism and anti-nationalism :P

[praxis1966]

Well, after his latest prediction, I definitely agree that it's high time for Paul the Octopus to meet the chef of the nearest tapas restaurant.

I would have gone with "chef of the nearest sushi restaurant" personally. Nigiri sounds much funnier to me than paella.

[R_P_A_S]

my girlfriend is german and her extended family is all kinds of turkish, polish, czechs and now MEXICANS!! its the world up! so we have fun and cheer for those guys! plus is a cool flag! ;)

[Ravachol]

Nothing wrong with waving a flag, its what it stands for that matters. From what I've witnessed, and I was there in 2006, the past few years have seen a real shifting in the role/connotations associated with the German flag. From from being a nationalist symbol, I'd argue that the Nationalmannschaft has progressively stripped it of the old nationalism and rehabilitated it as something that all Germans, of immigrant descent or not, can identify with and display

Which is exactly the problem. Whether you like it or not the entire notion of 'we, as Germans' reproduces the concept of national unity and, by extension, class collaboration. There is no such thing as 'we, the Germans' or 'we, the Dutch'. Whilst a lot of people don't really care about the national football team or football at all and just want to have a bit of collective fun, there is a nasty element to the entire 'national spectacle' that espouses and reproduces a collective identity, if only in the period surrounding the football matches. Sure, when it comes to nationalism there are far more important issues to focus on but by no means is the idea of 'everybody can identify as a German, even immigrants!' a class-neutral one. The reproduction of the concept of natoinal unity, whether through a collective identity in a spectaclist fashion or through a corporatist approach to the economic crisis (eg. "we're all in this together") serves only to smother class consciousness.

Tearing down flags like this isn't going to deconstruct nationalism however. It has hegemonic origins that can only be deconstructed in a materialist fashion, not by a 'prollier than thou' idealist attitude.

[eclipse]

Personally, I think there is an important difference between real internationalism and whiny liberal "anti-nationalism".

Could you explain this to me? If anarchism/communism does not intend to transcendend the nation state, "the worker has no fatherland", what else?
I have no problem with people who are outspoken antinational (i am one), but with people rallying for national souvereignity under a left cover. "Socialism in one country" failed our aims everywhere.


Whether you like it or not the entire notion of 'we, as Germans' reproduces the concept of national unity and, by extension, class collaboration. There is no such thing as 'we, the Germans' or 'we, the Dutch'.
Yes. Even if immigrants use this as possibility to be part of the german collective, they are also taking part in an event that reproduces discriminating stereotypes (within football open racist or antisemitic statements are widely accepted), is dominated by white-hetero-males and conveys structures that will make the life of immigrants more difficult in the long term.

[ComradeOm]

There is no such thing as 'we, the Germans' or 'we, the Dutch'I disagree entirely. Like it or not, national identities do exist and have, to varying degrees, always existed. The idea that a worker born and raised in Dublin is identical to a comrade born and raised in, say, Toulouse is false

There is however absolutely nothing wrong with having a shared cultural background. It does not preclude class action and it is not inherently exclusive. That is the preserve of certain political currents... which events such as the WC have proven useful in 'de-clawing'

[bricolage]

I disagree entirely. Like it or not, national identities do exist and have, to varying degrees, always existed.

Not really, most of what we currently refer to as national identities are more modern constructs (especially in the postcolonial "first the state, then the nation") world. Even if we look to Europe we can see how they have, largely artificially, been formed, albeit not to as high a degree, recently, for example Mazzimo d'Azeglio; "We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians" or how Romanian was consciously moved to a Latin not Cyrillic alphabet in order to separate it from Pan-Slavic tendencies. There are numerous other examples of how the nation has most often (I won't say always or you will catch me out with examples) been a mode of exclusion and separation. To the extent that it has fostered inclusion it has always been inclusion that necessitates exclusion of others.


The idea that a worker born and raised in Dublin is identical to a comrade born and raised in, say, Toulouse is false

To be fair I don't think even the most ardent anti-nationalist is going to claim this.


There is however absolutely nothing wrong with having a shared cultural background.

Yes, but, and I may get confused here, having a shared cultural background is in a number of distinctive ways different from the idea of a nation.


It does not preclude class action and it is not inherently exclusive.

But it must rely on some degree of exclusion, otherwise it would not be a distinct nation.


