Is there such a thing as Left Wing Nationalism ? [Archive]

MarxSchmarx

11th March 2012, 04:42

Look at it this way. If there were a successful socialist revolution in say Brazil that established a really legit leftist order and Brazilian workers sought to export the revolution to neighboring countries, should other members of the Brazilian working class support their collleague's international efforts to export this situation because it will lead to a worker's being in charge of the world or should they support it because it's Brazilian goddamit? Seems to me the latter is what is understood by nationalism, whilst the former is not. And moreover a leftist that isn't a doctrinaire left communist should support the efforts by the Brazilian working class to export their revolution whether one happens to be Brazilian or not.

Astarte

11th March 2012, 05:45

Is it accepted in a Marxist/Socialist/Worker's State to be patriotic towards the Worker's State ? Also is Black Nationalism/and other people of color nationalism allowed in Marxism ? What is the difference between Left Wing Nationalism and Right Wing Nationalism ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_nationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

Nationalism has been an inherent part of the anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist struggles of the 19th and 20th centuries. It becomes reactionary when it is used to justify the imperialism or expansionist policies of an aggressive state. Its a sentiment that has been co-opted by both the right and the left at different times.

Nationalism in the USSR was reactionary in the way that many of the nationalities in the satellite states began to resent that political hegemony was centralized in Moscow. And since the political power of the USSR was centralized in Moscow people all over the USSR and Warsaw Pact States began to resent Russia to an extent ... Poland, East Germany, Georgia, all reflect this... I am not sure if Tito was able to ameliorate the national problem in Yugoslavia anymore than temporarily for the length of his reign...

I think that under real socialism and communism any pride in "the state" will begin to seem absurd - it would be like being proud of wearing socks, the point of socialism and communism is for the state and class society to become less and less important in the life of the individual and society as a whole by creating economic and political conditions that increase living standards in all fields while at the same time harnessing the infrastructure and horded capital of the corporations and plutocrats via a planned democracy in the economic and political interests of the oppressed classes. So, pride in a genuinely socialist "state" will become redundant because if it is really socialist, and approaching communism then the state will not so much even exist as classes and alienation from labor will be "withering away".

That's not to say that pride, appreciation and maybe even a little humility for what it means to be human and great human achievements will diminish at all - but rather than the sentiments being based on statist patterns, they will be based more on a human existence after the pacification of existence by way of the end of class society is accomplished.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th March 2012, 15:47

It strikes me as a relic of the era when so-called "national liberation" movements realised that they could get support from Moscow and/or Shanghai if they translated their grievances into Marxist/anti-imperialist rhetoric.

Since communism as a socioeconomic system has yet to exist, I fail to understand why it makes sense to make one's nationality an important part of one's political identity, since all nations thus far have been created either under capitalism or before it. I thought the job of Marxists was to to be critical of capitalist and pre-capitalist institutions? Why should a handful of them get a free pass simply because it's the underdog in an inter-imperialist struggle, or because the nation in question enacts left-wing policies? Neither of those things are any assurance of future performance.

Left-wing nationalism is a populist gesture. I guess it's easier to sell the idea of socialism if you tack it onto a pre-capitalist institutions that people already have an irrational attachment to, rather than trying to adopt a progressive internationalist viewpoint that adopts the whole of humanity as the in-group. It may be easier but that don't make it right.

Leo

11th March 2012, 16:59

Nationalism, including left-wing nationalism, is reactionary in our epoch.

Blake's Baby

11th March 2012, 23:36

... a leftist that isn't a doctrinaire left communist should support the efforts by the Brazilian working class to export their revolution whether one happens to be Brazilian or not.

Hey, thanks for thinking of me.

A revolution in Brazil should certainly encourage other revolutionaries in other places, this is 'a good thing' because we believe in world revolution. If that's what you mean by 'supporting' the revolution and its attempts to 'export' itself, then I agree, if revolution broke out in Brazil we should do everything in our power to hurry the revolution elsewhere. But it can't send a 'Red Army' into Paraguay. That would be a disaster. If that's your conception, it's a huge mistake. One cannot 'export revolution'. Poland 1920 taught you nothing it seems.

