Solidarity with Nationalists

[Socialist Redemption]

Many people, on either end of the spectrum, suggest that nationalism is totally incompatible with communism. But one must work for complete solidarity with all peoples of different lifestyles, including nationalists. What we should strongly oppose is the bourgeois nationalism: national chauvinism and imperialism which is not a 'true' nationalism at all, but the subordination of the interests of the collective good into the interests of the exploitative ruling class.

Solidarity with the nationalists that love their country and people may cast their struggles and contribution in common desire with the communists of national liberation and socialist redemption.

The nationalist who represents national independence, and with cultural traditions and identity - albeit with the limitations of class - provides a precious and essential foundation for socialism.

The actions of imperialists in foreign nations that destroy the unity of the nation, and that compromise national traditions and culture, and that compromise homogeneity only serve to weaken the foundations on which socialism can be built, hence the importance of a true nationalism.

A true internationalism need not be borderless, only that nations stand in solidarity and cooperation. The failures of the international socialists lie in their neglect of the national sustenance of the nation's traditions. Socialism must meet the demands of all people of the working masses and also work for the prosperity of the nation, hence failing to adhere to genuine national independence will fail to meet the needs of the working classes as the working classes make up the majority of any nation. The failure of a proper national independence lends itself to being weakened and compromised by anti-socialists and imperialists.

The hostile capitalist class system can never achieve the national unity of socialism as it places individual interests over the common good. The exploitative ruling class and international capitalists who are only interested in profit will inevitably neglect the prosperity of the nation, and will not hesitate to plunder and exploit other nations, hence there can be no independent nations or national equality. On this basis of the common good and prosperity of the nation, whilst also rejecting imperialism and working for equality between nations, the nationalist will adopt socialism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

"The working men have no country. We cannot take away from them what they have not got." - Karl Marx

Nationalism is an irrational, dividing, selfish and ridiculous idea. An idea which distracts from the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie. Be it "pride" in you're nation, or be it the bourgeois nationalism you describe.

Why be proud of something you have not accomplished yourself? You did not choose where you were born, nor your ethnic background, etc.

I will not hold solidarity with someone whose loyalties lay with their countrymen, and not their class.

We are the working class, we are international, workers of all nations unite!

[black magick hustla]

the only solidarity they will get is the one of my ass

[IndependentCitizen]

I can share my poo with them, but nothing more. Nationalism is just dumb, it needs no comment.

[Garret]

Nationalism may be good as a motive for national liberation movements, but no, most nationalists nowadays are not be in solidarity with us internationalists.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I wrote this in a other thread



A bit of semantics.

The things leftis calls progressive nationalism is more of something called 'regionalism', the idea of that people living in a particular area should be the once who to decide how they will live and organize it. Culture, ethnicity and so has no matter here.

Nationalism (in its true sence) is an idea of that some people belong to a particular area, wich they tend to mystify saying that the soil, air and water are much better here (blut und boden) and because of that we must deffend it frome "all others", real nationalism tends always to become racism.
__________________

[Rafiq]

Nationalism is laughable.

[RED DAVE]

Solidarity with the nationalists that love their country and people may cast their struggles and contribution in common desire with the communists of national liberation and socialist redemption.

The nationalist who represents national independence, and with cultural traditions and identity - albeit with the limitations of class - provides a precious and essential foundation for socialism.Many of us laugh at this, but this is a fundamental tenet of Maoism.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

I wrote this in a other thread

There are several variations of nationalism.

In the tradition of French and American republicanism, nationalism basically means loyalty to the law and the constitution, associated with certain rights and obligations and theoretically universal for all citizens regardless of ethnicity.

In the German tradition, it was basically linguistical and to some extent cultural and genetic heritage which determined nationalism (and lead to the mayhem during WW2).

Then, there is ideological/religious nationalism, where loyalty is demanded from a state which ultimately is serving as a vessel for a certain idea or certain values, like Islam, Christianity, Communism or in some future case Singularitarianism/Linkola-style primitivism or any other kind of ideology really. States which have based their legitimacy upon this kind of messianism has been Russia prior to Peter the Great, The Soviet Union and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[RED DAVE]

There are several variations of nationalism.And they are all worth shit to a Marxist.

