Differences between "socialist nationalism" & national socialism?

[RedSquare]

Socialist nationalism refers to left-wing nationalism, like that espoused by Fidel Castro's 26th July Movement, James Connolly, Sinn Fein, IRSP, RSF, 32CSM,the ANC pre-corruption, the Scottish SNP, etc.

But what's different between this and the "national socialism" as espoused in by the followers of Hitler, and more importantly, Rohm and the Strassers? Is there any real difference other than the espousing of racial discrimination and hatred?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

National Socialism is Fascism.It has no connections to actual socialism.

[Rodrigo]

Right-wing nationalism is extreme nationalism: anti-internationalist, xenophobic and supremacist, racist or racialist.

I think left-wing "nationalism" is only giving importance to the national question instead of talking about the accomplishment of "world revolution", but it's internationalist, against racism and everything mentioned before. We could say that in non-aligned socialist countries, specially in Indochina, there was left-wing "nationalism" as well.

[Leftsolidarity]

It doesn't seek to elminate classes but wants class collaboration to keep people in 'their place' basically. That is among other not so pleasant things like the racism and xenophobia stuff.

[Blake's Baby]

No there isn't.

Nationalism is nationalism, it's not internationalism. If you think that some people have 'rights' based on 'nation' ('right of nations to self determination', 'right of abode' based on national/ethnic criteria, right of bourgeoisie to dominate its 'own' working class) then you are arguing for nationalism not internationalism.

As the working class has no country, as workers of the world must unite to overthrow international capitalism, all 'nations' (a bourgeois construct) can go get fucked in my opinion.

[Leftsolidarity]

No there isn't.

Nationalism is nationalism, it's not internationalism. If you think that some people have 'rights' based on 'nation' ('right of nations to self determination', 'right of abode' based on national/ethnic criteria, right of bourgeoisie to dominate its 'own' working class) then you are arguing for nationalism not internationalism.

As the working class has no country, as workers of the world must unite to overthrow international capitalism, all 'nations' (a bourgeois construct) can go get fucked in my opinion.

We've all had this discussion in a past thread discussing how things like black nationalism are different than bourgeois nationalism.

[Geiseric]

Indeed, would left communists deny the right for an oppressed nationality to split off, and maybe take other oppressed nationalities with them? such a thing would surely weaken capitalism, but would left coms would deny any attempt for anything short of an international revolution's legitimacy?

[Sasha]

socialist nationalism is a distraction, national socialism is an deception

[Desperado]

As the working class has no country, as workers of the world must unite to overthrow international capitalism, all 'nations' (a bourgeois construct) can go get fucked in my opinion.

The concept of a nation is far older than the bourgeoisie, older than "nation-states". Just because they use it in a twisted manner (just as they use words like "freedom" and "equality") doesn't mean that the concept in itself is bourgeois.

[Rusty Shackleford]

national liberation can be and usually is internationalist. it can be devoid of racism while still fighting colonialism and attempting to establish self-governance of a certain nation/ethnicity. And, generally, it is fought for by the working class(not always ideologically) and has great benefits for the working class. Sometimes they end up as bourgeois natioanlist states, proletarian states, or degrade into comprador states.

[norwegianwood90]

Socialist nationalism (also known as left-wing nationalism) usually emphasizes the liberation, autonomy, or sovereignty of a national group within a larger context, while also advocating a socialist government to be the system for the theoretical sovereign state--for example, Welsh nationalists within the United Kingdom or Basque nationalists in Spain and France.

National Socialism, or Nazism, does not emphasize the liberation of a national group. Rather, it is militantly nationalistic (i.e., jingoistic and expansionistic). It is only "socialist" in the sense that it provides some semblance of social programs for people of the particular nationality being emphasized--for example, welfare programs for Aryans existed in Nazi Germany. National Socialism is vehemently opposed to Marxian socialism. Marxian socialism places class interests and solidarity above national interests, while National Socialism (and fascism in general) place the interests of the nation and state above all else; National Socialism advocates cross-class alliances to further the "betterment" of the nation/state.

[Blake's Baby]

Left Communists in general (though not all, in particular) would deny the possibility of any 'national liberation movement' either 1 - weakening capitalism or 2 - helping the proletariat.

I cannot for the life of me see why it benefits the working class to be exploited by capitalists who have the same accent or wear the same kind of hat, rather than capitalists who speak with a different accent or wear a different hat.

If 'the workers have no country' and 'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains, you have a world to win' aren't crystal clear slogans then I have obviously been doing this communism thing wrong for a long time now. Perhaps what Karl and Fred meant was 'workers, foreigners are worse than exploiters from your own country' and 'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but the chains imposed on you by people who don't speak your language, you have a country to win that you can then hand over to local oppressors, won't that be nice'.

[Leftsolidarity]

Left Communists in general (though not all, in particular) would deny the possibility of any 'national liberation movement' either 1 - weakening capitalism or 2 - helping the proletariat.

I cannot for the life of me see why it benefits the working class to be exploited by capitalists who have the same accent or wear the same kind of hat, rather than capitalists who speak with a different accent or wear a different hat.

If 'the workers have no country' and 'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains, you have a world to win' aren't crystal clear slogans then I have obviously been doing this communism thing wrong for a long time now. Perhaps what Karl and Fred meant was 'workers, foreigners are worse than exploiters from your own country' and 'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but the chains imposed on you by people who don't speak your language, you have a country to win that you can then hand over to local oppressors, won't that be nice'.

So would you say that national liberation movements fighting against colonialism is pointless if they aren't communist? You can pick and choose some slogans and quotes to base your views on but I can throw out slogans and quotes too. They aren't logically arguments.

That "all or nothing" mentality is harmful because you will denounce anything that isn't perfect in your eyes.

[The Idler]

National Liberation (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2011/01/national-liberation.html)

[Jose Gracchus]

Whether "communists" have decided to support this or that group of bourgeois nationalists/populists, basically. I could never detect any real ontological difference.

[Blake's Baby]

...

That "all or nothing" mentality is harmful because you will denounce anything that isn't perfect in your eyes.

Whereas, I would say this "lesser evil" mentality is harmful because you will support reactionaries and murderers with your eyes wide shut.

Please explain why enrolling workers behind an incipient bourgeoisie against a more powerful foreign bourgeoisie is better than urging all workers to attack all bourgeoisies.

[Kamos]

There is no such thing as "socialist nationalism", that's one difference. (Nationalism can never be socialist; the right can never be left.) Tough luck to all you Irish republicans, if your new Irish state is capitalist you will have accomplished fuck all.

[Leftsolidarity]

Whereas, I would say this "lesser evil" mentality is harmful because you will support reactionaries and murderers with your eyes wide shut.

Please explain why enrolling workers behind an incipient bourgeoisie against a more powerful foreign bourgeoisie is better than urging all workers to attack all bourgeoisies.

That's not true. It just means that I won't go "Oh it's not the perfect communist revolution I'm looking for? Fuck that."

Your question is ridiculous. That's like saying "Well it does matter to me if the USA was colonized by a foreign power because it's just trading one bourgeoisie for another." I believe in national liberation even if it isn't communist at first. First, we should get the power more in the hands of the people who live in the area and fight the big imperialist powers. It's not exactly a "lesser of 2 evils" but a progress to get where we want. It won't always be perfect nor all at once.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

socialist nationalism is a distraction, national socialism is an deception

^This, if you look at the actual politico-economics of Nazism whether it be Hitlerian or Strasserite (if there is even a genuine difference) it's pretty clear that there is nothing Socialisitic about it and that it has no connection whatsoever to genuine Socialism or the worker's movement despite bullshit posturing and terminology.

As others have pointed out, Nazism is Fascism; there is very little if anything distinguishing the two.

[Blake's Baby]

That's not true. It just means that I won't go "Oh it's not the perfect communist revolution I'm looking for? Fuck that."

Your question is ridiculous. That's like saying "Well it does matter to me if the USA was colonized by a foreign power because it's just trading one bourgeoisie for another." I believe in national liberation even if it isn't communist at first. First, we should get the power more in the hands of the people who live in the area and fight the big imperialist powers. It's not exactly a "lesser of 2 evils" but a progress to get where we want. It won't always be perfect nor all at once.

Then you're a nationalist not an internationalist, a supporter of bourgeois murderers instead of the international proletriat. To claim that there are progresssive factions of the bourgeoisie is ridiculous; it's almost as if WWI hadn't happened, Rosa Luxemburg had never written the Junius Pamphlet, Lenin had never urged the Russian workers to 'turn the Imperialist war into a civil war', Trotsky had never written the statutues of the Communist International, or Marx even had never written about the complicity of the Prussians with the Thiers government in the suppression of the Commune. In fact, it's Bernstein and Revisionism a hundred years on, it's social democracy with bayonets.

Really if you want to believe in 'progressive capitalism' it should be the big powers you support, not the small ones, because it should (if capitalism were still progressive) be the biggest powers that are the ones spreading advanced capitalism. That would only make you 140 years out of date as a Marxist, but a Marxist nevertheless. Supporting national liberation movements makes you what, exactly? A radical Liberal? A bourgeois democrat? A Romantic?

[ZeroNowhere]

Indeed, would left communists deny the right for an oppressed nationality to split off, and maybe take other oppressed nationalities with them? such a thing would surely weaken capitalism, but would left coms would deny any attempt for anything short of an international revolution's legitimacy?
You seem confused here. Is it right for oppressed nationalities to split off because they have a right to do so, or because doing so would weaken capitalism? Rights can't be contingent on practicality.

[Die Rote Fahne]

We've all had this discussion in a past thread discussing how things like black nationalism are different than bourgeois nationalism.
Black nationalism should be considered more like black liberation. It's strive is for socialism (in most cases) and equality, and the like. They know that socialism must come first.

The "left wing nationalism", such as that espoused by many in North Ireland and in Quebec, is nationalism that is NOT like the black nationalist struggle. They waste their time fighting for independence -- side by side with the petit-bourgeois and bourgeois, and dividing the working class.

The Irish Republicans may have had a case 100-150 years ago, but not today. They are not, contrary to what one pro-irish independence revlefter claims, "under the heel of British imperialism".

Each and every case of "national liberation" must be analyzed from a historical materialist perspective. Is the movement beneficial to the international proletariat, or not? etc...


Social Democracy, whose political program is based on the scientific method of historical materialism and the class struggle, cannot make an exception with respect to the nationality question... - Rosa Luxemburg


On the "right of self determination of all nations":
...Dialectic materialism, which is the basis of scientific socialism, has broken once and for all with this type of “eternal” formula. For the historical dialectic has shown that there are no “eternal” truths and that there are no “rights.” ... In the words of Engels, “What is good in the here and now, is an evil somewhere else, and vice versa” – or, what is right and reasonable under some circumstances becomes nonsense and absurdity under others. Historical materialism has taught us that the real content of these “eternal” truths, rights, and formulae is determined only by the material social conditions of the environment in a given historical epoch. - Rosa Luxemburg -- note: "Social Democracy" in her time, referred to revolutionary socialism/marxism.

[Leftsolidarity]

Then you're a nationalist not an internationalist, a supporter of bourgeois murderers instead of the international proletriat. To claim that there are progresssive factions of the bourgeoisie is ridiculous; it's almost as if WWI hadn't happened, Rosa Luxemburg had never written the Junius Pamphlet, Lenin had never urged the Russian workers to 'turn the Imperialist war into a civil war', Trotsky had never written the statutues of the Communist International, or Marx even had never written about the complicity of the Prussians with the Thiers government in the suppression of the Commune. In fact, it's Bernstein and Revisionism a hundred years on, it's social democracy with bayonets.

Really if you want to believe in 'progressive capitalism' it should be the big powers you support, not the small ones, because it should (if capitalism were still progressive) be the biggest powers that are the ones spreading advanced capitalism. That would only make you 140 years out of date as a Marxist, but a Marxist nevertheless. Supporting national liberation movements makes you what, exactly? A radical Liberal? A bourgeois democrat? A Romantic?

Why do you feel the need to tell me what I am and then try to call me a liberal? Not a very convincing argument.

I believe in a nation's right to self-determination.

When did I say 'progressive capitalism'? Please show me.
I did say "I believe in national liberation even if it isn't communist at first." then I said in a different sentence "It's not exactly a "lesser of 2 evils" but a progress to get where we want." That is not me calling for 'progressive capitalism'.

You actually didn't make any points in your post other than mentally masturbate to all the literature you've read. How about making a real argument next time instead of all the strawman ones?

If supporting national liberation "makes" you anything it would be a communist, not a liberal.

[Blake's Baby]

No, supporting nationalism makes you a nationalist; you can be many sorts of nationalist, such as a radical liberal nationalist, a democratic nationalis (social democrat, that is), a romantic nationalist... I support communism (a classless communal society without states), that makes me a communist. Quite simple really.

If you do not believe in progressive capoitalism, logically you can only believe in reactionary capitalism. Good, I believe capitalism is reactionary too.

Now, as I asked you about 10 posts ago, please explain how supporting reactionary capitalism can possibly help the working class.

[tir1944]

As the working class has no country
That was "valid" for the 19th century when Marx lived,but not for the Era of Imperialism,as Lenin noted.



If you do not believe in progressive capoitalism, logically you can only believe in reactionary capitalism. Good, I believe capitalism is reactionary too.
Capitalism can of course be progressive,but it is,in the same time,reactionary (from a communist/revolutionary POW) so to speak...

[Blake's Baby]

Wow, progressive and reactionary at the same timne. Is that dialectical?

I'm sorry, I think Lenin was right when he called for the Russian workers to refuse to fight the German workers, (ie, when he took a proletarian internationalist position) and wrong when he called for the right of nations to self-determination (when he took a bourgeois democrat position).

It really is quite simple: Lenin was wrong about the right of nations to self-determination, and Luxemburg was right. The era of the progressive bourgeoisie was over and the proletarian revolution was (is) the order of the day (read, epoch). As there is no progressive bourgeoisie to support, the working class has no more interest in being oppressed by 'its own' bourgeoisie than any other. All bourgeois factions are reactionary and need be overthrown. The proletariat must shake off its chains - nationalism being the primary one - and fight for its own interests not the interests of a geograhically proximate bourgeois faction.

[robbo203]

Then you're a nationalist not an internationalist, a supporter of bourgeois murderers instead of the international proletriat. To claim that there are progresssive factions of the bourgeoisie is ridiculous; it's almost as if WWI hadn't happened, Rosa Luxemburg had never written the Junius Pamphlet, Lenin had never urged the Russian workers to 'turn the Imperialist war into a civil war', Trotsky had never written the statutues of the Communist International, or Marx even had never written about the complicity of the Prussians with the Thiers government in the suppression of the Commune. In fact, it's Bernstein and Revisionism a hundred years on, it's social democracy with bayonets.

Really if you want to believe in 'progressive capitalism' it should be the big powers you support, not the small ones, because it should (if capitalism were still progressive) be the biggest powers that are the ones spreading advanced capitalism. That would only make you 140 years out of date as a Marxist, but a Marxist nevertheless. Supporting national liberation movements makes you what, exactly? A radical Liberal? A bourgeois democrat? A Romantic?

Well said. There can be absolutely no excuse for supporting so called national liberation stuggles whatsoever. Necessarily the very nature of such struggles is class collaborationist and hence pro-capitalist. By blurring the distinction between classes and subordinating them- if not completely obfuscating them - to the mythical common identity and common interests of those who are said to comprise the so called nation, it represents a formidable - perhaps the most formidable impediment - to revolutionary socialism.

And before anyone goes on about it - yes Marx supported certain national liberation struggles. He was wrong about that as he was wrong about a number of other things. In any case, the pretext he used to support such national liberation was always to hasten the development of capitalism. So he would support one side in a conflict which he judged to be progressive in aiding capitalism as against the other which he saw as regressive and reactionary. He did not support national liberation struggles per se and so opposed certain movements seeking national liberation which he judged to be conservative (e.g the Slavs)

Even granting this argument (which I dont) the original pretext for Marx supporting national liberation struggles has long ago disappeared with the emergence of capitalism as a truly gobal system.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well said. There can be absolutely no excuse for supporting so called national liberation stuggles whatsoever. Necessarily the very nature of such struggles is class collaborationist and hence pro-capitalist. By blurring the distinction between classes and subordinating them- if not completely obfuscating them - to the mythical common identity and common interests of those who are said to comprise the so called nation, it represents a formidable - perhaps the most formidable impediment - to revolutionary socialism.

And before anyone goes on about it - yes Marx supported certain national liberation struggles. He was wrong about that as he was wrong about a number of other things. In any case, the pretext he used to support such national liberation was always to hasten the development of capitalism. So he would support one side in a conflict which he judged to be progressive in aiding capitalism as against the other which he saw as regressive and reactionary. He did not support national liberation struggles per se and so opposed certain movements seeking national liberation which he judged to be conservative (e.g the Slavs)

Even granting this argument (which I dont) the original pretext for Marx supporting national liberation struggles has long ago disappeared with the emergence of capitalism as a truly gobal system.
Marx did not support national liberation movements out of some eternal formulae of "right of nations to self-determination". Along with Luxemburg -- who railed against the "right of nations to self-determination" -- Marx supported some movements, whilst opposing others. The basis for support is a historical analysis of what precisely will benefit the international proletariat. The cases need to be analyzed, individually, from this dialectical perspective.

The National Question (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm) by Rosa Luxemburg, would be a good read on the subject.

[robbo203]

Marx did not support national liberation movements out of some eternal formulae of "right of nations to self-determination". Along with Luxemburg -- who railed against the "right of nations to self-determination" -- Marx supported some movements, whilst opposing others. The basis for support is a historical analysis of what precisely will benefit the international proletariat. The cases need to be analyzed, individually, from this dialectical perspective.

The National Question (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm) by Rosa Luxemburg, would be a good read on the subject.

Yes I would agree. Thats precisely why i mentioned that Marx was quite selective in his support of national liberation struggles , supporting some and opposing others. Personally I think he was wrong to have supported any but you can at least see the logic behind his thinking. That logic long ago disappeared with the globalisation of capitalism as an economic system and, were he alive today, Marx would have unquestionably agreed that there is no case for supporting so called national liberation struggles today whatever form they may take

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm sorry, I think Lenin was right when he called for the Russian workers to refuse to fight the German workers, (ie, when he took a proletarian internationalist position) and wrong when he called for the right of nations to self-determination (when he took a bourgeois democrat position).

It really is quite simple: Lenin was wrong about the right of nations to self-determination, and Luxemburg was right. The era of the progressive bourgeoisie was over and the proletarian revolution was (is) the order of the day (read, epoch). As there is no progressive bourgeoisie to support, the working class has no more interest in being oppressed by 'its own' bourgeoisie than any other. All bourgeois factions are reactionary and need be overthrown. The proletariat must shake off its chains - nationalism being the primary one - and fight for its own interests not the interests of a geograhically proximate bourgeois faction.

I think Lenin was correct when he said nations have the right to self-determination. It's actually not 'quite simple'. If it was as simple as you make it out to be I would have to question why we are not all living in a communist world right now. Stop acting as if you have all the answers and what you say is the be all, end all. You are a left communist, I am not. Neither are many other communists. I disagree with your stance regarding national liberation. You can talk some great rhetoric but it doesn't make it true.

Also, your extremely sectarian stance of 'if you aren't me, you are a liberal or reactionary' is quite sad and disheartening. I still view you as a comrade of mine even if some of our stances differ.

[robbo203]

I think Lenin was correct when he said nations have the right to self-determination. It's actually not 'quite simple'. If it was as simple as you make it out to be I would have to question why we are not all living in a communist world right now. Stop acting as if you have all the answers and what you say is the be all, end all. You are a left communist, I am not. Neither are many other communists. I disagree with your stance regarding national liberation. You can talk some great rhetoric but it doesn't make it true.

Also, your extremely sectarian stance of 'if you aren't me, you are a liberal or reactionary' is quite sad and disheartening. I still view you as a comrade of mine even if some of our stances differ.

I think it is a pretty simple and straightforward, If you support the "right of a nation to self determination" you merge the population comprising this so called nation into a homogenised mass with an overrding common interest and common identity that is their national identity. Class differences are surrpressed or even completely ignored for the sake of upholding this national identity. This is class collaborationism for the sake of an abstraction called the "nation state" which is itself a product of capitalism. Nationalism is not only a product of capitalism but a major means by which capitalism perpetuates itself.

By buying into the illusion of nationalism you are aiding capitalism

[Leftsolidarity]

I think it is a pretty simple and straightforward, If you support the "right of a nation to self determination" you merge the population comprising this so called nation into a homogenised mass with an overrding common interest and common identity that is their national identity. Class differences are surrpressed or even completely ignored for the sake of upholding this national identity. This is class collaborationism for the sake of an abstraction called the "nation state" which is itself a product of capitalism. Nationalism is not only a product of capitalism but a major means by which capitalism perpetuates itself.



It doesn't always have to do with bourgeois nation-states. So called nation? "A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history." That is from the first page of wikipedia bud.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to not support a right for a nation to self-determination. I feel opposition to it is derived from a foolish "all or nothing" mentality where if it isn't your perfect communist revolution it must be reactionary and not supported. While of course communist revolution from conditions like colonialism would be ideal, it is not always an option. I think we should support the weakening of the big imperialist powers while giving more control to the national population. That sometimes DOES come through a new bourgeois rule in the area even if it is not what we are striving for. To argue that is foolish. The American Revolution just put a more local capitalist (or whatever you would define it as) class in power but it did give (what would become) the USA's population more control than it had being a colony from Britian. Same with other former colonies.

I also don't see why you assume that it would only be a bourgeois revolution or new ruling class. National liberation can come (and hopefully would come) through a working class revolution.


Nationalism is definitely not a product of capitalism btw


By buying into the illusion of nationalism you are aiding capitalism

lolz

[NewSocialist]

It doesn't always have to do with bourgeois nation-states. So called nation? "A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history." That is from the first page of wikipedia bud.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to not support a right for a nation to self-determination. I feel opposition to it is derived from a foolish "all or nothing" mentality where if it isn't your perfect communist revolution it must be reactionary and not supported. While of course communist revolution from conditions like colonialism would be ideal, it is not always an option. I think we should support the weakening of the big imperialist powers while giving more control to the national population. That sometimes DOES come through a new bourgeois rule in the area even if it is not what we are striving for. To argue that is foolish. The American Revolution just put a more local capitalist (or whatever you would define it as) class in power but it did give (what would become) the USA's population more control than it had being a colony from Britian. Same with other former colonies.

I also don't see why you assume that it would only be a bourgeois revolution or new ruling class. National liberation can come (and hopefully would come) through a working class revolution.


Nationalism is definitely not a product of capitalism btw

What the hell is up with all the god damn nationalists on this forum lately? I swear, I really feel like this place is being infiltrated by the Socialist Phalanx. Where are the moderators on this?

Look dude, you can't be a communist (which = a stateless world) and a nationalist (which implies a state). What about that don't you understand?

[Leftsolidarity]

What the hell is up with all the god damn nationalists on this forum lately? I swear, I really feel like this place is being infiltrated by the Socialist Phalanx. Where are the moderators on this?

Look dude, you can't be a communist (which = a stateless world) and a nationalist (which implies a state). What about that don't you understand?

arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

No, a nation DOES NOT imply a state. What about that don't you understand? I just typed that but obviously you didn't read my comment.

I would not call myself a "nationalist" unless you are using some really strange definition of the word. I was an anarchist for a long time and still have strong anarchist sympathies. I just believe in the self-determination of nations.

Yes, I am a spy sent in from the Socialist Phalanx because I have differing views than you. You must be 100% correct and anyone that disagrees with you is OBVIOUSLY not a communist. :rolleyes: Lenin was such a noob when it came to communism huh?

[Aussie_Leftist]

arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

No, a nation DOES NOT imply a state. What about that don't you understand? I just typed that but obviously you didn't read my comment.

I would not call myself a "nationalist" unless you are using some really strange definition of the word. I was an anarchist for a long time and still have strong anarchist sympathies. I just believe in the self-determination of nations.

Yes, I am a spy sent in from the Socialist Phalanx because I have differing views than you. You must be 100% correct and anyone that disagrees with you is OBVIOUSLY not a communist. :rolleyes: Lenin was such a noob when it came to communism huh?

the self-determination of nations is an entirely racist concept.

[Leftsolidarity]

the self-determination of nations is an entirely racist concept.

uh I think you meant to say "the self-determination of nations is a concept used to overcome racism". There ya go. Fixed it for ya.

[NewSocialist]

"the self-determination of nations is a concept used to overcome racism".

:rolleyes: How do you figure? If anything, it encourages racism by allowing people to isolate themselves within their national boundaries, as opposed to encouraging them to think in international terms. It doesn't matter if your little "self-determined" nation is "socialist" or a class collaborationist bourgeois state, it's still reactionary by communist standards.


Lenin was such a noob when it came to communism huh?Lenin wasn't infallible --as a self-declared "former anarchist" you should realize this.

[Aussie_Leftist]

uh I think you meant to say "the self-determination of nations is a concept used to overcome racism". There ya go. Fixed it for ya.

no it is inherently racist. self-determination divides people into nations based on what? ethnicity. as if the struggle for one group of people is any different from another. if we have no use for nations then we have no use for self-determination.

[robbo203]

It doesn't always have to do with bourgeois nation-states. So called nation? "A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history." That is from the first page of wikipedia bud.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to not support a right for a nation to self-determination. I feel opposition to it is derived from a foolish "all or nothing" mentality where if it isn't your perfect communist revolution it must be reactionary and not supported. While of course communist revolution from conditions like colonialism would be ideal, it is not always an option. I think we should support the weakening of the big imperialist powers while giving more control to the national population. That sometimes DOES come through a new bourgeois rule in the area even if it is not what we are striving for. To argue that is foolish. The American Revolution just put a more local capitalist (or whatever you would define it as) class in power but it did give (what would become) the USA's population more control than it had being a colony from Britian. Same with other former colonies.

I also don't see why you assume that it would only be a bourgeois revolution or new ruling class. National liberation can come (and hopefully would come) through a working class revolution.


Nationalism is definitely not a product of capitalism btw



lolz


Granted you may may loosely refer to to a cultural or linguistic entity as a "nation" and that this usage predates capitalism, it is nevertheless the case that nationalism as such is most certainly a capitalist construct and that the notion of national liberation cannot mean anything other than the political idea of a terrirorial entity gaining a meausre of autonomy as a nation state within the framework of global capitalist society. Read Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities which goes into some detail into the process of nation-forming under capitalism

Your prescription that " we should support the weakening of the big imperialist powers while giving more control to the national population" precisely illustrates my point about the class collaborationist nature of nationalism and the way in which it aids capitalism. Class differences are downplayed or ignored for the sake of national unity which carries with it the assumption of a commonality of interest between the local working class and the local capitalists. The problem, however, is not imperialism but capitalism. Weakening one imperialist power merely strengthens another in relative terms and in any case, all nation states - even the little ones - are "imperialist", latently if not manifestly insofar as capitalism into which they are incorprated has an inherently expansionist dynamic.

The answer is not to strive for some capitalist pipedream of a community of free and equal nation states. The answer is to oppose capitalism everywhere and to transcend nationalism and the nation state which is the political form in which capitalism is typically administered

[Blake's Baby]

I really don't get this 'all or nothing' approach. If you think that not drinking from a sewer is an 'all or nothing' approach to sanitation, or not napalming my house an 'all or nothing' approach to home heating, then yeah, I agree with you. Personally, I regard it more as an approach of 'what's positive and what's harmful?'.


... It's actually not 'quite simple'. If it was as simple as you make it out to be I would have to question why we are not all living in a communist world right now...

Partly because people who called themselvers communists thought that the workers' movement should stop fighting for revolution and instead ally itself with the bourgeoisie. Prominent examples would be Turkey in 1921 (the Soviet Republic gave Ataturk free reign to destroy the communist movement in Turkey) and China in 1927 (Comintern policy was to support the KMT, resulting in the massacre of the Shanghai Commune).

Everything that the working class can do to increase its cohesion, organisation, solidarity and combativity is positive for communism and thus for humanity as a whole; everything that ties the working class to the bourgeoisie by dividing it into competing groups (nationalism, religion, racism, democratism) is contrary to the drive for communism.

Yet again I'll ask you to explain how persuading workers to kill other workers on behalf of the local bourgeoisie is supposed to bring about communism.

[Leftsolidarity]

Granted you may may loosely refer to to a cultural or linguistic entity as a "nation" and that this usage predates capitalism, it is nevertheless the case that nationalism as such is most certainly a capitalist construct and that the notion of national liberation cannot mean anything other than the political idea of a terrirorial entity gaining a meausre of autonomy as a nation state within the framework of global capitalist society. Read Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities which goes into some detail into the process of nation-forming under capitalism


I disagree. If I were to agree though I would still support national liberation because even if something was a creation of capitalism (ex: the massive working class that as communists we are supposed to be fighting for) you cannot ignore its existance.



Your prescription that " we should support the weakening of the big imperialist powers while giving more control to the national population" precisely illustrates my point about the class collaborationist nature of nationalism and the way in which it aids capitalism. Class differences are downplayed or ignored for the sake of national unity which carries with it the assumption of a commonality of interest between the local working class and the local capitalists. The problem, however, is not imperialism but capitalism. Weakening one imperialist power merely strengthens another in relative terms and in any case, all nation states - even the little ones - are "imperialist", latently if not manifestly insofar as capitalism into which they are incorprated has an inherently expansionist dynamic.


Would you disagree with the statement that there actually ARE some commonalties of interest between the local working class and the local capitalist class? Just because we are against the capitalist class doesn't mean that are interests are completely 100% polar opposites. The capitalist class would not like a return to feudalism, maybe we should support that huh? National liberation might or might not also be in the interests of the local capitalist class. If so, who cares? It's in the interests of the working class too.




The answer is not to strive for some capitalist pipedream of a community of free and equal nation states. The answer is to oppose capitalism everywhere and to transcend nationalism and the nation state which is the political form in which capitalism is typically administered

Who said that was even the goal? Agreed, but to oppose capitalism everywhere is also to oppose colonialism. National liberation does so.

[Leftsolidarity]

Everything that the working class can do to increase its cohesion, organisation, solidarity and combativity is positive for communism and thus for humanity as a whole; everything that ties the working class to the bourgeoisie by dividing it into competing groups (nationalism, religion, racism, democratism) is contrary to the drive for communism.



Rhetoric


Yet again I'll ask you to explain how persuading workers to kill other workers on behalf of the local bourgeoisie is supposed to bring about communism.

Strawman

[Die Rote Fahne]

Rhetoric



Strawman

What is revolutionary about class collaboration, and wasting your time fighting for a petit-bourgeois cause?

[Veovis]

"National Socialism" is a meaningless buzzword.

[Blake's Baby]

Rhetoric



Strawman

You politics are made of straw?

You support national liberation. Please explain how persuading the workers of one area to kill workers from another area on behalf of the local capitalists is of any benefit to the international working class.