About Ultranationalism...

[Kestrel_194]

Just a question, does ultranationalism exist on the global political field and is it true that it is basically militaristic communism? It's just that I've been playing MW2 lately and I got curious.

[Savage]

Wouldn't fascism be considered ultra-nationalist? Communism is inherently internationalist.

[Raightning]

Well, communism is fundamentally internationalist, so no.

There are groups who could be compared to the 'ultranationalists' in the MW2 sense, though, and indeed there are many who are militaristic/nationalist and borrow ideas, rhetoric and even the name of communism; I dare say that the National Bolsheviks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party) were an inspiration for the 'ultranationalists'. This is nothing new, of course; hell, you just need to look at the National Fascist Party, or even the "National Socialists".

e: I should make very, very clear here: none of these groups could be actually described as communist in any serious sense, any more than the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_of_Russia) is either liberal or democratic.

[Magón]

I wouldn't take anything a video game, or entertainment media calls "communist" for anything more than face value.

As for Ultranationalism, yes Fascism is a form, and yes, it does exist in global political fields, depending on where you look.

[Nolan]

The ultranationalists in COD aren't communists.

[Nolan]

Well, communism is fundamentally internationalist, so no.

There are groups who could be compared to the 'ultranationalists' in the MW2 sense, though, and indeed there are many who are militaristic/nationalist and borrow ideas, rhetoric and even the name of communism; I dare say that the National Bolsheviks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party) were an inspiration for the 'ultranationalists'. This is nothing new, of course; hell, you just need to look at the National Fascist Party, or even the "National Socialists".

e: I should make very, very clear here: none of these groups could be actually described as communist in any serious sense, any more than the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_of_Russia) is either liberal or democratic.

The difference between the nazbols and the cod ultranationalists is that the ultranationalists have members from all over the former USSR. You fight them in the Azerbaijan mission and the Pripyat mission as well as other places.

"National Bolshevism" on the other hand is pretty much limited to Russia and maybe Ukraine.

Anyway, we never get any idea of what the ultranationalists ideology is, other than of course nationalism and apparent Soviet reunification. All we see is some hammer and sickle flags, and in Russia that doesn't tell you much.

[Kestrel_194]

Wow, that got a lot of responses pretty quickly! Thanks for clearing that up!
(Stupid COD, making me politically confused!)

[Ocean Seal]

Just a question, does ultranationalism exist on the global political field and is it true that it is basically militaristic communism? It's just that I've been playing MW2 lately and I got curious.
Yeah MWII isn't exactly the best place to get facts on socialism/The Soviet Union/ Middle East. I remember them saying something about ultranationalism in the game, along with the our leaders prostituted us to the west thing. But while many Soviet people resented their new neo-liberal leadership under Yeltsin, this game really plays that up to a theatrics extent. I would say just by the size of our anti nationalist group
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=295
that communists don't tend to be very nationalistic. With Left-Communists and Anarchists being absolutely opposed to nationalism. I don't believe in nationalism as I think most don't here. And I don't think that anyone at all believe in ultra-nationalism or national-chauvinism.

Its important that all branches of communism believe in a united world. Its as Marx said "Workers of the world unite," not Workers of country X unite.

[Rusty Shackleford]

if anything, they are soviet nostalgists or imperialists under the guise of socialism. or just some politically confused people who use the sickle and hammer to make it more convincing to have to shoot them when playing as an american or briton.

[MarxSchmarx]

There is really no difference between "nationalism" and "ultra-nationalism", at least in contemporary political terms. What distinguishes Zhironovsky (presumably the impetus for this modern warfare character) might be something like his reactionary politics - racism, Antisemitism, clericism - any number of things, but certainly not his "nationalism". And sure, at one point in time "nationalists" were certainly key to upending a feudal order. But "progressive nationalist" is an oxymoron in this day and age - even supposed paradigmatic "nationalists" like Hugo Chavez are quite internationalist in their vision. Virtually all nationalists in any case see their state (real or hypothetical, like Sardinia) as somehow special, and are willing to go to great lengths to preserve its territorial integrity.

[ComradeOm]

There is really no difference between "nationalism" and "ultra-nationalism", at least in contemporary political termsI disagree. Ultra-nationalism is the shifting of nationalism to the very centre of the political agenda. For ultra-nationalists everything is viewed through the prism of nationalism and increasing the status/power/integrity of the nation. That is, structuring all policies around the aggrandisement of the nation. This is not the same as simply being nationalist (whether in the political sense or not)

To take a historical example, in the Weimar Republic the liberals (such as Stresemann) were traditionally supporters of democratic practices and free trade but they nonetheless supported the annexation of lands, particularly in Russia, to provide fresh markets and resources for the nation. They were nationalist but their nationalism sat alongside and reinforced other policies. In contrast the ultra-nationalist Hitler had no real political beliefs beyond those needed to bolster the Fatherland. If dictatorship and government control of the economy was needed to achieve national superiority then so be it. If Germany could only be bettered through a campaign of genocide then that was fine. Everything revolved around the nationstate and destroying those who threatened it; nationalism was unquestionably the dominant theme

Now I would argue that this sentiment is still very much alive today, albeit at the fringe of "contemporary politics"

[GPDP]

Yeah, don't look to mainstream crap like the COD series for well-developed politics. It's all pop-culture representations of what right-wingers and otherwise apolitical Americans perceive international conflicts to be about i.e. freedom-loving Westerners who invade to spread freedom and democracy and to defend themselves vs. evil commies/nationalists who want to TAKE OVER THE WORLD.

It's silly, and it's meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[MarxSchmarx]

If dictatorship and government control of the economy was needed to achieve national superiority then so be it. If Germany could only be bettered through a campaign of genocide then that was fine. Everything revolved around the nationstate and destroying those who threatened it; nationalism was unquestionably the dominant theme

Nationalism, however, is the dominant theme of many rulers we would not call ultra-naturalists. I suspect there are many members of the chinese communist party for example that would agree with this view you describe. And "national superiority" is certainly a major preoccupation of American politicians.



Now I would argue that this sentiment is still very much alive today, albeit at the fringe of "contemporary politics"

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Or even the same era. All those examples are from more than half a century ago.

It's precisely because what you call "ultra-nationalism" is relegated to the fringe that what has become the standard for "ultra-nationalism" as it's used in the English language press, mostly as it appears in Eastern Europe, is basically just nationalism with a few xenophobic (particularly anti-semetic) and imperialistic elements thrown in. I doubt the line is nearly as clear-cut today as it might have been in some countries before the second wwii, at least as the word is used in popular discourse.

[ComradeOm]

Nationalism, however, is the dominant theme of many rulers we would not call ultra-naturalists. I suspect there are many members of the chinese communist party for example that would agree with this view you describe. And "national superiority" is certainly a major preoccupation of American politiciansHence the distinction I've made. Nationalism is perfectly compatible with a whole range of ideological positions. You'll find that the nationalism of most, if certainly not all, US politicians is tempered by their stances on other issues - some object to the use of waterboarding whereas others virulently object to the very notion of a state-led programme to boost the economy

Ultra-nationalism is when the 'national interest' barges these other positions off the stage and becomes the point around which all other policies orbit


I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Or even the same era. All those examples are from more than half a century agoWell yes, examples from the last time ultra-nationalism was in the ascendency in Western Europe. There are still plenty such movements around today but its been decades since they had any real impact on the political stage. Conversely, it is not at all uncommon for parties that have a nominally nationalist programme to come to power. But the nationalism in these platforms is diluted by the other elements, most commonly an acceptance of parliamentary democracy, that is wholly lacking from ultra-nationalist movements