RED DAVE

[Rainsborough]

Surely the points raised in the original post are valid, and deserving of a more in depth reply than some of the comments.
We applaud national liberation groups, who claim internationalist principles. They liberate nationaly in the name of the working class. We seem to be tolerant of nations that are as racist or intollerant as any fascist group. Yet if anyone advances the notion that we can work with those who aspire to a nationalist cause, they are subjected to abuse and howls of indignation.
Why is it impossible to be working class, socialist and believe in your country. The revolution has to start somewhere, or should we all sit around and wait for it to begin everywhere at once?

[Thirsty Crow]

Surely the points raised in the original post are valid, and deserving of a more in depth reply than some of the comments.
We applaud national liberation groups, who claim internationalist principles. They liberate nationaly in the name of the working class. We seem to be tolerant of nations that are as racist or intollerant as any fascist group. Yet if anyone advances the notion that we can work with those who aspire to a nationalist cause, they are subjected to abuse and howls of indignation.
Why is it impossible to be working class, socialist and believe in your country. The revolution has to start somewhere, or should we all sit around and wait for it to begin everywhere at once?

What is a "country"? Its language and culture? Yet, all national cultures exhibit clear traces of different forms of oppression, all characteristic of the existence of classes. Beneath all the best what has been written, composed, said, sung - beneath it all is the daily barbarism of class oppression. Although, that does not by itself invalidate every single cultural artefact of a national culture. However, if a national culture is to be productive and meaningful, it should be appropriated by those groups of people who are capable and willing to put an end to the way they live - as wage slaves, as racial and ethnic minorities who are discriminated against, as women in a still patriarchal culture and economic environment that does not value their work as it values men's work, as homosexual people who face institutionalized discrimination, ridicule and even outright violence, and so on...

Or is it the people? With a common history that binds them?
But do I have anything in common with the "free entrepreneurs", deceitful clerics or bourgeois politicians? Or their supporters?
No, hell no. And their history is not mine (in the sense that I identify with it in an affirmative manner), not by a long shot.

So...what is a country and how can one "believe in it"?

[Rainsborough]

What is a "country"? Its language and culture? Yet, all national cultures exhibit clear traces of different forms of oppression, all characteristic of the existence of classes. Beneath all the best what has been written, composed, said, sung - beneath it all is the daily barbarism of class oppression. Although, that does not by itself invalidate every single cultural artefact of a national culture. However, if a national culture is to be productive and meaningful, it should be appropriated by those groups of people who are capable and willing to put an end to the way they live - as wage slaves, as racial and ethnic minorities who are discriminated against, as women in a still patriarchal culture and economic environment that does not value their work as it values men's work, as homosexual people who face institutionalized discrimination, ridicule and even outright violence, and so on...

Or is it the people? With a common history that binds them?
But do I have anything in common with the "free entrepreneurs", deceitful clerics or bourgeois politicians? Or their supporters?
No, hell no. And their history is not mine (in the sense that I identify with it in an affirmative manner), not by a long shot.

So...what is a country and how can one "believe in it"?

Point taken. But how can we "appropriate" this "national culture" if we refuse to accept its existence, if our only reply to questions about national culture etc, is - there is no such thing as national or cultural divisions, only class divisions? You can't be British, American or any other kind of working class, you can only be working class.

[RED DAVE]

Surely the points raised in the original post are valid, and deserving of a more in depth reply than some of the comments.Actually, they need to be answered but they are, from a Marxist point of view, primitive. Maoism is responsible for muddying over the concept of nationalism to suit its political strategy of the block of four classes.


We applaud national liberation groups, who claim internationalist principles.We do.


They liberate nationaly[sic] in the name of the working class.Watch out for that "in the name of" shit. We have seen, historically, that any group or class can claim to act "in the name of" the working class. What they end up doing is acting "for" the working class and then "in the interests" of the working class and then "fucking over" the working class. This is the history of Stalinism and Maoism.


We seem to be tolerant of nations that are as racist or intollerant as any fascist group."We" shouldn'g be. Again, this is the result of distortions of Marxism.


Yet if anyone advances the notion that we can work with those who aspire to a nationalist cause, they are subjected to abuse and howls of indignation.As they should be without a political/class analysis of this "nationalist cause."


Why is it impossible to be working class, socialist and believe in your country.What does "believe in your country" mean? "Believe in" in for what?


The revolution has to start somewhere, or should we all sit around and wait for it to begin everywhere at once?It has to start somehwhere, but it has to finish everywhere. Nationalism is not the place for it to start. The failure of the revolution in Vietnam proves this. I'm not even going to get into China.

RED DAVE

[Rainsborough]

Actually, they need to be answered but they are, from a Marxist point of view, primitive. Maoism is responsible for muddying over the concept of nationalism to suit its political strategy of the block of four classes.

We do.

Watch out for that "in the name of" shit. We have seen, historically, that any group or class can claim to act "in the name of" the working class. What they end up doing is acting "for" the working class and then "in the interests" of the working class and then "fucking over" the working class. This is the history of Stalinism and Maoism.

"We" shouldn'g be. Again, this is the result of distortions of Marxism.

As they should be without a political/class analysis of this "nationalist cause."

What does "believe in your country" mean? "Believe in" in for what?

It has to start somehwhere, but it has to finish everywhere. Nationalism is not the place for it to start. The failure of the revolution in Vietnam proves this. I'm not even going to get into China.

RED DAVE

I dont understand why the phrase "believe in your country" is so problematic. Everyone needs something to believe in, to give their 'cause' validity. It would seem that many on here are quite happy to mix Marxist ideas with religion, though I would see them as mutualy exclusive. We uphold Marxist or Anarchist ideals as paramount in the same way that many would uphold an idealist view of their country, does that make us or them wrong? Why is an international revolution the only way? If, say, Britain was ready for revolution, should we wait for the rest of the world to catch up? As I said it has to start somewhere, Vietnam may have been a failure, China an ongoing one, but using that criteria every communist revolution has been a failure and unless it takes place everywhere at once, will always be.
We cannot sit around and play wait and see, that is pure 'Utopian'. I thought even dyed-in-the-wool Anarchists realised this.

[Thirsty Crow]

I dont understand why the phrase "believe in your country" is so problematic.
It is so problematic because it is hopelessly vague:

1) why "believe" in something that obviously exists?

2) what exactly to believe in? What is this "my country"?

And if you by this phrase mean something like "believe that the oppressed in country this and that will eventually rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie"...Well, than you're not expressing yourself precisely. I do think that there is a possibility of a successful revolution in my country, but that does not translate into the rhetoric of patriotism or nationalism. It has nothing to do with the nation I am a member of, it has everything to do with the proletarians and other oppressed groups, who are also members of the nation I am a member of.


But how can we "appropriate" this "national culture" if we refuse to accept its existence, if our only reply to questions about national culture etc, is - there is no such thing as national or cultural divisions, only class divisions? You can't be British, American or any other kind of working class, you can only be working class. Have I refused to accept that national cultures exist?
No, I did not. Hell, cultural divisions are clear as daylight so I don't see how could someone refuse to accept them as facts, and they are facts. The same goes for national divisions - the fact that the mother tongue of the English is English language (with all of its historical changes) does not critically conflict with the fact that the mother tongue of Croats, for instance, is Croatian. It is also a matter of fact that the history of England is not the same as the history of Croatia or any other country in the world. I am a Croat in that I speak Croatian and live in the country which is called the Republic of Croatia So what?

But I did and will refuse to accept that these differences are essential in character. This is the important point. And it is also important to notice that even "mild" nationalist rhetoric has a latent tendency to employ essentialist arguments/beliefs.

[RED DAVE]

I dont understand why the phrase "believe in your country" is so problematic.Let's see what the problem is.


