MLs, a question on national determination/progressive nationalism

[The Douche]

I recognize that because people can be so ideological, and so immature that this thread has the potential to be a shitstorm, that is not my intention.

What is the justification that certain nations (the oppressed ones) are encouraged to indulge in a "progressive" nationalism, or at least some form of nationalism, but that it is completely reprehensible for first world nations to do so?

I hate to invoke nazi germany, and I want to be clear, I am not comparing Nazi Germany to any currently developing nation with a national liberation struggle, but wasn't Germany an oppressed nation prior to Hitler's rise? Did the oppressed people in Germany, who were being forced to pay for the war of the rich, not have the right of self-determination?:confused:

[Ostrinski]

Not a ML.

But it probably has something to do with the fact that nationalism as a platform can be used as a basis to resist imperialism.

[Geiseric]

I'm not a ML, but from what I understand on Self Determination, it goes for oppressed minorities who are oppressed for being a minority. I.e. Zapatistas in Southern Mexico, who are ancestors from indigenous Azteca. If a nationalist faction wants to split from a labor movement however, that is reactionary. Stalin has a different view of a Nation than other marxists though, so even i'm not clear on ML intentions of racial problems. Ignoring them is a bad choice though, racial tensions need to be adressed in a socialist society. Equal rights doesn't equate to equal oppurtunity.

[o well this is ok I guess]

It's depressing that you had to add those bolded and italic bits.

[The Douche]

Not a ML.

But it probably has something to do with the fact that nationalism as a platform can be used as a basis to resist imperialism.

If nationalism can be an effective tool to fight imperialism, why can't it be an effective tool to fight capitalism?


I suppose that question is posed to any ML who will enter this thread in the future.

[Ostrinski]

If nationalism can be an effective tool to fight imperialism, why can't it be an effective tool to fight capitalism?


I suppose that question is posed to any ML who will enter this thread in the future.I'm lost on this too. We can't dismantle capitalism without also dismantling the state, and the notion of the nation implies a state. It also implies that socialism can develop outside and independent of its relation to other parts of the world and its global context. The idea that nationalism and socialism are compatible is either born of ideological inconsistency or a different standard/definition of socialism.

[jake williams]

It's very problematic to try to approach this question in an unsophisticated way, something many marxist-leninist theorists at times have themselves been guilty of.

The most basic idea of the importance of national-liberatory struggle is that conditions of national oppression disallow the full and proper development of class struggle. Where these conditions exist, and in many places in the world they do, the struggle for national liberation is an objective support (and even an objectively necessary condition) to the struggle for socialism. In general.

Figuring out the extent to which conditions of national oppression exist, and how they exist, is of course difficult in the modern context of very complex inter-imperialist rivalry. Even during the interwar period, it's difficult to work out the extent to which Germans could be considered to be an "oppressed nationality". In some capacity, perhaps, though it's worth pointing out that even the Weimar Republic was one of the major global centres of capitalism, an advanced industrial economy albeit one destroyed by war.

It's also not straightforwardly the case that the national-liberatory struggle is always in line with the class struggle. In some cases it's not, and in some cases right-wing or bourgeois nationalist forces are actually at odds with the workers' movement. These complexities actually need to be worked out in the real world and I don't think there's a general answer.

In some instances though, the basic facts are clear. In apartheid South Africa, for example, the notion of straightforwardly fighting a class struggle while ignoring the rather obvious realities of national oppression and inequality would be absurd. The issue becomes a lot more complex within the modern South African state, where the objective conditions of struggle are increasingly organized around class rather than national lines, but in the apartheid period at least things were relatively clear. (Of course, you can disagree with the theory itself, that national liberation is relevant, but you asked for an explanation). In Canada, I think it's also clear that conditions of national inequality, between Canada and Quebec but between Canada and aboriginal nations especially, are barriers to the realization of socialist democracy which must be overcome. How this can or should be done is not clear, but that it most be done is, I hope, obvious and uncontroversial.

I might also point out, mostly as an aside, that it's common to regard "nationalism" as referring to those ideologies which promote the national struggle as superior to or even in contradiction with the class struggle, thus rightist ideologies which are not allies of the working class. One can support a national liberation struggle, in that sense, without being a nationalist.

[Devrim]

[B]I hate to invoke nazi germany, and I want to be clear, I am not comparing Nazi Germany to any currently developing nation with a national liberation struggle, but wasn't Germany an oppressed nation prior to Hitler's rise? Did the oppressed people in Germany, who were being forced to pay for the war of the rich, not have the right of self-determination?:confused:

Yes, Germany was recognised to be a oppressed nation. Soviet Russia concluded various treaties with them, including supplying their army with weapons, and allowing them to train secretly in the USSR (there were various treaty obligations from the end of the First World War that constricted the development of the German Army).

The KPD in Germany also made joint agitation with nationalist groups particularly in the final year of the Ruhr crisis.

Devrim

[manic expression]

If nationalism can be an effective tool to fight imperialism, why can't it be an effective tool to fight capitalism?
It definitely is. The nationalism we see among the Black Panthers, the Young Lords and other such groups were certainly effective in opposing capitalism. Revolutionary forces elsewhere also embrace a progressive, working-class patriotism: Cuba, Venezuela, El Salvador, Colombia...just to name a few.

To clear up a common misconception: A nation isn't a state. There are nations that have no states (Palestinians, Roma-Sinti, etc.) and there can even be states that represent no nations (Israel). A nation is a people with a common language, shared geographic region, shared history and so on and so forth. That being the case, overthrowing the capitalist class of a nation liberates the majority of that nation from oppression. That is why working-class revolution is itself a patriotic act.

To promote revolution is to promote progress for all nations. Progressive patriotism is an important facet of our movement.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes, Germany was recognised to be a oppressed nation. Soviet Russia concluded various treaties with them, including supplying their army with weapons, and allowing them to train secretly in the USSR (there were various treaty obligations from the end of the First World War that constricted the development of the German Army).

The KPD in Germany also made joint agitation with nationalist groups particularly in the final year of the Ruhr crisis.