That is the preserve of certain political currents... which events such as the WC have proven useful in 'de-clawing'

I don't know much about other countries, in the UK the World Cup may have brought certain people together but it has been under the false guise of national unity. I've seen conversations on 'supporting the team' turn into 'supporting the boys' turn into 'if you don't like the country, why are you here' etc etc. I also seem to remember an example of a strike (maybe BA?) being called off because it would interfere with the World Cup. To me that seems a very clear example of 'national unity' standing in the way of class action.

[Ravachol]

I disagree entirely. Like it or not, national identities do exist


They do indeed, so do racial and sexist identities. But they are just that, identities in other words, social constructs. There is no real existing material base for the nation-construct that intrinsically binds the national working class to the national bourgeoisie, they have completely opposed material interests and conditions.



The idea that a worker born and raised in Dublin is identical to a comrade born and raised in, say, Toulouse is false


Where have I claimed this? Hell, even workers in the same national construct don't have anything in common in the sphere of identity. I, for one, enjoy experimental music, obscure leftist literature and avant-garde movies whilst a worker a few blocks away enjoys Dolf Lundgren action movies (which are fun, admittedly) and football. The idea that the working class is a concept of identity is a false one.

The working class is, however, bound by a common economical and political interest and a common social relation. A worker in Dublin experiences alienation, depressed wages, rising rent,etc just as a worker in Toulouse does. Their social identity is irrelevant.

This is why I claim there is no such thing as 'we, the Germans'. Whilst there exists a social construct constituting habits and social identity called 'Germany' the actual constituents have mixed material interests. A segment of this constituency, the German working class, does however share material interests with segments of other national constituencies, the other 'national' working classes. This is the basis of proletarian internationalism.

As Barrabas pointed out with Mazzimo d'Azeglio's quote, the project of nation building is an example of why there is no such thing as a nation in the first place. A prime example is Yugoslavia. During the Yugoslavian project, lots of people beloging to the Yugoslavian national identity would identify themselves as such. However, during the process of 'Balkanisation', the national identity of Yugoslavia started to fragment into seperate national identities eg. 'Croatian', 'Serbian', 'Bosnian',etc. After this process, people who identified as 'Yugoslavian' and were part of the 'we, the Yugoslavs' identity before now identified as part of a completely different national construct. This goes to show that the nation is nothing but a social construct with no real shared material interests. The working class, however, kept sharing the same material interests, regardless of what identity they belonged to.

Another example would be substituting the nation for sexual identity. Whilst the differences between sexes are more obvious (and biological in nature), the material interests are divided along class lines, not those of sexual identity. A female member of the bourgeoisie does not hold the same material interests as a female member of the working class. If one claims this is the case, which identity is more prominent out of all possible identities? Nation, Race, Sexual identity? If sexual identity is more prominent, for example, a female from France would have more in common with a female from Germany than with a male from France. This directly conflicts with the concept of national identity however, pointing out the obvious paradox.

[ComradeOm]

Not really, most of what we currently refer to as national identities are more modern constructsI'm aware of that. I'm not sure how the process of 19th C nationstate building is at all relevant to this conversation though. The spread of the railroads occurred roughly around the same period, and indeed went hand in hand with the spread of 'official' nationalism, but I don't see why we should seek to dismantle them. What is relevant is that national identities exist today and I do not consider them to do so at the suffrage of the state


Yes, but, and I may get confused here, having a shared cultural background is in a number of distinctive ways different from the idea of a nationNo, its distinct from the idea of the 'nationstate' but this does not equate with 'national identity'. To give an example, the perception of 'German' as a distinct people/identity/nation long precedes the 19th C formation of the German nationstate. The latter obviously giving life to a very different kind of German nationalism


But it must rely on some degree of exclusion, otherwise it would not be a distinct nationNot so. This relates to the above but the story in question is a perfect example of it as well. The great thing about this 'nationalism', if the word is even suitable, is that it stresses identification with 'German' symbols, in this case the Nationalmannschaft, without insisting that previous cultural ties be severed. It is no longer a binary choice. Hence the warming sight of German and Turkish flags flying alongside each other and the fundamental contrast with more exclusive nationalism

You could argue that what we're witnessing here is the forging of a new national/cultural identity - Turkish-German, if you will - but the idea of what is 'German' is also changing and has unquestionably been affected, to whatever degree, by the exploits of Özil et al. This I can only consider as a good thing


