Nationalism

[Saint-Just]

The subject was raised about whether the Nazis were internationalist. I would say no, they just had a ethnic concept of nation, this ethnic concept happened to transcend the political boundaries of nations at the time. These are some of my own thoughts on nationalism.

Nationalism is technically a political doctrine that spans many ideologies. It is at its base the belief that a nation is the most effective and desirable unit for a society and government.

However, nationalism has many interpretations. That is, there are different interpretations of what constitutes a nation. If you asked Hitler he would say a nation is primarily derived from a particular ethnic group. He would see that a group of people unique by their common ancestors and that no outsiders can step into that nation and become part of it. He would say that people a particular ethnic group have a mystical bond and are united in a similar spirit and a certain emotions towards each other. He would say that a nation is defined by ethnicity and culture and ethnicity cannot be diversified in one nation since that nation would no longer constitute a nation if it does so.

Nationalism can be seen today as reactionary when it was once progressive. For example, the French revolution was a nationalist revolution, revolutions in Vietnam, China etc. were also nationalist in character. France was previously understood to be a kingdom, the realm under the control of one King. The French people said, that in fact it was a nation of French people and that they should govern themselves. They believed themselves to be tied together by a civic bond.

Today the U.S. is often cited as have a strong nationalist element. This is not the same idea of nationalism that the Nazis possessed. I think a lot of people today cite the American nationalism as akin to Fascist nationalism of the past. Their nationalism does to some extent have ideas of cultural superiority and expansionism. However, they are a multicultural nation, to which ethnicity and a shared history is not common to many of them. Their nationalism lies in capitalism and democracy, that there is a great system to be proud of and so forth.

Socialist nationalism that existed in China, USSR and so on was very much civic nationalism and often took on a political character, that those countries were ‘great’ because of socialism. Although they still looked towards shared tradition and shared history.

My point here is that nationalism blurs many lines, it is sometimes reactionary and sometimes progressive in history. However, it is not as simple as that. The very idea of tradition promotes national exclusivity. Multiculturalism means you have different sets of people in one society with different traditions, therefore you no longer have a a set of people united by their one set of traditions. People from foreign cultures can adopt traditions in their new home country, but they cannot forget their own original traditions since then they lose their own cultural identity. National identity has evolved, for example in Britain, parts of Indian culture are nor accepted as British, we have many Indian influenced words that people here use and do not realise the origin of these words.
Words such as:
Shampoo, Bungalow, Dinghy, Mugger, Juggernaut, Pundit, Loot

Nationalism unites people and excludes people at the same time. Black people having looked back to their original cultural identity from their African ethnicity became empowered by it and united by it, and were able to find a greater level of racial equality in American society.

Would anyone like to add to what I have said about nationalism? There is much to add.

Do people here think nationalism will forever have different characteristics but also remain relevant? Do you think that it is an idea that will die away? Is nationalism intrinsically progressive or reactionary in todays world? And so on..

[Organic Revolution]

nazis cant be internationalists, hence the NATIONAL socialist part of it

[S.B.]

Greetings comrades


This question regarding nationalism is indeed a lively topic and I must say initially that there appears to be no circumstance in which this nationalistic spirit will ever cease as a force upon earth.

In todays world there is the ever-looming idea of globalization and the melting away of independent socio-political entities known as nations,however,this is in no wise to become an established reality in that the fire of patriotic fervor toward ones blood,culture and creed will not permit it.

It can be stated with somewhat accuracy that the present world situation is fluttering toward a great catastrophe,a dark and rebellious period lies just around the corner,one in which old regimes will re-emerge and present nations shall fall.

History does indeed repeat itself and with this in mind one can watch for the crash of 1929 mach ten as it were.

I myself am indeed a socialist,a Bolshevik nonetheless,still.it would be foolish to deny the power of the blood,the Nazis realized this common tendency among men as expressed in Gustave le Bons,"The Crowd" and they exploited it to the greatest degree.

Nations are founded on primarily two principles ... race and an ideology,the Nazis simply combined the two and thereby their state has remained a dominant vision for most racial ideologists til this day.

I consider my own ideology to be what I term Federal Socialism,being based upon Lenins idea of democratic centralism and within such an ideology there is space for racial collectivists who must either be allowed to gather in their own socio-political enclaves or else be altogether destroyed,and such a destruction isnt at all a logical alternative to be considered.


S.B.

[The Children of the Revolution]

An interesting discussion. Now seems to be an appropriate time to raise the issue of patriotism. To what degree can patriotism and nationalism be effectively compared?



Nationalism is technically a political doctrine that spans many ideologies.


Well the same could be said for patriotism - it tends to group people by nation above anything else. However, I don't think that it necessarily carries the political undertones associated with nationalism... Am I wrong in thinking this? Patriotism also seems to be inextricably linked to the ideas of tradition and of history. National history in fact. Does this make it a form of nationalism?

Please enlighten me!

[timbaly]

In the United States Nationalism seems to be based on morals. The "fact" that the country has superior morals to all others. The idea that the country always does right, not only by it's citizens but by the people of the world as well. Since racial, ethnic or religious unity does not exist in the country it is substituted by multicultralism. The idea is that the country is morally superior to others because of its openess to other cultures, people and religious groups. So the people believe that the United States is the most moral of all nations since it doesn't discriminate based on religion or race. The citizens believe that the United States enters conflicts for noble reasons, like Korea or Vietnam when they fought to protect democracy, in WWI when they fought to "end all wars". Morals are used to justify the cold war interventions, although they are rarely spoken of, and many people know nothing of them. The country did it to "protect the country from a communist takeover." The current war on terrorism is justified by claiming the country did nothing at all to provoke the attacks and that the war in Iraq was to bring order and democracy to the country. Not the idea that the US wants to control the oil industry in Iraq or to help out the companies who financed the Bush campaign. That of course would be considered immoral by the American public.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Personally, not only am I internationalist, but I am anti-nationalist. I feel that "the power of blood" or culture has no merit at all in determining the ability of the people to co-exist, or rather, become as one. I feel this must be done, with love if possible, with force if necessary. The proletarian does not need recognize any imperialist bounderies, nor tolorate any bourgoiuse institutions to allow them to be separarated.

[Abiyot]

Gwadoch &#33;&#33;&#33;(means comrades from where I come from), I was reading the posts about Nationalism. I like and agree in many respects with, "Chr. Mao"&#39;s post. Nationalism as phenomena cannot be underestimated, in terms of its impact, past & present. One "idiot" :blink: by the name of Tom Nairn, describes Nationalism, as "Marxism&#39;s great historical failure" <_< . I guess he was refering to the tendency of Marxist activists and theoreticians to underestimate its potential. For instance, the tendency to be dismissive of nationalism in terms of using the terms "false consciousness", "myth" etc. The potential of nationalism, in terms of whether it is reactionary or progressive, is best answered contextually, I think/feel. Meaning here, for instance the need to go back to the old and hoary distinctions between the nationalism of the oppressors (nation) and the nationlism of the oppressed (nation). But even these distinctions are not enough sometimes.

For analytical purposes, also historical specificity may be useful. That is the possibility of distinguishing "nationalisms" in terms of periods. For instance, the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe (1789 continuing up to 1914, i.e. the impact/influence of the notions disseminated by the FRench revolution and the national struggles in the Balkans and Eastern Europe upto the period of the 1st World War), the anti-colonial nationalist movements in Asia, Africa and to some extent in the America&#39;s (which gathered momentum after 1917 & more particularly after 1945) and then the nationalist movements in the Capitalist West on the part of ethnic & "racial" minorities (Irish, Corsican, Basque struggles in Europe, the struggle of Black Americans in the USA) and the struggle for national self-determination on the part of some national groups in the post-colonial state in Asia and Africa (Kurds, Sahrawis, Tamils, Eritreans).

The nationalism associated with the scum Nazis, the Fascists and their present day descendants in France, Britain, Austria and Germany etc, is I think analytically and practically "different". These movements and sets of ideas (sic), possess an emphasis on nationalism, to be more specific a racial/organicist notion of nationality and statehood. Also the notions/practice of militarism. But nationalisms in this case have to be understood and conceptualized, concretely. There would be the need to take into account the level of socio-economic advancement (industrial or post industrial economy), comprehensive extended socio-economic crisis, class conflicts and antagonisms at their highest pitch (well organized working class, strong Communist or radical Left parties) with attendant fear and apprehension on the part of the privileged social groups, the presence of distinct national groups/communities which can be a target for the right in terms of blame displacement, mobilization and persecution (Jews in the past and the present?, immigrants in the present), the formulation of crude, populistic slogans and programs to appeal to the groups who have been negatively affected by the crisis (the lumpen, the lower middle class etc). Basically, nationalism in this case is in many senses of the terms instrumental. It does not call for or aim for the formation of a nation state, as this statehood already exists. What is does call for is a restructuring of the state and its apparatus on a new and distinct basis.