The fact that Brazil is the first revolutionary country is unimportant, if workers in other countries don't respond to the revolution by launching their own revolutions. If a revolution errupts in Brazil and is limited to Brazil, if it's not part of a wider movement in the international working class, it's doomed to fail precisely because it isn't international - there is no national road to socialism.

Franz Fanonipants

12th March 2012, 00:02

Aztlán forever scrubs

MarxSchmarx

12th March 2012, 03:08

Hey, thanks for thinking of me.

A revolution in Brazil should certainly encourage other revolutionaries in other places, this is 'a good thing' because we believe in world revolution. If that's what you mean by 'supporting' the revolution and its attempts to 'export' itself, then I agree, if revolution broke out in Brazil we should do everything in our power to hurry the revolution elsewhere. But it can't send a 'Red Army' into Paraguay. That would be a disaster. If that's your conception, it's a huge mistake. One cannot 'export revolution'. Poland 1920 taught you nothing it seems.

The fact that Brazil is the first revolutionary country is unimportant, if workers in other countries don't respond to the revolution by launching their own revolutions. If a revolution errupts in Brazil and is limited to Brazil, if it's not part of a wider movement in the international working class, it's doomed to fail precisely because it isn't international - there is no national road to socialism.

Well, to be fair for Poland 1920 there was also Mongolia 1921.

In any event, sending a red army to invade and say overhtrow the bourgeois regime in Paraguay is one thing, sending experienced Brazilian workers to advise, agitate and organize on the dime of the worker's government in Brazilia is entirely something else, as is the hypothetical workers state of Brazil giving material support to Paraguayan revolutionaries like communication equipment, or the Brazilian embassy in Asuncion serving as de facto headquarters for the Paraguyan workers committees, or Brazil sponsoring the best and brightest Paraguyan activists to train in Brazil. So there's really a continuum here - from outright invasion, to diplomatic harassment, to military support, to informal advice, to Brazilian workers of their own initiative going to Paraguay, etc... It seems to me that where to draw this line here is innordinately tricky, and that state involvement can have varying degrees. Some IMO should be supported (e.g., the Brazialian workers state funding the Paraguayan opposition), others we should be skeptical of (e.g. red army invasion). To categorically reject support for any action by any legitimate workers state as nationalism is, well, infantile.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

12th March 2012, 03:14

The main point is to not get the ideals of social patriotism and left-wing nationalism confused. Social patriotism teaches you to love and be proud of your socialist nation, but not to abandon internationalism. Left-wing nationalism is like what the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has: it only focuses on one nation and basically abandons internationalism.

Deicide

13th March 2012, 15:35

In some regards, I view ''National Bolshevism'' and ''National Communism'' as the natural consequences of Stalin's (by Stalin I mean the policies implemented in his era) policies, personality cult, Soviet Nationalism and Soviet Chauvinism, etc. And most of these persisted throughout the era proceeding Stalin. The current nationalist fanaticism was solidified by the Soviet Union. In my opinion, these groups, are yet another symptom of the 20th century ''Communist'' catastrophe.

Omsk

13th March 2012, 15:59

I view ''National Bolshevism'' and ''National Communism'' as the natural consequences of Stalin's

Wrong.National-Bolshevism can not be the 'natural consequence' of 'Stalins policies' - because National-Bolshevism and National Communism preceded the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Deicide

13th March 2012, 16:15

Wrong.National-Bolshevism can not be the 'natural consequence' of 'Stalins policies' - because National-Bolshevism and National Communism preceded the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Interesting. By how much? Regardless, their movement is still clearly influenced by the Soviet Union and ''strongman-ism''.

Omsk

13th March 2012, 16:21

Interesting. By how much?

It [National-Bolshevism] had its roots in WW1 Germany,so,a lot.

While the term: "National-Communism" is simply used to describe the ethnic minority communist currents that rose up after the socialist revolution in Russia.

I see you changed your original post because of the fallacy of your original argument.

Regardless...