I don't know much about other countries, in the UK the World Cup may have brought certain people together but it has been under the false guise of national unity. I've seen conversations on 'supporting the team' turn into 'supporting the boys' turn into 'if you don't like the country, why are you here' etc etc. I also seem to remember an example of a strike (maybe BA?) being called off because it would interfere with the World Cup. To me that seems a very clear example of 'national unity' standing in the way of class action.I've witnessed nothing like that in the UK. Aside of course from those morons on the radio who insist on playing in a 'patriotic manner' or the need for an 'English coach'. But I put that down more to their ignorance of football than any real malice

Its true of course that nationalism can readily lapse into exclusiveness but that is why I think its so ridiculous to hold up attempts to craft a more inclusive and mutable national identity


There is no real existing material base for the nation-construct that intrinsically binds the national working class to the national bourgeoisie, they have completely opposed material interests and conditions. Then I have to ask just why you are afraid that any national identity will overcome these contradictory interests?


The working class is, however, bound by a common economical and political interest and a common social relation. A worker in Dublin experiences alienation, depressed wages, rising rent,etc just as a worker in Toulouse doesAnd where did I deny this?

What I do disagree with is the idea that "their social identity is irrelevant". The worker in Dublin is raised in a different environment to his counterpart in Toulouse. The underlying socio-economic forces remain the same but these can manifest themselves in different ways due to the different material conditions of France and Ireland. Class struggle in these nations therefore often takes very different forms from each other. This is inevitable - you cannot divorce a subject's relationship with society's productive forces from society itself


This is why I claim there is no such thing as 'we, the Germans'. Whilst there exists a social construct constituting habits and social identity called 'Germany' the actual constituents have mixed material interestsAnd...? You admit that there is a German national identity but insist that its components have different class interests? A controversial statement on Stormfront perhaps but not anywhere else. Again, national identities do not necessarily govern every aspect of how people live/act and are not binary choices - only nationalists insist that the interests of the class (or indeed the individual) submit to that of the nationstate


A segment of this constituency, the German working class, does however share material interests with segments of other national constituencies, the other 'national' working classes. This is the basis of proletarian internationalism.A German worker has a great deal in common with a Russian worker - most notably, as you point out, material interests - but, as you accept, that does not mean that they are identical. It does not mean that they must set about the tasks of revolution and socialism in the exact same way. Cultural differences, and national identities, will not disappear post-revolution. If they do then the world will be a poorer place for it. Internationalism does not necessitate the creation of a monoculture or the eradication of cultural values


This directly conflicts with the concept of national identity however, pointing out the obvious paradoxThe paradox being that people have many different identities by which to label themselves? :confused:

[eclipse]

"culture"
National identity does not equal culture.
National identity is loyality to a certain form of government, or a certain group of people that is imagined to "belong" together.

Culture is much more diverse, it can overlap any of these stupid national stereotype cultures and all the minor ones that don`t fit in there anyway.
I suppose that cultural differences might become much more sophistiated post-revolution, while national identities might totally diappear.
So called "national cultures" are fixed. The national dish, the national music, the national heirtage... you get there. All these things don`t need nationalism to prevail, perhaps they will even profit because they are not longer protected/made untouchable.

"nation"
After all, why cling to the national construct when it looses all of its political relevance?
National identities are always exclusive. You might own more than one, but well, then you just exclude a few people less from you collectives. If national identity comes with a claim on a certain region, even more so. What if I want to live there, but not to identify with the nation?

National identities are definitely also political ones, you cannot base them on anything else. Language, culture, all these thing are much to diverse and do not care for national borders. Genetic heritage is a stupid racist approach without basis in reality.

As a nation does not equal culture, it does not equal society. For many people its the socioeconomic frame they never leave, that's true.
But this is nothing we should keep up at all.

Nations are subjects of worldwide competition over scarce resources. As political bodies, they have an interest to unifiy their specific national collective against the outside, economically or even in war.

[Ravachol]

Then I have to ask just why you are afraid that any national identity will overcome these contradictory interests?


Because nationalism serves to smother class consciousness. Whilst the material interests will always remain opposed, the notion that these hardships are shared amongst a given economic category (the working class) and that we can only overcome these conditions AS a class are swept away when individual workers identify as members of a national construct. In short, whilst there is no material basis for the nation, there is an ideal one that influences the way we identify ourselves and act.



And where did I deny this?

What I do disagree with is the idea that "their social identity is irrelevant". The worker in Dublin is raised in a different environment to his counterpart in Toulouse. The underlying socio-economic forces remain the same but these can manifest themselves in different ways due to the different material conditions of France and Ireland. Class struggle in these nations therefore often takes very different forms from each other. This is inevitable - you cannot divorce a subject's relationship with society's productive forces from society itself


This is true and I never denied such a thing. But more often than not the form struggles take are seperated amongst multiple identities. Sexual identity, 'race', nationality (and by extension, local/provincial identity) all give the same politico-economic struggles a different character. This is no excuse for the existence of these identities however as they only serve to bind opposed interests.



And...? You admit that there is a German national identity but insist that its components have different class interests? A controversial statement on Stormfront perhaps but not anywhere else.


I really beg to differ. In all my discussions with liberals, social-democrats and conservatives here in the Netherlands I've encountered the idea that the nation has a shared economic interest and an actual material basis time and time again. You'd be surprised how deeply rooted the national construct is, even in a country with (until recently) no real existing 'patriotism' such as the Netherlands.



Again, national identities do not necessarily govern every aspect of how people live/act and are not binary choices - only nationalists insist that the interests of the class (or indeed the individual) submit to that of the nationstate


Again, when one identifies as a member of the nation and all societies instutitutions hold that the nation has a shared interest this reproduces itself not only as a mere notion in our minds but influences and directs our behavior and subjectivities to a degree. Sure, during times with heightened class struggle the national construct usually weakens but more often than not we see cries that 'we are all in this together'. Hence, opposition to the nation remains an integral part of advancing the agenda of class struggle.



Cultural differences, and national identities, will not disappear post-revolution.


I'm not arguing in favor of global mono-culture, mind you. I'm arguing in favor of global non-culture. Culture and social identities as we know them will dissapear through struggle and when the material basis of society transforms. What I argue for is the destruction/transformation of social constructs as we know them in a heterogenous multitude.



The paradox being that people have many different identities by which to label themselves? :confused:

The paradox being that there can be no common 'interest' amongst social identities, only amongst economic categories.

[ComradeOm]

Because nationalism serves to smother class consciousnessYes, as a distinct political ideology nationalism is hostile to the concept of class divisions. This is not what is under discussion though. It is only the anarchists in the above article who automatically associated flying the German flag with right-wing political movements

I don't agree entirely with considering national identities on par with other 'social identities' but that's assume that they are for a minute. Do you believe that a person's gender identification or taste in music are active obstacles to class conciousness that must be abandoned? Are they tools that blind us to class bonds? If, as you say, there is "no common 'interest' amongst social identities" then what is the problem? Surely material interests will trump any identity (other than those being deliberately harnessed/directed by the bourgeoisie)


But more often than not the form struggles take are seperated amongst multiple identities. Sexual identity, 'race', nationality (and by extension, local/provincial identity) all give the same politico-economic struggles a different character. This is no excuse for the existence of these identities however as they only serve to bind opposed interests.Again, I disagree. Ironically because I feel that you are giving too much weight to these secondary identities. As you put it, there are very real material interests that bind the working class together. That is not the same as arguing for a monolithic global proletariat shorn of individual/national traits or that there are no differences within any movement

Which is probably the crux of the issue. I have seen or read nothing in my time to suggest that the phrases 'French working class', 'Irish working class', or 'female workers' (or 'German/Russian Revolution'!) are contradictions in terms. They are still part of the proletariat, and therefore have real material interests in common, just not identical to one another


I really beg to differ. In all my discussions with liberals, social-democrats and conservatives here in the Netherlands I've encountered the idea that the nation has a shared economic interest and an actual material basis time and time againWell, I exaggerated slightly. The idea that class divisions do not exist, or rather should be rendered subservient to the nation, is a classically right-wing ideological component. That said, few bourgeois politicians, of any political stripe, want to undermine the idea of the indivisible nationstate which forms the basis of the modern state

To make very clear: I am most certainly not in favour of the nationstate or political (and invariably exclusive) nationalist thought. I merely accept, and see no harm in, people identifying with a set of common cultural values


Again, when one identifies as a member of the nation and all societies instutitutions hold that the nation has a shared interest this reproduces itself not only as a mere notion in our minds but influences and directs our behavior and subjectivities to a degreeIf this were true, as a blanket statement, then we would never have witnessed class warfare and revolutions in the past. Neither the German or Russian proletariat, both internationalist in character, railed against the concept of the nation but rather set about 'settling matters with their own bourgeoisie' (to quote Marx)

Basically I see no reason why an Irish proletariat cannot mobilise against an Irish bourgeoisie. Overt nationalism must of course be overcome in order to achieve class consciousness but that is very different from actively renouncing the 'Irish' identity


Hence, opposition to the nation remains an integral part of advancing the agenda of class struggleI would write that as 'opposition to the nationstate'


I'm not arguing in favor of global mono-culture, mind you. I'm arguing in favor of global non-culture. Culture and social identities as we know them will dissapear through struggle and when the material basis of society transforms. What I argue for is the destruction/transformation of social constructs as we know them in a heterogenous multitudeTo be honest I really don't know what you're saying here. You advocate the abolition of culture? Or a return to provincialism?

Actually, on the latter, its worth noting that while nationalities are essentially a 19th C construct, national identities of a sort long precede this. Or rather, and this is where the terminology can get confusing, these were provincial or regional identities based around the a locality. These still often exist today - most notably, despite d'Azeglio's posturing, in Italy's multitude of different dialects. Do you also expect these local differences to vanish or are they to be reinforced?


National identity is loyality to a certain form of governmentNo

[eclipse]

No
Out of context, sure. =_=


see no harm in, people identifying with a set of common cultural values
What would this be for example?
I cannot see a "national culture" that would not instantly fracture if not politically preserved.

[thälmann]

the problem here in germany is that this kind of modern patriotism turns very fast into a racist nationalism, and thats what happend every time,also this year. in many cases during this world cup you can see some "older" flags at the public viewing spots. also attacking non white people happened a lot. on the other hand the state and the bourgoisie use this patriotism to create a "we are one people" feeling were people dont want to struggle against different things, for example the actual austerity package.
not only the "antigermans"( which have nothing to do with antinationalism) and anarchists are against patriotism during the world cup, its a thing of almost every leftist here. i personal see nothing wrong in dislike the flag of an imperialist country. iam happy germany is out of the world cup...if they had been won, making left politics would be impossible in germany...

[Blake's Baby]

Should this thread be moved for the very obvious reason that it isn't non-political at all, in fact rather the reverse, it's prety intensely political and is opening up a potentially useful debate about nationalism and internationalism, identity, intergration and all sorts of stuff like that? I'd suggeast the 'Learning' forum.

[ComradeOm]

Out of context, sure. =_=My mistake, I accidentally cut off the last half of your sentence. Either way its the same, I simply don't agree with your characterisation of national identity as "loyalty to a certain form of government, or a certain group of people that is imagined to "belong" together"


What would this be for example?
I cannot see a "national culture" that would not instantly fracture if not politically preserved.I am, as you may have gathered, Irish. There are a set of traits/attitudes that I have developed as a result of growing up in Ireland. Many are minor, many are major, and many are hidden. Taken together they form an Irish identity. Its not something that I actively have to identity with but simply a consequence of living where I do/did. That this exists is not in question and I find it very hard to see how it is dependent on political interference from the state

In fact, take language as an example. Unsurprising given the central role of language in culture, this was an area that typically saw heavily state involvement in the late 19th and early 20th C as various governments sought to introduce standard languages and eradicate dialects. They, largely, succeeded but what relevance does that have today? Is anyone really going to argue that if the French state disappeared tomorrow the patois - Gascon, Vivaroalpenc, Lyonnais, Bressan, Languedocien, Saintongeais, Gallo, etc, etc - would suddenly re-emerge as first languages? This in a world of mass communications!


iam happy germany is out of the world cup...if they had been won, making left politics would be impossible in germany... If the success of "left politics" in Germany hinges on the exploits of the national football team then I'd suggest that the struggle is already lost

[thälmann]

ok what i said was a little bit extreme...but as i mentioned before, the identification with the bourgois state grows very fast during happenings like world cup ( also when a german gets pope for example), which makes it much more difficult to explain the ordinary people why they have to struggle against other germans(capitalists, state)...maybe these things are much harder then in other countrys...