Everyone needs something to believe in, to give their 'cause' validity.You have just set up two statements that you claim are compatible: "[e]veryone needs something to believe in" and "give their 'cause' validity. It is by no means clear that "[e]veryone needs something to believe in." And, in any event, the range of beliefs, from wooden totems, to a universal god, to socialism, is so wide as to make this statement problematical. Then, you leap to a 'cause.' One question that immediately suggests itself is: what is the relationship between a 'cause," in action, and its beliefs. A nazi may well tell you that the fundamental belief of their cause is freedom.


It would seem that many on here are quite happy to mix Marxist ideas with religionTrue.


though I would see them as mutualy exclusive.So would most of us, and liberation theology is not held in high esteem around here. I might also note that it is definitely fading as an ideology in the world.


We uphold Marxist or Anarchist ideals as paramount in the same way that many would uphold an idealist view of their country, does that make us or them wrong?Yes, it makes them "wrong" when you analyze the content of their view. What is the essence of nationalist belief? In the end, I think, it implies that one's own country is somehow "special" or "better" than another country. Every country has its own culture: they all have value in the deepest sense.

But to this notion of culture nationalism ties the notion of one's own country at that moment, which means a preservation of the existing class structure. While revolutionary nationalisms, such as the Chinese or Vietnamese movements, have claimed that their goals were to overthrow the class structure, in practice, they have served as vehicles for the establishment of capitalism. And these movements, unlike many nationalist movements, profess Marxism.


Why is an international revolution the only way?Briefly, because there is no such thing as soicalism in one country.


If, say, Britain was ready for revolution, should we wait for the rest of the world to catch up?No, but to expect, using the tenets of nationalism, that Britain could or should go it alone as a sociaist country is a dangerous illusion.


As I said it has to start somewhere, Vietnam may have been a failure, China an ongoing one, but using that criteria every communist revolution has been a failure and unless it takes place everywhere at once, will always be.Both the Vietnamese and Chinese revolutions were tainted, fatally, with nationalism. And the working class in those countries, and around the world, is paying the price for that infection. The socialist revolution does not have to start everywhere at once: that's a fallacy. But if it does not spread "everywhere" quickly, individual revolutions, especially in undeveloped countries, are doomed to fail.


We cannot sit around and play wait and see, that is pure 'Utopian'. I thought even dyed-in-the-wool Anarchists realised this.Everyone recognizes this, but it has nothing to do with nationalism.

RED DAVE

[Rainsborough]

It is so problematic because it is hopelessly vague:

1) why "believe" in something that obviously exists?

2) what exactly to believe in? What is this "my country"?

And if you by this phrase mean something like "believe that the oppressed in country this and that will eventually rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie"...Well, than you're not expressing yourself precisely. I do think that there is a possibility of a successful revolution in my country, but that does not translate into the rhetoric of patriotism or nationalism. It has nothing to do with the nation I am a member of, it has everything to do with the proletarians and other oppressed groups, who are also members of the nation I am a member of.

Given that I 've not been clear in my usage of the 'belief' tag. What happens then if you come across those who profess a nationalistic left philosophy, profess a total commitment to the overthrow of the bourgeoise, capitalist rectionary elite and the liberation of the oppressed worker. Do we ignore them, refuse to listen or debate with them, or do we accept that they may have something to offer, may have something worth listening to, even if it is nationalistic? What if the only differences between our aims and theirs is one of borders?

[Thirsty Crow]

Given that I 've not been clear in my usage of the 'belief' tag. What happens then if you come across those who profess a nationalistic left philosophy, profess a total commitment to the overthrow of the bourgeoise, capitalist rectionary elite and the liberation of the oppressed worker. Do we ignore them, refuse to listen or debate with them, or do we accept that they may have something to offer, may have something worth listening to, even if it is nationalistic? What if the only differences between our aims and theirs is one of borders?

I wouldn't refuse to listen and would debate.
And if the difference is one of borders, it does not follow from it that these people are in favour of the liberation of ALL oppressed groups, such as ethnic, racial and sexual minorities.
What do you think, what would happen with these minorities if such people would control a country? If members of the minorities would not wish to leave the country since a huge majority of minorities consider their "host" their home - what would have happened? Where would we draw the line? Socially engineered exodus? "Random" violent acts? Murders on a larger scale? Genocide?