Regardless, their movement is still clearly influenced by the Soviet Union and ''strongman-ism''.

You changed your 'point' - At first you said : " I view ''National Bolshevism'' and ''National Communism'' as the natural consequences of Stalin's policies, personality cult, Soviet Nationalism and Soviet Chauvinism, etc ".

Deicide

13th March 2012, 18:15

It [National-Bolshevism]

You changed your 'point' - At first you said : " I view ''National Bolshevism'' and ''National Communism'' as the natural consequences of Stalin's policies, personality cult, Soviet Nationalism and Soviet Chauvinism, etc ".

I didn't change my original post. Apart from shortening the last sentence (and adding the word ''catastrophe''). My historical mistake is there for all to see.

My initial assertion was based on a historical inaccuracy. Which you conceitedly corrected. Its origins preceded Stalin's era (not by much anyway). It still doesn't negate the fact that the modern incarnation of National Bolshevism (predominantly the groups existing in Russia) is heavily influenced by, and sympathetic to, Stalinism and the Soviet Union, amongst other things. If you look at the modern incarnation of National Bolshevism these influences are self-evidently there. So in all honesty, the disagreement you've just raised, is superficial at best, it just appears as a little, egotistical hissy fit on your part.

Omsk

13th March 2012, 18:36

It still doesn't negate the fact that the modern incarnation of National Bolshevism (predominantly the groups existing in Russia) is heavily influenced by, and sympathetic to, Stalinism and the Soviet Union.

They are only attracted to the symbolism and the esthetic of Stalin's period,they probably don't know enough about him.For an example,i think they also praise Milosevic,Honecker and some Nazis too,and even Mao along with those people.It's really confusing,their politics are not deep,or structured.

Blake's Baby

13th March 2012, 21:34

...

I see you changed your original post because of the fallacy of your original argument.

Regardless...

You changed your 'point' - At first you said : " I view ''National Bolshevism'' and ''National Communism'' as the natural consequences of Stalin's policies, personality cult, Soviet Nationalism and Soviet Chauvinism, etc ".

Odd, I see Deicide's edit to make things clearer is timed at 4 minutes before your post in answer to it. So he didn't know that you were answering when he changed it.

I think you're committing the fallacy here of assuming that the 'NazBols' that Deicide seems to be referring to (Russian party with extreme nationalist ideology and a hard-on for girls in Soviet uniforms) have any real conection with the 'National Bolsheviks' in the Hamburg KPD in 1919 - Laufenberg and Wolffheim, etc.

Omsk

13th March 2012, 21:41

I think you're committing the fallacy here of assuming that the 'NazBols' that Deicide seems to be referring to (Russian party with extreme nationalist ideology and a hard-on for girls in Soviet uniforms) have any real conection with the 'National Bolsheviks' in the Hamburg KPD in 1919 - Laufenberg and Wolffheim, etc.

Wrong.

He percisely said: "I view ''National Bolshevism'' and ''National Communism'' as the natural consequences of Stalin's policies" - Two ideological streams,if he originally wanted to talk about the NBP of Russia (LimonovNCO) he would have said the National-Bolsheviks or something like that.Plus,he said that he made the historical mistake himself.

Blake's Baby

13th March 2012, 22:27

He said he'd made that historical mistake because you pointed out to him that National Bolshevism (a la the Hamburg National Bolsheviks) pre-date Stalinism.

He didn't say that his original post was about the Hamburg National Bolsheviks. You answered as if it were. I don't think he was asking about the National Bolsheviks in Hamburg. Why do you think he was?

Omsk

13th March 2012, 22:50

He didn't say that his original post was about the Hamburg National Bolsheviks. You answered as if it were. I don't think he was asking about the National Bolsheviks in Hamburg. Why do you think he was?

He percisely said "National Bolshevism" and "National Communism" .And he put it in the historical context.Even if he was talking about the NBP,as marxists,we should aknowledge that the movement of the National-Bolsheviks (Limonov) grew and was 'born out' of the current and past (1991) situation in Russia.[And the world]

Blake's Baby

13th March 2012, 22:58

You've said almost the same thing and I still don't understand your point.

Are you claiming that there is some semantic difference between 'National Bolshevism' and 'the National Bolsheviks'? Because if you are, I don't know what it is.

The 'historical context' he put it in was 'post-Stalin', therefore, it can't have been about the National Bolsheviks in Hamburg. That's why I don't think he was talking about the National Bolsheviks in Hamburg.

Why do you think he was?

Tim Cornelis

13th March 2012, 23:01

"Social patriotism" is reactionary as it promotes love for one's (socialist) nation, which may be detrimental when you want to negate nations altogether. If you teach people to love their country, they will be reluctant to see it disappear and may resist it, and thereby resist communism.

I find it astounding that so many believe that when you put "social" or "socialist" before X, it somehow neutralises the reactionary nature of whatever X is.

Nationalism and patriotism promote the expansion, maintenance, and/or construction of the nation-state. Communism calls for the negation of the nation-state. There couldn't be a clearer opposition.Nationalism is nationalism, just because you put "socialist" in front of it does not mean you changed the content.

Omsk

13th March 2012, 23:01

Are you claiming that there is some semantic difference between 'National Bolshevism' and 'the National Bolsheviks'? Because if you are, I don't know what it is.

Yes,National Bolsehvism as an idea is something that changed a lot,and the current National Bolsheviks (NBP) are something completely mixed and reactionary.(Keep in mind that i am not saying the original Nat-Bolsehviks were not reactionary.)

The 'historical context' he put it in was 'post-Stalin', therefore, it can't have been about the National Bolsheviks in Hamburg. That's why I don'ty think he was talking about the National Bolsheviks in Hamburg.

He said that National Bolshevism was an 'outgrowth' of Stalin's policies,which is not true,as the ideological stream precedes Stalins times.

(And i don't know why you mention the German Nat-Bols so much,i mentioned the idea of National-Bolshevism emerged in Germany,pre WW1.)

Blake's Baby

13th March 2012, 23:15

Yes,National Bolsehvism as an idea is something that changed a lot,and the current National Bolsheviks (NBP) are something completely mixed and reactionary.(Keep in mind that i am not saying the original Nat-Bolsehviks were not reactionary.)..

Right. National Bolshevism refers to essentially two different things - the German National Bolsheviks of c1919 (the National Bolsheviks in Hamburg) and the National Bolsheviks in Russia post-1991. I can see little connection between them.

...
He said that National Bolshevism was an 'outgrowth' of Stalin's policies,which is not true,as the ideological stream precedes Stalins times...

It's true if he was refering to National Bolshevism in Russia in 2011 and not National Bolshevism in Hamburg in 1919.

...(And i don't know why you mention the German Nat-Bols so much,i mentioned the idea of National-Bolshevism emerged in Germany,pre WW1.)

Because I'm trying to seperate the two out, as it seems to me they don't have much to do with each other. One was a dead-end that some German socialists took 100 years ago; the other is a Great-Russian chauvinist movement that looks back to the Stalin era as being a time to be proud of. As Deicide specifically said he thought National Bolshevism was post-Stalinist, I don't see how he can have been talking about the movement in Germany before Stalin.

Omsk

13th March 2012, 23:34

Right. National Bolshevism refers to essentially two different things - the German National Bolsheviks of c1919 (the National Bolsheviks in Hamburg) and the National Bolsheviks in Russia post-1991. I can see little connection between them.

Yes,both you and i know that.The only similarities are that both of the movements were highly nationalist.

It's true if he was refering to National Bolshevism in Russia in 2011 and not National Bolshevism in Hamburg in 1919.

The problem is that he generalized,and did not specify what was he talking about,but since he said "National Bolshevism and National Communism" he probably talked about the NatBols in their early years.(Germany)

And even if he was talking about Limonov's party,it is hardly true,that party was an outgrowth of the post 1991 situation.(And that specifically)

the other is a Great-Russian chauvinist movement that looks back to the Stalin era as being a time to be proud of

What is their opinion the USSR until 1953 has little importance,as their general ideas are completely different.

As Deicide specifically said he thought National Bolshevism was post-Stalinist

Yes,that and National Communism,when i noted that that was basically impossible,he himself said he made a small mistake.

OnlyCommunistYouKnow

20th March 2012, 13:28

Nationalism is generally looked down upon by leftists.
*looks at the DPRK.*
There's some exceptions though.

#FF0000

21st March 2012, 03:06

There's some exceptions though.

namely 'left wing nationalism' which is basically all about a country becoming independent from imperialist powers (e.g. Irish Republicans)

Babeufist

21st March 2012, 16:33

This discussion is so American! You, Americans*, think all the world is like any bigger USA. States of the USA are very similar to each other and therefore you can't understand and respect national differences. But NO! Every country is different. And we, revolutionaries, should be adapted to local/national environment. But you want every leftist in the world be US-style leftist.
I understand: the only nationalism you know is US imperialist nationalism and it is really reactionary tendency. But don't equate all nationalisms. Lenin distinguished between nationalism of oppressor and nationalism of oppressed. You, Yankees, should be anti-nationalists because your nationalism is reactionary but peoples of the Second and Third World could be patriotic.
Of course, there IS a left-wing nationalism: from Connolly to Ho Chi-Minh to Chavez. These are ETA, IRSP/INLA, PLFP, FLQ, PKK, FSLN, ZANU, MPLA, Black Panthers and so on. Left-wing anti-imperialist nationalism (socialist patriotism) don't oppose proletarian internationalism: http://www.revleft.com/vb/proletarian-internationalism-and-t169306/index.html?p=2391782 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/proletarian-internationalism-and-t169306/index.html?p=2391782)

Nationalism, including left-wing nationalism, is reactionary in our epoch
Interesting. In "our epoch" - the epoch of American unipolar hegemony - all anti-imperialist movements are "reactionary"? Excuse me, what is your country?
* I know - this is not weakness of American leftists only but all US-style leftists in every country.

hatzel

21st March 2012, 16:46

Is this your way of telling us you're a Polish nationalist?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

22nd March 2012, 17:16

Ugly font choice BTW, so I eliminated it.

This discussion is so American! You, Americans*, think all the world is like any bigger USA. States of the USA are very similar to each other and therefore you can't understand and respect national differences. But NO! Every country is different. And we, revolutionaries, should be adapted to local/national environment. But you want every leftist in the world be US-style leftist.

Revolutionaries are not subjected to Darwinian natural selection, so there is no need to "adapt". There are certain things which should be non-negotiable. Homophobia for example is completely unacceptable no matter where it occurs.

I understand: the only nationalism you know is US imperialist nationalism and it is really reactionary tendency. But don't equate all nationalisms. Lenin distinguished between nationalism of oppressor and nationalism of oppressed.

Because it was politically expedient to do so. Not because it was the right thing to do.

You, Yankees, should be anti-nationalists because your nationalism is reactionary but peoples of the Second and Third World could be patriotic.
Of course, there IS a left-wing nationalism: from Connolly to Ho Chi-Minh to Chavez. These are ETA, IRSP/INLA, PLFP, FLQ, PKK, FSLN, ZANU, MPLA, Black Panthers and so on.

How does reeling off that list counter my assertion that nationalism is simply used as a means of garnering support?

Left-wing anti-imperialist nationalism (socialist patriotism) don't oppose proletarian internationalism: http://www.revleft.com/vb/proletarian-internationalism-and-t169306/index.html?p=2391782

An extended example of special pleading. Nationalism is certainly less odious if it is accompanied by some kind of pro-social attitude, but that only slightly mitigates its toxicity, it does not obviate it.

Interesting. In "our epoch" - the epoch of American unipolar hegemony - all anti-imperialist movements are "reactionary"? Excuse me, what is your country?

My country is irrelevant. You should be attacking the arguments, not the people making them.

* I know - this is not weakness of American leftists only but all US-style leftists in every country.

All leftists opposed to nationalism are "US-style"? :rolleyes: