Nationalism is not always Reactionary

[metal gear]

Nationalism is only reactionary when it is tied to capital and used to justify colonialism and imperialism.

Preference of a people or geographical area on its own is not reactionary. Nationalism can be progressive if capitalism is fought on the base of its internationalism.

Marxist internationalism isn't the same thing as a world without borders. Plus when Marx said the workers of the world have no nation, he was speaking in terms of capitalists nations that exploit their workers and make them alienated. It does not mean that Communism is Anarchism.

[Rafiq]

But Marxist internationalism is the same thing as a world without borders. Please provide evidence for such a... Vehemently brow raising claim, that Marx was only speaking in terms of "capitalist nations". It would seem your nationalist opportunism is shining through the many holes of your so called understanding of Marxism, gleaming through the guise of revolutionary leftist politics.

Look, I don't think a lot of us here are criticizing nationalism on a basis of if it is right or wrong. We oppose nationalism because it is an instrument of the ruling classes, and is, at best apoligism of class collaborationism. Nations as we see them today are socially constructed and are morphed to address the interests of capital, and the international bourgeoisie. They are useless social constructions to the proletariat and to the advancement of human civilization.

And I doubt you even know what Anarchism is (Usually, it's the scapegoat of Nazbols and so-called Phalanxites, and right-maoists) to demonstrate what the left should not be, even though the criticisms of nationalism many anarchists hold are identical to that of all actual Marxist currents.

[Smyg]

No borders, no nations. GTFO, revisionist.

[Kamos]

How idiotic. Why does this nationalism fetish appear so often in the radical left?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

How idiotic. Why does this nationalism fetish appear so often in the radical left?

...because people have nothing better to do than theorize....

[Franz Fanonipants]

strategic nat'lism in the case of the internally colonized in the united states is not a bad notion, BUT it needs to be combined with strict marxist principles otherwise you get dudes who think they're aztecs or w.e.

[Azraella]

No nations and no borders. Only the unity of humankind is acceptable.

Nationalism is a reactionary attitude no matter how "progressive" it is.

[IndependentCitizen]

Whatever you're taking, I suggest you stop taking it.

[Rooster]

Nationalism isn't progressive. It might have been when capital was asserting itself and needed the nation state but imperialism and modern international capital has made nationalism a redundant concept.

[Tim Finnegan]

How idiotic. Why does this nationalism fetish appear so often in the radical left?
It seems more accurate to say that left-fetishism frequently appears among radical nationalists. Castro was a nationalist before he was a leftist, to take only the most obvious example.

[black magick hustla]

strategic nat'lism in the case of the internally colonized in the united states is not a bad notion, BUT it needs to be combined with strict marxist principles otherwise you get dudes who think they're aztecs or w.e.

i dont even think it is rhetorically that appealing anymore. i mean lolin at the frso and a those wacko tankie groups that talk about creating a black nation in america. there was a time where that talk in the US could gain you many adherents, but i dont think so anymore.

[Chrisstanford]

No nations and no borders. Only the unity of humankind is acceptable.

Nationalism is a reactionary attitude no matter how "progressive" it is.

I agree wholeheartedly. Nationalism no matter what ideology it exists within, is divisive.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Nationalism isn't progressive. It might have been when capital was asserting itself and needed the nation state but imperialism and modern international capital has made nationalism a redundant concept.

Quite so! Nationalism was progressive during the rise of the The Nation State. It hasn't been for a long time. And I do think that Stalinism bears a great deal of responsibility for weighing down revolutionary movements with this reactionary baggage.

[Dean]

Should I keep this thread at all? I'm inclined to move this to politics or theory for obvious reasons, but the OP is a joke and the rest is just schooling the OP, so I'm inclined to junk it.

Let me know if you guys think this thread is worth keeping.

[Omsk]

It was an atempt to provoke people,delete it.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I don't want to see this thread deleted, if you'll excuse a newbie for being so bold. I think this is a complicated issue that warrants some heated discussion. There's nothing wrong with people's passions running high.

As for nationalism, I believe that nationalist attitudes work differently depending on the group's relationship to the productive forces in their society. White nationalism is a reactionary attitude; it associates itself openly with fascism. Black nationalism, on the other hand, is a progressive attitude; it is the revolutionary feeling of an oppressed group with a shared national history. I believe that, in conditions different from those common to white-dominated societies, a kind of black nationalism could become reactionary, where a black identity is shared by some exploiting class. I'm not convinced that the conditions exist to make a broad black identity a tool of exploitation anywhere.

[Grenzer]

Pan-African nationalism is inherently reactionary in my opinion. Historically, it has been used by bourgeois elites to consolidate their power and drum up popular support. There is the illusory sense that it could be liberating for an oppressed minority, but the moment their nationalist dream is achieved they won't really be much different from the white nationalists they were deriding to begin with.

I'm vehemently opposed to all forms of nationalism, that's just my take though.

[Hexen]

Nationalism is a divide & conquer strategy.

[CommunityBeliever]

Nationalism is always reactionary, however, sometimes it is a good idea for us to protect defend powerless nationalists from imperialism well simultaneously recognising that their nationalism is stupid.

[Zostrianos]

Nationalism is indeed another way to divide humanity and in the end only brings strife and further societal decay: just think, for instance, of all the riots and violence that often take place when sports teams of different countries compete, hooligans who attack and sometimes kill each other because "my country's better than yours" :thumbdown:.
The best quote I've seen on this issue is from HG Wells: Our true nationality is mankind. I think the more you know and the more educated you become, the more you see nationalism for what it really is. Even in antiquity, many Greek and Neoplatonic philosophers dismissed attachment to particular nations, aspiring to become "citizens of the world" (I think it was Proclus who came up with that one, but I'm not sure)

Now on the other hand, many socialists seem to confuse appreciation for a particular country's culture with nationalism and I think that's ridiculous. I myself love ancient Egyptian art, mythology, and culture, but that doesn't make me a nationalist.

[MarxSchmarx]

Nationalism was progressive during the rise of the The Nation State. It hasn't been for a long time.This is an an interesting point. As the affiliations of the villages started to disintegrate with rapid urbanization and the proletarization of the peasantry, the nation state took its place in trying to assert a sense of non-economic community in a society where people had been reduced to their material value.

Perhaps to some degree there is still a role for such a post-feudal nationalism to emerge as progressive to the extent that it seeks to displace race- or religion based political tribalism. One example might be for example efforts to promote a Singaporian "nationalism", where, for all its faults, it does try to assert the value of a community of people who live in a distinct geographic region and society and seeks to transcend a slue of ethnic, linguistic and religious (ie., essentially feudal) divisions. My guess is that such an ideology isn't so much "reactionary" (i.e., return to an earlier model of social organization) as it is conservative (i.e., strengthen the status quo), and the distinction is important.

PS I'd say keep the thread, "nationalism" can have a philosophical dimension and the question of whether nationalism as such must imply reactionary positions is a classic question of political philosophy.

[blake 3:17]

Nationalism is always reactionary, however, sometimes it is a good idea for us to protect defend powerless nationalists from imperialism well simultaneously recognising that their nationalism is stupid.

You should bring that up at a Palestine solidarity meeting.

[black magick hustla]

You should bring that up at a Palestine solidarity meeting.

i think the point is not so much what is the ideological content of nationalism (which in my opinion is gross) but how symptomatic it is. the palestinian working class is the most defeated in the middle east through systematic ethnic cleansing and lobotomization through nationalist lines. i don't think their nationalism is "stupid" but it certainly signifies that the palestinian working class is utterly defeated (imperialist war tends to do this)