Devrim
To make explicit what is implicit in this post (at least I think it is), the crucial word here is "considered". There was a clear difference between post WWI Germany, as a defeated agent of European imperialism, and colonized peoples, whether we decide to call them "nations" being irrelevant (and there's good reason why employing the term would be inappropriate).

The facts Devrim highlighted also speak a lot of the folly of the specific handling of the national question on communist organizations' behalf in that period.

But to get back to OP:


If nationalism can be an effective tool to fight imperialism, why can't it be an effective tool to fight capitalism?I'm aware that there are communists who argue that "progressive nationalism" can be an effective tool to fight imperialism, but that is not so.
The thing is that this division between "imperialism" and "capitalism" is not valid since it presupposes that there can exist a capitalism without imperialism, which would amount to a statement unsupported by the historical development of capital.
In other words, imperialism represents a specific aspect of capitalist accumulation. It does not amount solely to militarist ventures, outright occupations and forms of colonial rule. The decline of a specific historic bloc of centers of imperialist power does not amount to a decline of imperialism as it is reasonable to assume that, without the global abolition of the very conditions which necessitate it, another imperialist bloc will arise. I don't see how communists could support restructuring of the "imperialist chain", apart from conjunctural considerations of specific regime's atittude towards independent working class organizing.

Now, to accept this hypothesis that nationalism can be effective in fighting imperialism, just for a moment.
Then, it surely cannot be argued that it can be effecive in abolishing capitalism since, as an agglomerate of similar political doctrines, it is aimed towards distinguishing between different groups on people on bases other than the class basis.
In other words, the locus of political power here becomes a relation between people which sees them united on bases such as shared language, shared culture and history, shared customs and so on.
Therefore, it's clear that here there is no room for a social rupture. Nationalism is a unitary political doctrine, aiming at an establishemnt of collaboration of all layers of a society (call them classes, estates, whatever) with the specific purpose of strenghtening the whole, and implicitly this includes international competition. The fault of Marxist socialism in Hitler's eyes (I recall a video of a burning books session in which there were short explanation for some of them) was that it insisted on the social rupture within the "body" of the nation whereas national socialism erected the nation as a unifying principle, which was incidentally employed to crush class stuggle, something which the German (and other national capitalist classes) national bourgeoisie found as its interest.


I
To promote revolution is to promote progress for all nations. Progressive patriotism is an important facet of our movement.
And what is patriotism exactly in this slogan?

[Devrim]

To make explicit what is implicit in this post (at least I think it is), the crucial word here is "considered". There was a clear difference between post WWI Germany, as a defeated agent of European imperialism, and colonized peoples, whether we decide to call them "nations" being irrelevant (and there's good reason why employing the term would be inappropriate).

I am not sure what was implicit, even though you say you are making it explicit, and I don't know why 'considered' was the key word, when it was one I didn't use.

We have a week's public holiday here, and I have got up late, and I drinking my first coffee of the day. Maybe it will come to me. :confused:

Devrim

[manic expression]

Nationalism is a unitary political doctrine, aiming at an establishemnt of collaboration of all layers of a society (call them classes, estates, whatever) with the specific purpose of strenghtening the whole, and implicitly this includes international competition.
That's not at all true, you're accepting the dialogue of the right wing and taking it as unquestionable. The French Revolution was nationalist, and it certainly didn't aim at "collaboration of all layers of society".


And what is patriotism exactly in this slogan?
overthrowing the capitalist class of a nation liberates the majority of that nation from oppression

[Thirsty Crow]

I am not sure what was implicit, even though you say you are making it explicit, and I don't know why 'considered' was the key word, when it was one I didn't use.

We have a week's public holiday here, and I have got up late, and I drinking my first coffee of the day. Maybe it will come to me. :confused:

Devrim
While going back to your post, I noticed that i said "Germany was recognized to be an oppressed nation". So yeah, I don't know how I came up with "considered" :confused: (maybe because I was half way through my first coffee :D).

I just wanted to build on what you stated, and I thought that clearly expresses the foolishness of the idea that a defeated imperialist rival can become an "opressed nation". I thought that this was implicit in your post.

[Savage]

The first of the 25 points in the program of the NSDAP is,

1.We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the people’s right to self-determination.



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right)

[Savage]

It definitely is. The nationalism we see among the Black Panthers, the Young Lords and other such groups were certainly effective in opposing capitalism. Revolutionary forces elsewhere also embrace a progressive, working-class patriotism: Cuba, Venezuela, El Salvador, Colombia...just to name a few.
“Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even of the ‘most just,’ ‘purest,’ most refined and civilized brand. In place of all forms of nationalism Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations in the higher unity…''-Lenin

[Thirsty Crow]

That's not at all true, you're accepting the dialogue of the right wing and taking it as unquestionable. The French Revolution was nationalist, and it certainly didn't aim at "collaboration of all layers of society".This amounts to an ahistorical view of nationalism as a political doctrine.
I'm specifically referring to nationalisms which took form after the capitalist relations of production, and with them imperialims in its modern form, took hold, as well as after the modern class of wage labour has been formed.
So, no, the example of the French Revolution does not show anything here.



overthrowing the capitalist class of a nation liberates the majority of that nation from oppression
That does not amount to an explanation. You cannot say that patriotism, as a...what, aspect of a political doctrine, equals only to a specific political act. The act itself may be in accord with the aspect of a doctrine, but that does not explain how this aspect functions and what it is.
What is patriotism? A specific (positive) sentiment one nourishes with regard to people of the same ethnic origin, geographical region, sharing the language and culture?

[manic expression]

“Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even of the ‘most just,’ ‘purest,’ most refined and civilized brand. In place of all forms of nationalism Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations in the higher unity…''-Lenin
Progressive nationalism is internationalism.

You can't have internationalism without recognizing distinct nations.


This amounts to an ahistorical view of nationalism as a political doctrine.
I'm specifically referring to nationalisms which took form after the capitalist relations of production, and with them imperialims in its modern form, took hold, as well as after the modern class of wage labour has been formed.
So, no, the example of the French Revolution does not show anything here.
Nationalism has played a progressive role after 1900, too. Will you argue that the Black Panthers weren't a progressive force? That James Connolly wasn't progressive?