The point I a trying to make is that wheteher a particular nationalism is progressive of reactionary, emancipatory or fascistic is very much dependent on many other factors and processes. This I think would be a Marxian attitude or interpretation ;) .

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 10 2003, 01:55 AM
An interesting discussion. Now seems to be an appropriate time to raise the issue of patriotism. To what degree can patriotism and nationalism be effectively compared?



Nationalism is technically a political doctrine that spans many ideologies.


Well the same could be said for patriotism - it tends to group people by nation above anything else. However, I don&#39;t think that it necessarily carries the political undertones associated with nationalism... Am I wrong in thinking this? Patriotism also seems to be inextricably linked to the ideas of tradition and of history. National history in fact. Does this make it a form of nationalism?

Please enlighten me&#33;
I think patrioitism literally means &#39;to love one&#39;s own people&#39;. Patriotism is a very simple concept compared to nationalism. Nationalism does prescribe patriotism. Patriotism is often linked to nationalism, most patriots are nationalists, so you could say that patriotism is simply an element of nationalism.

[redstar2000]

This thread lacks focus.

To be specific, do we want "nations" to continue to exist?

If not, how do we proceed to abolish them?

Do we want a "central world government"?

Do we want many thousands of "regional" or "municipal" political entities, each with something that resembles "sovereignty" today?

Do we want to encourage people to emotionally identify with a particular political entity? Or a particular ethnic group or localized culture?

Or tolerate it? Or discourage it?

Is nationalism/patriotism even rational? If not, do we want to encourage an irrational idea?

There have been and undoubtedly still are people on this board who take nationalism/patriotism very seriously and have a highly favorable opinion of it...at least as far as their own "identity" is concerned. Is that "good" or "bad"?

How much is nationalism/patriotism rooted in the same kind of emotion that people express when they speak of attachments to their families?

Is that ok? Unavoidable? Something that ought to be struggled against?

Why would people even care one way or another about anything as abstract as a "nation", anyway?

Why "should" they?

Marx and Engels said that "the working class has no country". Were they right or wrong about that?

Will they someday (in the future) be right about that?

Is that a "good thing"? Or not?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

Yes, I lost my focus since it was so late in the evening when I wrote it.

I think this is an important question:

Do we want to encourage people to emotionally identify with a particular political entity? Or a particular ethnic group or localized culture?

This is the root of nationalism; people feeling bonds within political entities, ethnic groups and so on.

Nationalism has certainly been progressive at some stages in history, but is it anymore?

I think there is an argument in socialism that the bourgeoisie uses nationalism to unite people so that the proletariat will not feel that class distinctions create great friction. And there is also an argument that socialist revolutions should take place within single nations by the nation&#39;s people and that patriotism is wanting what is best for your people; socialism.

I think that nations are effective as political units and not only that but they nations should preserve their own, constantly developing, culture. However, nations should respect the soveriegnty of other nations and seek cooperation between nations through international relations.

[The Children of the Revolution]

I think that nations are effective as political units and not only that but they nations should preserve their own, constantly developing, culture.


I agree totally. The preservation of national culture - whether static or changing - is of fundamental importance. Otherwise, we run the risk of following America toward "mono-culture". This is already happening worldwide, and must be countered.



Nationalism has certainly been progressive at some stages in history, but is it anymore?


I think western nationalism, in it&#39;s current form, is conservative. The rise of the BNP can be associated with the anti immigration feeling prevalent in today&#39;s world. Nationalism also seeks to maintain a people&#39;s freedoms - from external influences on a countries power. The current situation in Europe (proposed increase in European Parliaments powers) threatens this national independence - therefore nationalism reacts against it.

This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Nationalism, as championed by the BNP, has (rightly) been seen as dangerous and wrong. But I believe that a Nationalist / Socialist state (No, not like the Nazis) would be a fantastic bulwark against the further spread of capitalsm and monoculturalism; as such, I would support it&#39;s creation.

[Saint-Just]

I agree totally. The preservation of national culture - whether static or changing - is of fundamental importance. Otherwise, we run the risk of following America toward "mono-culture". This is already happening worldwide, and must be countered.

I agree, but what of American culture. American culture is so based on capitalism that it cannot be preserved, should we get rid of it?