That does not amount to an explanation. You cannot say that patriotism, as a...what, aspect of a political doctrine, equals only to a specific political act. The act itself may be in accord with the aspect of a doctrine, but that does not explain how this aspect functions and what it is.
What is patriotism? A specific (positive) sentiment one nourishes with regard to people of the same ethnic origin, geographical region, sharing the language and culture?We must look to sentiment and action. Progressive patriotism is the promotion of the advancement of one's nation (with the internationalist understanding that nations can only make real progress hand-in-hand). Progressive patriotism is the idea that no nation is free until the oppression of capitalism is destroyed.

[Savage]

Progressive nationalism is internationalism.

You can't have internationalism without recognizing distinct nations.

So then why did Lenin say that Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism?

[Bolshy]

... wasn't Germany an oppressed nation prior to Hitler's rise?

No. Prior to Hitler's rise, Germany was a colonial/imperial power.

World War 1 was an inter-imperialist war in which Germany participated as an imperialist power.

Nazi Germany was likewise an imperialist power, with an emphatically racist ideology.

Germany was not an oppressed nation before, during, or after the Nazi era.

[manic expression]

So then why did Lenin say that Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism?
Context is important. In the next paragraph Lenin writes:

The principle of nationality is historically inevitable in bourgeois society and, taking this society into due account, the Marxist fully recognises the historical legitimacy of national movements. But to prevent this recognition from becoming an apologia of nationalism, it must be strictly limited to what is progressive in such movements, in order that this recognition may not lead to bourgeois ideology obscuring proletarian consciousness.

Emphasis mine.

[CommunityBeliever]

The Bolivarian alliance for the Americas (Cuba, Venezuela, etc), which struggles against U.S oppression, and for the cause of Latin American independence is also nationally progressive. I think comrade Lenin would agree, here is the next sentence:

The awakening of the masses from feudal lethargy, and their struggle against all national oppression, for the sovereignty of the people, of the nation, are progressive.

[Savage]

No. Prior to Hitler's rise, Germany was a colonial/imperial power.

World War 1 was an inter-imperialist war in which Germany participated as an imperialist power.

Nazi Germany was likewise an imperialist power, with an emphatically racist ideology.

Germany was not an oppressed nation, either before or after the Nazi era.

Have you ever heard of the treaty of Versailles?

[Thirsty Crow]

Nationalism has played a progressive role after 1900, too. Will you argue that the Black Panthers weren't a progressive force? That James Connolly wasn't progressive? The Panthers are described as nationalist only in a metaphorical way since they lacked some defining characteristics of a nationalist movement (separatism for instance; though, I'm not really sure whether the Panthers were not separatist, and how did the org relate to it in general; also, territoral distinction).
But yeah, ok, we can call the fight against racism national liberation in stead, and yes, that was a progressive cause, but one that didn't manage to break out of the confines of bourgeois order as their final point of reference.
And yes, Irish nationalism was historically progressive, but its capacity for revolutionary action was, as with any other national liberation movement, conditioned by the possibility of adopting a proletarian internationalist viewpoint. That's the crux of the issue, where national considerations must give way to other kinds of considerations, if a proletarian revolution is to occur world wide.


We must look to sentiment and action. Progressive patriotism is the promotion of the advancement of one's nation (with the internationalist understanding that nations can only make real progress hand-in-hand). Progressive patriotism is the idea that no nation is free until the oppression of capitalism is destroyed.
So, you argue that national identification is desirable (implying that class identification is also desirable).
This potentially lays ground for chauvinism and a final abandonment of the revolutionary struggle in favour of achieving socialism in one's own country. This is the pitfall of any kind of nationalism and patriotism, if they are progressive.

[Bolshy]

Have you ever heard of the treaty of Versailles?

The imposition of punitive war reparations by imperialist nations upon a rival imperialist nation is not national oppression. That is merely punishment of a rival imperialist power.

[manic expression]

The Panthers are described as nationalist only in a metaphorical way since they lacked some defining characteristics of a nationalist movement (separatism for instance; though, I'm not really sure whether the Panthers were not separatist, and how did the org relate to it in general; also, territoral distinction).
But yeah, ok, we can call the fight against racism national liberation in stead, and yes, that was a progressive cause, but one that didn't manage to break out of the confines of bourgeois order as their final point of reference.
I would say they did break out of the bourgeois order. They promoted a reorganization of all of society along socialist lines. Fred Hampton's brilliant criticism of a figure like Papa Doc show that they were about the liberation of the masses from all oppression and nothing less.


And yes, Irish nationalism was historically progressive, but its capacity for revolutionary action was, as with any other national liberation movement, conditioned by the possibility of adopting a proletarian internationalist viewpoint. That's the crux of the issue, where national considerations must give way to other kinds of considerations, if a proletarian revolution is to occur world wide.
Yes and no, I think. Irish independence was a progressive step in any case, but the most revolutionary forces were all but wiped out in the aftermath of the Easter Rising, and so the new Irish state lurched rightward and the voices of the workers was ignored...at least that's my take on it. The real point is that Connolly represented a very progressive and working-class patriotism that we should not soon forget.


So, you argue that national identification is desirable (implying that class identification is also desirable).
This potentially lays ground for chauvinism and a final abandonment of the revolutionary struggle in favour of achieving socialism in one's own country. This is the pitfall of any kind of nationalism and patriotism, if they are progressive.
I agree that nationalism has many chauvinistic forms...but so long as patriotism is grounded in working-class consciousness the pitfalls you mention should be avoided. It is useful to note that while our comrades in Cuba do embrace a progressive patriotism, they've aided the struggles of other nations at great risk and expense to themselves...their contributions to struggles in Africa and elsewhere are the best examples of internationalism since the Spanish Civil War.

On socialism in one country, IMO it wasn't a case of chauvinism but other ideological developments that we probably disagree on.

[Savage]

The imposition of punitive war reparations by imperialist nations upon a rival imperialist nation is not national oppression. That is merely punishment of a rival imperialist power.

so I wonder why the nazis had 'self-determination' in their program then?

[Thirsty Crow]

On socialism in one country, IMO it wasn't a case of chauvinism but other ideological developments that we probably disagree on.
I didn't say it was a case of chauvinism.
This kind of patriotism, which explicitly embraces parts of the bourgeois and even pre-bourgeois heritage, can be emplyoed as a narrative of support for the fallacy that is achieving socialism in one country alone, and the resulting kind of foreing policy which was best visible in the "internationalism" in Spain, which preserved the bourgeois order.

[Bolshy]

so I wonder why the nazis had 'self-determination' in their program then?

For a similar reason that George W. Bush announced, "We have liberated Iraq", after the second u.s. invasion of that country.

The Nazis called themselves "The National German Socialist Workers Party". Of course, the Nazis were not a socialist or workers party.

The Nazis disingenuous misappropriation of the language of self-determination in their program does not make Germany an oppressed nation.

[manic expression]

I didn't say it was a case of chauvinism.
This kind of patriotism, which explicitly embraces parts of the bourgeois and even pre-bourgeois heritage, can be emplyoed as a narrative of support for the fallacy that is achieving socialism in one country alone, and the resulting kind of foreing policy which was best visible in the "internationalism" in Spain, which preserved the bourgeois order.
Well, we disagree on that...but more on topic, what's wrong with embracing certain aspects of a pre-bourgeois heritage? We should celebrate our heritage, not shun it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, we disagree on that...but more on topic, what's wrong with embracing certain aspects of a pre-bourgeois heritage? We should celebrate our heritage, not shun it.
By pre-bourgeois, I mean cultural mores and customs originating and functioning within the precapitalist social formations.
And by embracing it, I tend to think of something as abominable sexism, and religious idolatry.
And no, I don't think I should celebrate "my" heritage, thank you for asking, since I had many opportunities to stare into that botomless pit and all I found was slime, with certain redeeming bits. The point being that "heritage", as well as "culture", are decidedly class based, based on domination and opression, whether you like it or not, and for that reason I would like to see not a militant "burn Mona Lisa" attitude, but rather an attitude of radical questoning, and cultural reinvention.
If the workers' are to run society, in its political and economic dimensions, then I think that they should take the initiative and also freely model their lives, in the cultural dimension, in opposition to the way of life that had them enslaved, and in opposition to narratives which alienate them and present them with a hostile image of the world.

In other words, freedom to create anew, not out of nothing, but based on the ruins of the bourgeois world.

[manic expression]

By pre-bourgeois, I mean cultural mores and customs originating and functioning within the precapitalist social formations.
And by embracing it, I tend to think of something as abominable sexism, and religious idolatry.
Embracing heritage doesn't mean embracing everything that was, almost by definition.


And no, I don't think I should celebrate "my" heritage, thank you for asking, since I had many opportunities to stare into that botomless pit and all I found was slime, with certain redeeming bits. The point being that "heritage", as well as "culture", are decidedly class based, based on domination and opression, whether you like it or not, and for that reason I would like to see not a militant "burn Mona Lisa" attitude, but rather an attitude of radical questoning, and cultural reinvention.
If the workers' are to run society, in its political and economic dimensions, then I think that they should take the initiative and also freely model their lives, in the cultural dimension, in opposition to the way of life that had them enslaved, and in opposition to narratives which alienate them and present them with a hostile image of the world.Culture is the product of class society, but it also transcends it. It can be both of its time and timeless. For instance, Versailles was a symbol of absolutist arrogance and oppression, but no longer is. To believe that the past has produced nothing but "slime" is unjustified cynicism and cultural masochism.

If the workers are to run society, if they are to master society, then it follows naturally that they must also master all the arts of the past. From cuisine to dance to philosophy and beyond, these are made the instruments of the workers with the passing of bourgeois society. Anyone who rejects this impoverishes themselves through the self-denial of the fruits of the past. After all, just about all facets of culture come from the masses in one way or another. Name a part of culture and it will inevitably be a product of the working classes throughout history.

Lastly, our heritage has to do with our collective stories...it's how we answer the question "how did we get here?" What do we call those who tread upon paths without understanding what lies behind them? We call them "lost". The history of those who came before us is a strength, not a weakness.


In other words, freedom to create anew, not out of nothing, but based on the ruins of the bourgeois world.To create anew is to embrace the past. If you fail to do one, you fail to do the other.

[Thirsty Crow]

Embracing heritage doesn't mean embracing everything that was, almost by definition.Heritage includes many phenomena. Next time be more clear and state something like "progressive heritage".


Culture is the product of class society, but it also transcends it. It can be both of its time and timeless. For instance, Versailles was a symbol of absolutist arrogance and oppression, but no longer is. To believe that the past has produced nothing but "slime" is unjustified cynicism and cultural masochism.

Nice metaphysical musings you got there. Reminds me of the conervative mantra about Shakespeare's timeless art.
So, how are cultural artefacts and aspects of the lived culture, conceptualized more broadly, timeless?
What does Versailles signify now?

Also, do notice that my primary reference wasn't aimed at what is considered as cultural artefacts, but what I described above as the lived culture. And indeed, if I were to cherish my national heritage, I'm afraid communism wouldn't be an option for me. Maybe in some Strasserite, authoritarian and bourgeois form.

Also, you seem like little DNZ with your sill neologisms like "cultural masochism". Don't worry, I'm perfectly capable of being a "cultural hedonist", and I'm quite sure that the working class will be able to create its own culture corresponding to the conquest of their social conditions of existence.

If the workers are to run society, if they are to master society, then it follows naturally that they must also master all the arts of the past. From cuisine to dance to philosophy and beyond, these are made the instruments of the workers with the passing of bourgeois society. Anyone who rejects this impoverishes themselves through the self-denial of the fruits of the past. After all, just about all facets of culture come from the masses in one way or another. Name a part of culture and it will inevitably be a product of the working classes throughout history.
You don't seem to be aware of the historical rupture between the producers of cultural artefacts and its consumers, as well as the fact that cultural production was, and still is in some forms, implicitly or explicitly tied in to the existence and social role of the ruling class.

For example, I can name the late 19th century aestheticist novel, and symbolist poetry as something that has nothing to do with the masses, not in its origin, and not in its designated topic which is then reworked by means of the literary technique. In fact, the existence of these cultural forms is predicated upon something hostile to the "masses", namely, elitism and a disdain for the mass society.

But of course, I'd speculate that you're deliberately vague in your expression, visible in "in one way or another" part. Thus you could conclude that these literary works were printed by workers and thus a product of the working class. Bollocks.

And moreover, I do not argue for a rejection, which amounts to ignoring, of historical cultural artefacts. What I'm arguing for is a radical revaluation of cultural values, for the free agency on behalf of the working class to critically engage these artefacts and draw pleasure and knowledge without being bullied by the cultural priesthood which is telling them what is timeless art and what they must consume.
Also, I'm arguing for the free creative agency of cultural production, of new cultural production which is twarted by scholastic insistence on normativity, which is an undercurrent in any kind of a narrative glorifying "national heritage".


Lastly, our heritage has to do with our collective stories...it's how we answer the question "how did we get here?" What do we call those who tread upon paths without understanding what lies behind them? We call them "lost". The history of those who came before us is a strength, not a weakness.Maybe you should reconsider your carreer of choice and become a poet instead.

But I got an alternative answer to your little question: we might as well call them "visionaries" and "adventurers", free from the slavish attitude towards the past which is all too readily brought upon people.


To create anew is to embrace the past. If you fail to do one, you fail to do the other.
Embrace it by ravaging it, critically and creatively. Figuratively speaking, of course. I'd be down for that.

As a side note, it's really interesting that one of the greatest literary innovators, a real creative force, was enabled by more of a lack of a national heritage in literature. It's rather telling.
Walt Whitman is the man.

[manic expression]

Heritage includes many phenomena. Next time be more clear and state something like "progressive heritage".
You do have a point...heritage is at times ugly because history has been ugly. But that's part of why it's so important.

For example, Americans have done absolutely horrifying things to various peoples, especially the Indian nations...and it is part of the history of our nation. We can't do anything about that, but what we can do is promote the amelioration of those crimes and try to contribute just a small bit to a future in which those wounds have healed. In other words, we can work for the destruction of capitalism and the liberation of the masses in order to make the future a better place for all the people of all those nations. That is an example of progressive patriotism. Saying "oh well it doesn't matter to me because I sit here 150 years later and shake my finger" just ignores the problem. Saying "oh well Indians don't have any reason to be proud of who they are because I think heritage is bollocks and the history of their ancestors has nothing to do with them" is ludicrous.

Perhaps you can explain your position. Perhaps you can explain why American Indians shouldn't be proud of their culture, why they shouldn't do everything they can to strengthen their ancestral languages, why they should just wait for your glorious revolution and take part in this "visionary" new culture of yours that they have no connection to. Perhaps you can explain that.


Nice metaphysical musings you got there. Reminds me of the conervative mantra about Shakespeare's timeless art.
So, how are cultural artefacts and aspects of the lived culture, conceptualized more broadly, timeless?
What does Versailles signify now?Versailles is a symbol of the overthrown ancien regime, it is a symbol of the causes of the Revolution, it is a symbol of (especially through its refurbishment after years of being gutted) France coming to terms with those struggles as it moves ahead. Visitors might compare Versailles to the Eiffel Tower (or even the Louvre itself) and find some true insight into the history of France, in all its contradictions. The point is that a product of absolutist society and baroque architecture has, while remaining a product of its time, transcended those circumstances.

Timeless aspects of culture take on a new character with the passing of time and with the rise of new societies. Shakespeare is a pretty good example...Macbeth was written in part to commemorate the king's Scottish connections and to be a warning against regicide...but is that how we all read it now? No, it isn't.


Also, do notice that my primary reference wasn't aimed at what is considered as cultural artefacts, but what I described above as the lived culture. And indeed, if I were to cherish my national heritage, I'm afraid communism wouldn't be an option for me. Maybe in some Strasserite, authoritarian and bourgeois form.What, exactly, would you consider lived culture?


Also, you seem like little DNZ with your sill neologisms like "cultural masochism". Don't worry, I'm perfectly capable of being a "cultural hedonist", and I'm quite sure that the working class will be able to create its own culture corresponding to the conquest of their social conditions of existence.Excellent idea...but why stop there? Why not do away with all languages, too?

Not sure if you noticed...but the conquest of social conditions of existence means that workers will have taken full possession over all art and culture. That means they are to master those arts...not disavow any connection to them as you would like them to do.

Culture is not made anew with revolution, but instead the cultures of all nations enter a new era, liberated from oppression. This will encourage more creativity, but it will not cut our links with what went before us and what belongs to us.


You don't seem to be aware of the historical rupture between the producers of cultural artefacts and its consumers, as well as the fact that cultural production was, and still is in some forms, implicitly or explicitly tied in to the existence and social role of the ruling class.

For example, I can name the late 19th century aestheticist novel, and symbolist poetry as something that has nothing to do with the masses, not in its origin, and not in its designated topic which is then reworked by means of the literary technique. In fact, the existence of these cultural forms is predicated upon something hostile to the "masses", namely, elitism and a disdain for the mass society.

But of course, I'd speculate that you're deliberately vague in your expression, visible in "in one way or another" part. Thus you could conclude that these literary works were printed by workers and thus a product of the working class. Bollocks.Nothing of that sort, but the point holds nonetheless. Poetry came entirely from the masses. Without its origins in folk tales, nobody in the 19th Century would be able to innovate symbolism at all. Novels, at least in English, go back quite famously to Chaucer, who put his works in the language of the people of his country instead of the French of the court. Yes, it does go back to the masses...thus it belongs to them.

What you should understand instead is that while the ruling classes of the past have taken hold of forms of expression and used them for self-glorification and the like...the main innovations usually spring from among the working classes. You should remember this during one of your "radical revaluations" of what people enjoy.


And moreover, I do not argue for a rejection, which amounts to ignoring, of historical cultural artefacts. What I'm arguing for is a radical revaluation of cultural values, for the free agency on behalf of the working class to critically engage these artefacts and draw pleasure and knowledge without being bullied by the cultural priesthood which is telling them what is timeless art and what they must consume.I promote no cultural priesthood, but much to your dismay, great works of art will not suddenly lose their power or grace or importance after the workers take power. Jan van Eyck's paintings will still be among the finest and most influential of the 16th Century...and so they will be held as such after the last state withers away.


Also, I'm arguing for the free creative agency of cultural production, of new cultural production which is twarted by scholastic insistence on normativity, which is an undercurrent in any kind of a narrative glorifying "national heritage".Who's arguing for normativity? I'm arguing that without appreciating where one comes from, they can hardly be expected to know where they're going.


Maybe you should reconsider your carreer of choice and become a poet instead.Since you seem to think that poetry after the 19th Century is uniformly bourgeois and reactionary, that's a curious piece of advice.


But I got an alternative answer to your little question: we might as well call them "visionaries" and "adventurers", free from the slavish attitude towards the past which is all too readily brought upon people.Famous last words.

But I look forward to seeing these new forms of dance that your "adventurers" are going to invent, surely based on absolutely no previous forms of movement of the human body. Should be a lot fun, especially when you try to tell workers who prefer say, salsa, to dance your brave new stuff instead. :lol: Your new "visionary" forms of cuisine should be great fun, too.


Embrace it by ravaging it, critically and creatively. Figuratively speaking, of course. I'd be down for that.If you want to, go for it...but it is your heritage, whether or not you admit it.


As a side note, it's really interesting that one of the greatest literary innovators, a real creative force, was enabled by more of a lack of a national heritage in literature. It's rather telling.
Walt Whitman is the man.So I can assume that you would encourage schools to incorporate Walt Whitman's writings into their curriculum, then. Interesting.

[Thirsty Crow]

If you want, go for it...but it is your heritage, whether or not you admit it.

Oh really, now we're clinging at a sort of an ethnic determinism? It defines me, it obliges me, inherently?
What fucking bollocks. Maybe you belong to the socialist phalanx. Check it out, it's being discussed in learning.

And maybe a mod could move this discussion to Literature and Films or something. It can be continued.

[manic expression]

Oh really, now we're clinging at a sort of an ethnic determinism? It defines me, it obliges me, inherently?
What fucking bollocks. Maybe you belong to the socialist phalanx. Check it out, it's being discussed in learning.
It has nothing to do with ethnicity, I simply assumed you grew up in a certain culture. I guess you reject even the recent past.

By the way, I'd love to hear your explanation for why American Indians shouldn't be proud of their heritage and why they shouldn't worry about the health of their ancestral languages. Go ahead, explain why they should forget about everything that makes them who they are and wait for your generic "visionary" culture they have no connection to.

[Thirsty Crow]

It has nothing to do with ethnicity, I simply assumed you grew up in a certain culture. I guess you reject even the recent past.It has everything to do with ethnicity since national cultures are not pinky and rosy affairs which are not connected to the way ethnicity is framed and the way ethnicity here construes nationality. And yeah, I reject the regressive and the reactionary in the culture I am surrounded with, and I do tend to view culture throught the lens of class struggle and relations of power (though, funnily, this hasn't made it impossible for me to enjoy certain stuff). It's called being a communist.
And I sure as hell don't need someone like yourself to force me into a specific position (even though this takes place only in debate here) since the culture I grew up in is not something I've been accepting as mine, uncritically, for a long time now.


By the way, I'd love to hear your explanation for why American Indians shouldn't be proud of their heritage and why they shouldn't worry about the health of their ancestral languages. Go ahead, explain why they should forget about everything that makes them who they are and wait for your generic "visionary" culture they have no connection to.Explanation for what, your manic straw man "arguments"? Like the one according to which I hold the position that all of the poetry after the 19th century is bourgeois and reactionary? That's some nice shit you got there.

Native Americans (is it part of the anglo-american cultural heritage to cling on to fallacious terms like "Indians"?) can be proud of their cultural heritage. I can't say I would even think that they're foolish for doing so, since I wouldn't, and to speak of my stating that one shouldn't be proud of whatever the fuck she likes to be proud of is to completely miss the point.

What I would argue for is personal freedom of choice with respect to the way of life and cultural enagement. I would argue for an education empowering in the sense of personal participation in culture according to the desires of the person in question, without interference on behalf of the binding, exclusive, and debilitating insistence on established forms of life and forms of culture.
And before you decide to once again twist my words again, no, the above does not apply to the contemporary Native American cultures.

And lastly, if you're not interested in splitting this off topic debate into the cultural sub forums, I'd advise you to get acquainted with the Russain avant garde cultural movements, their overwhelmingly supportive relation to the proletarian revolution, and the early Bolshevik cultural policies.

[manic expression]

It has everything to do with ethnicity since national cultures are not pinky and rosy affairs which are not connected to the way ethnicity is framed and the way ethnicity here construes nationality. And yeah, I reject the regressive and the reactionary in the culture I am surrounded with, and I do tend to view culture throught the lens of class struggle and relations of power (though, funnily, this hasn't made it impossible for me to enjoy certain stuff). It's called being a communist.
Except ethnicity doesn't drive nationality. Again, you're buying the right-wing dialogue and taking it as dogma instead of questioning it.


And I sure as hell don't need someone like yourself to force me into a specific position (even though this takes place only in debate here) since the culture I grew up in is not something I've been accepting as mine, uncritically, for a long time now.
That's your choice...but most people aren't willing to gleefully cut themselves off from what's around them and the history of those who went before them. Shocking, I know, but there it is.


Native Americans (is it part of the anglo-american cultural heritage to cling on to fallacious terms like "Indians"?) can be proud of their cultural heritage. I can't say I would even think that they're foolish for doing so, since I wouldn't, and to speak of my stating that one shouldn't be proud of whatever the fuck she likes to be proud of is to completely miss the point.
Ask the AIM that question...I can use NDN if you prefer.


What I would argue for is personal freedom of choice with respect to the way of life and cultural enagement. I would argue for an education empowering in the sense of personal participation in culture according to the desires of the person in question, without interference on behalf of the binding, exclusive, and debilitating insistence on established forms of life and forms of culture.
And before you decide to once again twist my words again, no, the above does not apply to the contemporary Native American cultures.
Wait, wait, hold on. So "binding, exclusive, and debilitating insistence on established forms of life and forms of culture" doesn't apply to NDN cultures...just cause you say so?

Very convenient...except it's inconsistent.


And lastly, if you're not interested in splitting this off topic debate into the cultural sub forums, I'd advise you to get acquainted with the Russain avant garde cultural movements, their overwhelmingly supportive relation to the proletarian revolution, and the early Bolshevik cultural policies.
I can tell you Russian avant garde architecture was stuff no one actually liked and it was pretty quickly rolled back. At any rate, the majority of the 20th Century avant garde (aka modernist art) was quite close to reactionary forces...and honestly, if Malevich (who partook in "superstitious idolatry", to borrow your phrasing) and his Black Square is your "visionary" vision for the the new culture we're all going to have...yeah.

[Thirsty Crow]

Except ethnicity doesn't drive nationality. Again, you're buying the right-wing dialogue and taking it as dogma instead of questioning it.You ignorant fuck, I'm talking about the culture I was brought up into. And the fact is right-wing dogma is effective in some parts of our planet in the project of nation building, and indeed ethnicity becomes a crucial drive for nationality.
Pull your head up from wherever you keep it and realize that reality is not, on the other hand, driven by texbook definitions.



That's your choice...but most people aren't willing to gleefully cut themselves off from what's around them and the history of those who went before them. Shocking, I know, but there it is.Yet another straw man.
Maybe you ought to realize the difference between affirmative and critical as well as selective recognition of various cultural aspects of one's immediate surroundings. The same goes for history, and indeed I think studying history is quite important.




Ask the AIM that question...I can use NDN if you prefer.I would if I knew what the abbreviations stand for. I'm guessing that the "n"s stand for "native" and "nation".



Wait, wait, hold on. So "binding, exclusive, and debilitating insistence on established forms of life and forms of culture" doesn't apply to NDN cultures...just cause you say so?

Very convenient...except it's inconsistent.You know, I dont just write stuff here as if words fell from the sky. So, "exclusive" and "binding" have a very specific communicative function here, one which you are unable to grasp, or one which you choose to ignore for the fun of holding your position without seriously considering the counter-argument.
So, either you're just dumb or you're dishonest and manipulative in debate.

And to be clear, yes, all of this applies to whatever minority culture you can think of. Though, I wouldn't put too much of an emphasis on it since I'd hope that people will be able to migrate freely once the rule of capital is abolished, so the issue of coercion in this instance becomes moot.



I can tell you Russian avant garde architecture was stuff no one actually liked and it was pretty quickly rolled back. At any rate, the majority of the 20th Century avant garde (aka modernist art) was quite close to reactionary forces...and honestly, if Malevich (who partook in "superstitious idolatry", to borrow your phrasing) and his Black Square is your "visionary" vision for the the new culture we're all going to have...yeah.
Just as I thought. You have no idea whatsoever about the Russian avant garde, and probably about the Bolshevik positions on the "cultural question". First guess - architecture, wrong, second guess, Malevich, yet again wrong.
Try with Majakovskij, literary futurism (to emphasize, Russian futurims was quite different from the Italian literary movement of the same name) and constructivism instead.

Or better yet, let's stop here. It's hard to discuss the issues seriously with someone who has no idea about the history of culture in the first "workers' state" in the world. And I'd think that this section of history would be a major point of reference. Silly me.

[manic expression]

You ignorant fuck, I'm talking about the culture I was brought up into. And the fact is right-wing dogma is effective in some parts of our planet in the project of nation building, and indeed ethnicity becomes a crucial drive for nationality.
Pull your head up from wherever you keep it and realize that reality is not, on the other hand, driven by texbook definitions.
Nationality isn't something we just invent, this is a big misconception. Right-wing dogma doesn't determine what nationality is or isn't...that's why we have to approach the issue as materialists, and that's why ethnicity proves not to be a driving factor in that identity but instead shared history, language, geographic region and common culture are among the most important.


Yet another straw man.
Maybe you ought to realize the difference between affirmative and critical as well as selective recognition of various cultural aspects of one's immediate surroundings. The same goes for history, and indeed I think studying history is quite important.We can be affirmative and critical at once, no? Recognizing the connection doesn't mean you have to think everything that happened before you is good...in fact it oftentimes means the exact opposite...but it's about recognition and the effect it has on our identities.


I would if I knew what the abbreviations stand for. I'm guessing that the "n"s stand for "native" and "nation".It doesn't stand for anything as far as I know, just read it quickly...it's pronounced the same way, but the spelling distinguishes one from the other. NDNs are Indians, but they're not Indians from India....


You know, I dont just write stuff here as if words fell from the sky. So, "exclusive" and "binding" have a very specific communicative function here, one which you are unable to grasp, or one which you choose to ignore for the fun of holding your position without seriously considering the counter-argument.
So, either you're just dumb or you're dishonest and manipulative in debate.

And to be clear, yes, all of this applies to whatever minority culture you can think of. Though, I wouldn't put too much of an emphasis on it since I'd hope that people will be able to migrate freely once the rule of capital is abolished, so the issue of coercion in this instance becomes moot.And if someone is born into such a community, learns the language and the songs, the dances, their heritage...it's not "exclusive" or "binding"? It forms part of the basis of who they are, so of course it's "binding" somehow, and that's why it's so important.


Just as I thought. You have no idea whatsoever about the Russian avant garde, and probably about the Bolshevik positions on the "cultural question". First guess - architecture, wrong, second guess, Malevich, yet again wrong.
Try with Majakovskij, literary futurism (to emphasize, Russian futurims was quite different from the Italian literary movement of the same name) and constructivism instead.Malevich wasn't part of the Russian avant garde...? Say what? He's basically the first fully abstract artist of the 20th Century.

I was talking about constructivism with regard to architecture. It didn't win many fans and was phased out by the early 30's.


Or better yet, let's stop here. It's hard to discuss the issues seriously with someone who has no idea about the history of culture in the first "workers' state" in the world. And I'd think that this section of history would be a major point of reference. Silly me.Awesome argument. First you say you're against a "cultural priesthood", and now you angrily demand I read Majakovskij.

[Thirsty Crow]

Nationality isn't something we just invent, this is a big misconception. Right-wing dogma doesn't determine what nationality is or isn't...that's why we have to approach the issue as materialists, and that's why ethnicity proves not to be a driving factor in that identity but instead shared history, language, geographic region and common culture are among the most important.Just stop. Honestly, it's unbelievably arrogant when you have a fuckwit such as yourself trying to explain the process of nation building (within the broader process of bourgeois state formation) to me...who was engulfed by it, who observed it and who studied it. Have some decency to recognize that you don't know what exactly you're talking talk about (tossing around textbook definitions of factors which play into the recognition of what group of people may be termed a nation does not amount to knowledge about this particular instance)


We can be affirmative and critical at once, no? Recognizing the connection doesn't mean you have to think everything that happened before you is good...in fact it oftentimes means the exact opposite...but it's about recognition and the effect it has on our identities.The only effect of my recognition of specific cultural aspects of my lived experience ony my identity is negative: by criticism and by distance I managed to define what I do not want to be. I suppose that's good.
Though, of course, there are positive aspects of the historical culture in question. As I've said,




And if someone is born into such a community, learns the language and the songs, the dances, their heritage...it's not "exclusive" or "binding"? It forms part of the basis of who they are, so of course it's "binding" somehow, and that's why it's so important.Finally, the crux of the issue.
No, to be born into a community practicing a culture does not amount to what I described above since that would depend on the concrete structure of the community, the power relations and the specifics of the practiced forms of upbringing and education.
Everything boils down to this specifics.


Malevich wasn't part of the Russian avant garde...? Say what? He's basically the first fully abstract artist of the 20th Century.Not the specific post-October Russian cultural avant garde which has thrown itself to the revolution and was militantly supportive. I'm not inrterested in Malevich here since he wasn't a part of that specific movement, which is in my opinion, quite important in studying early Soviet culture, especially in relatio to the issue of traditional cultural forms and new cultural forms.


I was talking about constructivism with regard to architecture. It didn't win many fans and was phased out by the early 30's.See above.


Awesome argument. First you say you're against a "cultural priesthood", and now you angrily demand I read Majakovskij.
Again, straw man. Where the hell did I "angrily demand you read Majakovskij"? Nowhere, that's where.
Whad I did do was to point you to this specific direction, which you seem completely unfamiliar with, which can illuminate my specific understanding of the problem of the possibility of a new culture once the old bourgeois order is broken. It's not necessary that you delve into any of the writers fully at all.

OK, that's it, if you're interested in advancing this debate, we shouldn't do so in this thread. It's quite an off topic.

[Ocean Seal]

I hate to invoke nazi germany, and I want to be clear, I am not comparing Nazi Germany to any currently developing nation with a national liberation struggle, but wasn't Germany an oppressed nation prior to Hitler's rise? Did the oppressed people in Germany, who were being forced to pay for the war of the rich, not have the right of self-determination?:confused:
The German people had the right to free themselves from the abusive reparations and not pay for a war of the rich, but they did not have the right from an anti-imperialist viewpoint to massacre ethnic minorities or use them as scapegoats.

[manic expression]

Just stop. Honestly, it's unbelievably arrogant when you have a fuckwit such as yourself trying to explain the process of nation building (within the broader process of bourgeois state formation) to me...who was engulfed by it, who observed it and who studied it. Have some decency to recognize that you don't know what exactly you're talking talk about (tossing around textbook definitions of factors which play into the recognition of what group of people may be termed a nation does not amount to knowledge about this particular instance)
It's quite clear that your hostility to all national identities is a result of you buying the right-wing conceptions of the issue. Whatever your views of this nation-building process you're speaking of, one can rest assured that it does not necessarily affect or change the materialist understanding of nationality...thus it's not much of a substantive point on your part and more of a way to condemn nationality without actually taking into account its material basis.


The only effect of my recognition of specific cultural aspects of my lived experience ony my identity is negative: by criticism and by distance I managed to define what I do not want to be. I suppose that's good.
Though, of course, there are positive aspects of the historical culture in question. As I've said,As I've said, most people aren't so eager to do the same.


Finally, the crux of the issue.
No, to be born into a community practicing a culture does not amount to what I described above since that would depend on the concrete structure of the community, the power relations and the specifics of the practiced forms of upbringing and education.
Everything boils down to this specifics.Oh, give me a break. It's very plain that you don't want to admit that something like that is "binding" in some way because it would expose the insensitivity of your argument.

We went from righteous criticisms of every culture that ever existed to "oh well it's all about the details"...the backtracking here is absurd.


Not the specific post-October Russian cultural avant garde which has thrown itself to the revolution and was militantly supportive. I'm not inrterested in Malevich here since he wasn't a part of that specific movement, which is in my opinion, quite important in studying early Soviet culture, especially in relatio to the issue of traditional cultural forms and new cultural forms."Russian avant garde" is what you said. Then you called me stupid for not reading your mind. Charming, really.


Again, straw man. Where the hell did I "angrily demand you read Majakovskij"? Nowhere, that's where.
Whad I did do was to point you to this specific direction, which you seem completely unfamiliar with, which can illuminate my specific understanding of the problem of the possibility of a new culture once the old bourgeois order is broken. It's not necessary that you delve into any of the writers fully at all.Or better yet, let's stop here. It's hard to discuss the issues seriously with someone who has no idea about the history of culture in the first "workers' state" in the world. And I'd think that this section of history would be a major point of reference. Silly me.

Patronizing someone because they haven't read your canon...remind of you of something?


OK, that's it, if you're interested in advancing this debate, we shouldn't do so in this thread. It's quite an off topic.It isn't very much so, actually.