Nationalism, as championed by the BNP, has (rightly) been seen as dangerous and wrong. But I believe that a Nationalist / Socialist state (No, not like the Nazis) would be a fantastic bulwark against the further spread of capitalsm and monoculturalism; as such, I would support it&#39;s creation.

I agree, the nationalism of the BNP would be chauvanism and racist. I also believe that Britain should reject American cultural imperialism.

[RedAnarchist]

A world confederation with the capital in a neutral state (switzerland, sweden etc) could be a good idea. One union of many nations.

Of course there needs to be a global revolution first.

[The Children of the Revolution]

I have been reading up on the subject concerned.

Paraphrasing Ernest Gellner in his seminal classic "Nations and Nationalism", one can define nationalism as the desire for the political and national unit to act with the same interests. Gellner goes on to emphasise the need for "cultural homogeneity" if nationalism is to develop. This, he argues, is evident in all industrial societies. Therefore, each and every industrialised state has the potential to develop nationalistic feelings.

This raises a potentially interesting (and slightly frightening) situation. If mono-culture were to be imposed on the Western world, (obviously referring to American "cultural imperialism" - a good term, Chairman&#33;) and if it were to be fully integrated, the theories behind nationalism would suggest that political decisions across the West would be concurrent. Of course, this is only if nationalism prevails in the individual countries...

The consequences of such a situation would be disastrous. It would effectively unite Western capitalism. The West would become ever more exploitative, and the developing world ever more oppressed. However, set against this bleak outline of the future must be traced the possibility of hope - World Revolution. With class boundaries more obvious than ever, would the potential for revolution not be increased tenfold??? The optimist in me jumps for joy; the pessimist despairs. If the West acted as one unit, in order to successfully launch a revolution the exploited classes would also have to. And without "cultural homogeneity" this would be impossible. Nations would act in their own interests; "divide and rule" would undoubtedly win the day. Also, the combined military and economic power of the Western states would be very tricky to overcome. The future then, looks bad.

Such a world remains a distant nightmare. However, the potential for such a scenario ever arising demands that we reaffirm our resistance to "cultural imperialism"; this may be manifest in an embracing of nationalism. Preserving capitalist states individuality - so they can continue to work against each other, rather than conspire against the beleaguered third-world worker. Is this the way forward?

[Don't Change Your Name]

i think there are 3 attitudes about the nation issue:

1. Imperialist Nationalism (examples: Bush, Hitler, Mussolini)
Usually fascists who put the nation above the rest of the world, sometimes (like in nazism) they see a master race who is the same thing than the nation (I mean, the race makes the nation&#39;s population and its cultures and characteristics). This people believe their nations have to rule the world by expanding and controlling weaker ones

2. Anti-Imperialist Nationalism (examples: Ho Chi Mihn, Perón, Fidel)
A big sense of patriotism and they defend the nation&#39;s interests. They hardly ever see ethnicity as an important thing, but they feel the territory of the nation belongs to those who live on it and work on it. They defend from imperialist agression and other nations attemps to control them or impose things on them. Usually they prefer protectionism over liberal globalisation and they believe different people should have their own nation

3. Internationalists
They dont believe in the nation divisions, and give more importance to class struggle over conflicts between nations. Usually, they see nationalism as a useless lie to divide the humans and unite a certain group to believe some people who controls them with the state, but without denying cultural and origin differences between the nations. They see the world as one and deny racism. Sometimes they accept nations but they want more cooperation between them

I have a mix of 2 and 3, i defend the people&#39;s right of having a territory that represents them, but the problem is that sometimes nations create authority and many propaganda to support something that doesnt exist (the nation as a supreme thing)

[Saint-Just]

Those are useful definitions El Infiltr(A)do.

I agree Children of the Revolution. I think all nations will maintain cultural heterogeniality to a good degree. They will all be affected by western culture to differeing degree. Western nations will have a degree of cultural unity in their western culture, characterised by our western religions, capitalism and our liberal-democratic political system.

If emerging powers such as China and India do not embrace western culture to a great enough extent the conflict you talked about will arise. The contradictions between western and eastern (so to speak) culture can be observed now. As these powers develop (U.S., China, India) I believe it will be a case of divide and rule as you say, with smaller nations siding with these bigger powers. Perhaps if these powers seek cooperation these contradictions will not get larger despite the balance of power equalising. between these 3 nations.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 15 2003, 11:56 AM


If emerging powers such as China and India do not embrace western culture to a great enough extent the conflict you talked about will arise. The contradictions between western and eastern (so to speak) culture can be observed now. As these powers develop (U.S., China, India) I believe it will be a case of divide and rule as you say, with smaller nations siding with these bigger powers. Perhaps if these powers seek cooperation these contradictions will not get larger despite the balance of power equalising. between these 3 nations.
I agree that there may well in the future emerge a situation such as this, in that two or more large powers will emerge, smaller nations siding with them (rather like Nato and the warsaw pact powers of the cold war) for example a united Europe (though unlikely) could emerge as a strong power in its own right. I think though that any such divide unfortunately will create conflict.

It&#39;s a sad fact that different races of people often group together and oppose others, I don&#39;t think this is natural, rather imbued into people. For example in Britain I have long experienced a lingering feeling of &#39;British pride&#39; still associated with the Empire Brtiain once had and it&#39;s traditional military might. In America I&#39;m told school children from a young age have to swear allegiance to the American flag.

I feel that the only way to elimiante racial conflict is to stop acknowledging these differences between races in favour of a unison between all peoples simply because they are all &#39;human beings&#39;. I disagree with opinions of &#39;racial tolerance&#39; because I would argue that the mere word &#39;tolerance&#39; implies something must be tolerated I don&#39;t feel anything should. I feel that eventually humans should be able to throw off national boundries which have lingered from times when the world was less globally connected. If this would eventually mean a global government then it is a good thing, it wouldn&#39;t necessarily mean the same culture spread everywhere, merely an acceptance that we should al work together as humans rather than as a nation.

[El Brujo]

I basically agree with Crairman Mao and Infilrt(A)do but it must be clarified that the definitions of "nationalism" and "internationalism" are extremely blurred. There is a difference between revolutionary (anti-imperialist) nationalism and imperialist "nationalism." Revolutionary nationalism can also be referred to as proletarian internationalism as it strives for national self-determination as well as cooperiation with other oppressed peoples against the common enemy. In the same way, imperialist nationalism can also be referred to as bourgeoisie internationalism as it strives for globalized capitalism with the western bourgeoisie at the top of the food chain and the working class in the third world being kept in line by their local bourgeoisie.

I am a firm believer in nationalism as I believe the first step to eliminating capitalism is to eliminate imperialism. Capitalism in industrialized countries such as the US would not last very long if they could not leech off of raw materials from the third world as it would have to opress its own proletariat (as it did at the turn of the century, until the Progressives emerged), this in turn would make them class-conscious whereas now, they are a labour aristocracy and (for the most part) support imperialism to keep the third world repressed instead of them.

[redstar2000]

It seems to me that in the "west" (including Japan, Australia, South Korea, etc.) we communists should attack patriotism as sharply as we can, especially in "our own" countries.

This will be "unpopular". We should do it anyway.

It is a completely reactionary sentiment and is always used as a cover for domestic repression and foreign aggression.

"Love of country" should be subjected to withering scorn and ridicule...and its advocates should be exposed as rogues and mountebanks whenever possible.

We should explicitly counter-pose the alternative of international working-class solidarity.

I know, easier said than done.

With regard to pre-capitalist/neo-colonized countries, the matter is more complicated and might best be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Those countries are making anti-imperialist bourgeois revolutions--and nationalism is usually progressive under those circumstances.

But we need to exercise care that we should not be seen as "displaced patriots" ourselves; we are not Palestinians, Nepalese, Venezuelans, etc.

Also, easier said than done.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

... we communists should attack patriotism as sharply as we can ...


I disagree. If people are not to be patriotic, they will soon replace the nation with another concept. What will this be, comrade? It is wishful thinking and unrealistic to assume they will all become Communists. Knowing your views on Religion, I doubt you favour that option. (Nor will it ever come to pass) Any other belief will be counter-productive. Love of democracy will enhance the bourgeois position; love of capitalism will be disastrous.

Nationalism (or patriotism, call it what you will) is not necessarily a bad thing.

[redstar2000]

If people are not to be patriotic, they will soon replace the nation with another concept.

Yes, and I suggested the revolutionary alternative...international working class solidarity.

If you want to argue that such an alternative is "a long shot", I won&#39;t dispute that. Communism itself is "a long shot" right now.

But I don&#39;t see how you can possibly argue that patriotism is anything but reactionary in imperialist countries.

And, in fact, you didn&#39;t argue the point...you just asserted that it&#39;s "not necessarily a bad thing".

That&#39;s not good enough.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas