chicano nationalism ustff split from money abolition thread

[Yuppie Grinder]

That isn't to say, though, that sovereign territories will suddenly vanish. You wouldn't dispute that territorial sovereignty has existed since well before capitalism.

Are you going to argue that by "socialism in one country" Stalin did not mean a nation state? Are you going to argue that "socialist" (state-capitalist) places like the USSR were not nation-states?

[Koba Junior]

Are you going to argue that by "socialism in one country" Stalin did not mean a nation state? Are you going to argue that socialist places like the USSR were not nation-states?

I think it's a mistake to assume that any kind of nationalism is inherently bourgeois. Do a people not have the right to self-determination? Was Albania's national liberation counter-revolutionary? Are Black or Chicano nationalism reactionary?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I think it's a mistake to assume that any kind of nationalism is inherently bourgeois. Do a people not have the right to self-determination? Was Albania's national liberation counter-revolutionary? Are Black or Chicano nationalism reactionary?

Nationalism goes against Marxism-Leninism and all of Marxism. There is a huge difference between socialist concepts like self-determination and social patriotism and bourgeois concepts like nationalism.

Also, why are we so off topic?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Yes. The workers of the world must not be divided by attachments to the archaic, artificial social constructs of race and nationality that divide us now in the bourgeois era.

[Koba Junior]

Yes. The workers of the world must not be divided by attachments to the archaic, artificial social constructs of race and nationality that divide us now in the bourgeois era.

The kinds of nationalism I mentioned tended to unite, rather than divide. Anything that unites an exploited people against their exploiters is a powerful revolutionary tool.

[Magón]

Chicano nationalism reactionary?


The kinds of nationalism I mentioned tended to unite, rather than divide. Anything that unites an exploited people against their exploiters is a powerful revolutionary tool.

Firstly, have you actually ever dealt with Chicano nationalism, yourself? Like have you spoken to any one like that in person, or worked with anyone like that in person?

I don't think so. Know why? Because as a Chicano myself who's been around that kind of thing, I've never come across a Chicano Nationalist or Chicano Nationalist group, I've liked or heard something from them I've liked. They can be some of the most racist bunch of people out there, as any KKK or Neo-Nazi group can. Aztlán is their version of a Neo-Nazi's "Great White Nation", just filled with Latinos instead.

[Koba Junior]

Firstly, have you actually ever dealt with Chicano nationalism, yourself? Like have you spoken to any one like that in person, or worked with anyone like that in person?

I don't think so. Know why? Because as a Chicano myself who's been around that kind of thing, I've never come across a Chicano Nationalist or Chicano Nationalist group, I've liked or heard something from them I've liked. They can be some of the most racist bunch of people out there, as any KKK or Neo-Nazi group can. Aztlán is their version of a Neo-Nazi's "Great White Nation", just filled with Latinos instead.

I apologize if you've met some really nasty people, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't really change my opinion with regards to Chicano nationalism in general. In fact, I have met such nationalists; why you decided to assume your experience is universal eludes me, as mine was the exact opposite. I may not be Chicano, but your experience is no more valid than mine.

[Magón]

I apologize if you've met some really nasty people, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't really change my opinion with regards to Chicano nationalism in general. In fact, I have met such nationalists; why you decided to assume your experience is universal eludes me, as mine was the exact opposite. I may not be Chicano, but your experience is no more valid than mine.

Because I've been all around the Chicano Nationalist movement scene. I've met Chicano Nationalists in and from California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, etc. None of them are people looking for goals that Communist Internationalists are looking at. Have you actually looked into the ideas of Chicano Nationalism? If you did, then you would realize that even if you met some alright Chicano Nationalists, their goals are ultimately nothing more than a Latino version of Neo-Nazism.

[Koba Junior]

Because I've been all around the Chicano Nationalist movement scene. I've met Chicano Nationalists in and from California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, etc. None of them are people looking for goals that Communist Internationalists are looking at. Have you actually looked into the ideas of Chicano Nationalism? If you did, then you would realize that even if you met some alright Chicano Nationalists, their goals are ultimately nothing more than a Latino version of Neo-Nazism.

https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/fan-the-flames-a-revolutionary-position-on-the-chicano-national-question-a-pamphlet-by-the-august-twenty-ninth-movement-m-l/

https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/the-struggle-for-chicano-liberation/

https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2006/06/19/on-the-national-question/

https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/documentary-chicano-the-history-of-the-mexican-american-civil-rights-movement/#more-4015

https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2006/04/30/may-1-and-the-fight-for-equality-and-self-determination-2/

http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/Chicanomovement_part1.htm

I await your response as to why none of this counts.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

All nationalism is bad . . . and, being Latino, I know those Chicano nationalists (the few of them) are really, really annoying and actually advocate hatred against white Americans as "los gringos estupido". I spoke to one of them and what he basically told me is that all whites are bad and want to destroy the Latino race (specifically, the Mexican race). Being an American Marxist-Leninist, I stand in solidarity with all of the American proletariat (and international proletariat), not just the ones that look like me.

[Koba Junior]

All nationalism is bad . . . and, being Latino, I know those Chicano nationalists (the few of them) are really, really annoying and actually advocate hatred against white Americans as "los gringos estupido". I spoke to one of them and what he basically told me is that all whites are bad and want to destroy the Latino race (specifically, the Mexican race). Being an American Marxist-Leninist, I stand in solidarity with all of the American proletariat (and international proletariat), not just the ones that look like me.

Comrade, as a Marxist-Leninist, you're going to be seriously interested in the links I posted, particularly "On the National Question."

[Magón]

https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/fan-the-flames-a-revolutionary-position-on-the-chicano-national-question-a-pamphlet-by-the-august-twenty-ninth-movement-m-l/

https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/the-struggle-for-chicano-liberation/

https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2006/06/19/on-the-national-question/

https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/documentary-chicano-the-history-of-the-mexican-american-civil-rights-movement/#more-4015

https://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2006/04/30/may-1-and-the-fight-for-equality-and-self-determination-2/

http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/Chicanomovement_part1.htm

I await your response as to why none of this counts.

Because it's still all Nationalistic bullshit you're giving me. Thinking one group of people have the right to control this or that patch of land over another, doesn't help their cause to Internationalism. Neo-Nazi's are just as fine with letting Latinos, African-Americans, Asians, etc. run their own little cut up nations, as long as the Whites are allowed to control theirs. Chicano Nationalists are no different. The Chicano Nationalist movement isn't internationalist, looking to erase the division we have today between races, it's whole focus racial is on keeping racial divisions. They're just as much for race division and bringing up race wars, as White Nationalists.

The Brown Berets are some of the worst there are in the Chicano Nationalists movement. They're as racist and stringent on race traitors, as White Nationalists. Their whole mentality is, "If you're not with us, you're against us," even if you're Chicano. They'll beat on anyone, Chicano or not, who disagrees that they should be able to have a place for Latinos only, and should take back what was "rightfully theirs".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfyk_a7vEvg

"Back to Europe"; "Back to Germany"; "This is 'Mexican Land'"; "For Mexicans, not Whites." These are just some of the lines that woman in the Brown Berets was spewing, and what most of the Chicano Nationalists movement spews. It's disgusting for anyone who actually considers themselves an Internationalist, and looks beyond the lines of Ethnicity. It's definitely no different than any Neo-Nazi/White Nationalist spewing shit. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc. shouldn't be seen as "Mexican Land" or "European Land" or even "Native American Land", it should be land of the Human Race, not some ethnicity's land.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Brolotov, would you mind explaining what the meaningful differences between left-wing nationalism and "social-patriotism" are? One being wrapped in a red flag doesn't count.

[Koba Junior]

Because it's still all Nationalistic bullshit you're giving me. Thinking one group of people have the right to control this or that patch of land over another, doesn't help their cause to Internationalism. Neo-Nazi's are just as fine with letting Latinos, African-Americans, Asians, etc. run their own little cut up nations, as long as the Whites are allowed to control theirs. Chicano Nationalists are no different. The Chicano Nationalist movement isn't internationalist, looking to erase the division we have today between races, it's whole focus racial is on keeping racial divisions. They're just as much for race division and bringing up race wars, as White Nationalists.

The Brown Berets are some of the worst there are in the Chicano Nationalists movement. They're as racist and stringent on race traitors, as White Nationalists. Their whole mentality is, "If you're not with us, you're against us," even if you're Chicano. They'll beat on anyone, Chicano or not, who disagrees that they should be able to have a place for Latinos only, and should take back what was "rightfully theirs".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfyk_a7vEvg

"Back to Europe"; "Back to Germany"; "This is 'Mexican Land'"; "For Mexicans, not Whites." These are just some of the lines that woman in the Brown Berets was spewing, and what most of the Chicano Nationalists movement spews. It's disgusting for anyone who actually considers themselves an Internationalist, and looks beyond the lines of Ethnicity. It's definitely no different than any Neo-Nazi/White Nationalist spewing shit. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc. shouldn't be seen as "Mexican Land" or "European Land" or even "Native American Land", it should be land of the Human Race, not some ethnicity's land.

It's a little frustrating that you so obviously didn't click on a single link I gave you or, if you did, you didn't read any of the text therein. The mitigating amusement I might take from your post is that you dismiss this left-nationalist links because they're nationalist.

[Magón]

It's a little frustrating that you so obviously didn't click on a single link I gave you or, if you did, you didn't read any of the text therein. The mitigating amusement I might take from your post is that you dismiss this left-nationalist links because they're nationalist.

I dismiss them because I don't believe in any sort of nationalism. It divides people, when they're already divided so much. Nationalism doesn't help bring people together.

It's clear you didn't watch the video I gave, because you obviously would have seen why I find Chicano Nationalism, like any other nationalism, sickening to hear about. It, like any other form of nationalism is not leftist.

[Koba Junior]

I dismiss them because I don't believe in any sort of nationalism. It divides people, when they're already divided so much. Nationalism doesn't help bring people together.

It's clear you didn't watch the video I gave, because you obviously would have seen why I find Chicano Nationalism, like any other nationalism, sickening to hear about. It, like any other form of nationalism is not leftist.

So, you dismiss arguments in favor of nationalism solely because they are in favor of nationalism? You do understand why that isn't exactly intellectually honest.

[Magón]

So, you dismiss arguments in favor of nationalism solely because they are in favor of nationalism? You do understand why that isn't exactly intellectually honest.

You think what you linked is the first time I've heard that kind of nationalist shit said? I've heard it for years, and it changes nothing on nationalism being more of a dividing factor, than a unifying one. The same rhetoric can and is used, by White Nationalists, looking to gain some ground on their issues. I don't need to be an intellectual to talk about nationalism, because having first hand experience in that kind of shit has shown me enough times (every time,) how disgusting and dividing it really is.

Brolotov gave you his experience with Chicano Nationalism, which should only go to show you more, how sickening it is in the real world and not some pamphlet or site, spewing Chicano Nationalism. That video I linked, should show you to, how sickening nationalism is.

You can say this or that about nationalism, and how my reply's aren't "intellectual" enough, but I don't really give a damn. I don't really give a damn about trying to change your mind on nationalism, and how it's more dividing than unifying. I simply just don't care. You can call the nationalism you support "Left Nationalism", but it's absolutely no different to me than when Hitler started calling his shit, "National Socialism". No actual Socialist, considers Hitler's "Socialism", Socialism; just like any actual Internationalist, doesn't consider "Left Nationalism", Leftist.

[Koba Junior]

I ignored the above post because it was anti-nationalist. I'm not sure what else I expected.

[Tim Cornelis]

I ignored the above post because it was anti-nationalist. I'm not sure what else I expected.

So you're avowedly in favour of nationalism? And not just any nationalism, but ethnic nationalism (i.e. racism)? Is this correct?

[hatzel]

Oh yay, we're playing the immaturity game! Let me join in...


I ignored the above post because it was anti-nationalist. I'm not sure what else I expected.

Well I ignored your posts because you've got a Stalin-avatar and are clearly just a know-nothing oh-so-'radical' (by which I mean not at all radical, just latching onto images you think make you seem radical) USSR-fanboy, which may go some way towards explaining why none of the stuff you're saying here is even remotely leftist.

[Brosip Tito]

I think it's a mistake to assume that any kind of nationalism is inherently bourgeois. Do a people not have the right to self-determination? Was Albania's national liberation counter-revolutionary? Are Black or Chicano nationalism reactionary?
No, they do not not have a "right" to self determination.

Each case needs to be taken on individually, and examined, and determined which case is in the interests of the international working class, and which is not.

Marx, Engels, and Wilhelm Liebknecht were opposed to the Baltic Slavs struggle for National Self-Determination in Turkey, for example. "...they judged the national movements of the Slavic peoples in the Turkish empire not from the standpoint of the “eternal” sentimental formulae of liberalism, but from the standpoint of the material conditions which determined the content of these national movements, according to their views of the time. Marx and Engels saw in the freedom movement of the socially backward South Slavs only the machinations of Russian tsardom trying to irritate the Turks, and thus, without any second thoughts, they subordinated the question of the national freedom of the Slavs to the interests of European democracy, insisting on the integrity of Turkey as a bulwark of defense against Russian reaction."

Black and Chicano "nationalism", from my understanding, would be better termed "liberation", "equality" or some other term. Did the Black Panthers seek an African American state? No. How many black "nationalists" wanted a nation-state of their own?

[Koba Junior]

My response to the above post seems to have been lost in the transition, which is a pity given how much effort it took to compose.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Chicano and African-American nationalism don't really have a great basis, as neither really constitutes a separate nation separate from Caucasian-Americans. They're all culturally connected with one another, economically interdependent on one another, and share the same territory. The only difference is ethnic, and a nation is not the same as an ethnicity.

[Koba Junior]

Chicano and African-American nationalism don't really have a great basis, as neither really constitutes a separate nation separate from Caucasian-Americans. They're all culturally connected with one another, economically interdependent on one another, and share the same territory. The only difference is ethnic, and a nation is not the same as an ethnicity.

Race and ethnicity are social constructs that have power. Nationalism is the tendency of an ethnicity to determine its collective sovereignty. That is why there are reactionary types of nationalism and progressive types of nationalism. Some types of nationalism, particularly those kinds that take advantage of an extant ethnic identity to promote unity among an exploited group of people, can work in the interest of the international proletariat.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Race and ethnicity are social constructs that have power. Nationalism is the tendency of an ethnicity to determine its collective sovereignty. That is why there are reactionary types of nationalism and progressive types of nationalism. Some types of nationalism, particularly those kinds that take advantage of an extant ethnic identity to promote unity among an exploited group of people, can work in the interest of the international proletariat.

Nationalism is by no means progressive, and is by no means Marxist. National liberation movements, on the other hand, I would argue, are a progressive force.

To quote Stalin's Marxism and the National Question on the matter:


This community is not racial, nor is it tribal. The modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, and Arabs. [...] The same must be said of the British, the Germans and others, who were formed into nations from people of diverse races and tribes. [...] Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people.

And although it'd take more than a short post to go into a proper analysis, I'm fairly certain that it can be agreed that the United States as a whole is indeed a historically constituted community of people. This arguably excludes Hawai'i, which I've heard many comrades argue constitutes a nation of its own. This one is more difficult to say, and it'd take a proper analysis to deduce whether or not Hawai'i can be considered a nation.

[Koba Junior]

Nationalism is by no means progressive, and is by no means Marxist. National liberation movements, on the other hand, I would argue, are a progressive force.

I think we've come to the crux of the problem I've been having: it really seems like splitting hairs to differentiate national liberation movements from a kind of progressive nationalism. I've been using "nationalism" to mean what essentially others have been saying using the word "liberation." This whole time we've been talking about essentially the same thing, and the argument has been about the definition of the word "nationalism."

[Raúl Duke]

I've heard rumors about the racist/nasty versions of Chicano nationalism.

As someone from Puerto Rico, I find their ideas are mind boggling.
In fact, I think many who are from Latin-America, even the Mexicans themselves, would find them crazy with this Aztlan shit. Plus the racial concepts they use are problematic (it would perhaps exclude Hispanic whites, etc) and I feel it falls directly to the dominant White American racialized paradigm trap (this imagining they have of hispanic as a "brown race" when hispanics come from many backgrounds and don't all look the same, and not all are "brown").

Also, assuming that national liberation is progressive, the "national liberation" of Chicanos is more geographically/demographically/logistically/ideologically problematic than say the national liberation of Puerto Rico.

Although from time to time I do call Anglo-Americans "Los Gringos Estupidos" :D

[Koba Junior]

I remember posting all these links. I don't think any of those links mentioned Aztlan, but I recall from reading them that they had to do with winning civil rights for Chicanos and empowering non-white Hispanics living in a white-dominated society. Why we're still on the topic of racism among the Chicano community, I'm not sure.

[Zulu]

The kinds of nationalism I mentioned tended to unite, rather than divide. Anything that unites an exploited people against their exploiters is a powerful revolutionary tool.

Whatever the theory behind the usefulness of the national-liberation fronts (communists' alliances with nationalists) for the cause of the world socialist revolution (and the theory says that ALL nationalism is bourgeois), the practice has showed that nationalists are the doom of communists. Even if they don't annihilate the communists physically (like in Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, India), they lead the communist parties to revisionism (like in USSR, PRC, DPRK and Vietnam).





You wouldn't dispute that territorial sovereignty has existed since well before capitalism.
Actually, it's hardly disputable that territorial sovereignty did not exist prior to the 17th century.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty

[Koba Junior]

Whatever the theory behind the usefulness of the national-liberation fronts (communists' alliances with nationalists) for the cause of the world socialist revolution (and the theory says that ALL nationalism is bourgeois), the practice has showed that nationalists are the doom of communists. Even if they don't annihilate the communists physically (like in Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, India), they lead the communist parties to revisionism (like in USSR, PRC, DPRK and Vietnam).

I wholeheartedly disagree, both that national-liberation alliances have backfired on communists across the board (especially not in, say, Albania) and that nationalism was the source of revisionism in those countries. Maoism and juche, the big Indochinese strands of revisionism, have in common the notion that the bourgeoisie can be radicalized or, through education rather than expropriation, be persuaded into becoming revolutionary or even proletarian. Soviet revisionism is generally characterized by the underhand restoration of the capitalist mode of production through the so-called "creative application" of Marxism-Leninism. Khrushchev, for example, embraced the idea of maintaining the existence of the bourgeoisie as a class.



Actually, it's hardly disputable that territorial sovereignty did not exist prior to the 17th century.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty

I find it very difficult to believe that the Romans didn't exercise any kind of political power over the territories they conquered. Remember that we're discussing territory before the advent of the nation-state. This distinction was made very deliberately.

[Zulu]

I wholeheartedly disagree, both that national-liberation alliances have backfired on communists across the board
Denying the obvious.





(especially not in, say, Albania)

Hoxha systematically purged nationalists after WWII.





and that nationalism was the source of revisionism in those countries.

Well, the roots of revisionism are, of course, economic, namely the re-emergence of the class of urban petty proprietors. Nationalism (either in the form of great nation chauvinism, or of oppressed minority secessionism) is the ideology that is invariably endorsed and then disseminated by such a class.





Maoism and juche, the big Indochinese strands of revisionism, have in common the notion that the bourgeoisie can be radicalized or, through education rather than expropriation, be persuaded into becoming revolutionary or even proletarian.Well, and that notion is patently false, both theoretically and as proved by practice. Mao himself had to call to "bombard the headquarters" in the end, once he realized that his policy of the appeasement of the bourgeoisie had been leading nowhere, especially with no more USSR to prop up the socialist construction.





Soviet revisionism is generally characterized by the underhand restoration of the capitalist mode of production through the so-called "creative application" of Marxism-Leninism. Khrushchev, for example, embraced the idea of maintaining the existence of the bourgeoisie as a class.
And that was both made possible by and served to further promote all sorts of nationalism in the USSR, turning it from the world proletariat's fatherland into just another nation-state on the capitalist world map (and a quasi-imperialist one at that).

Bottom line: you can't have nationalism without the underlying social relations that fuel it, and those social relations are reactionary, compared to proletarian international socialism. Nationalism is progressive only when you have feudalism and clericalism and such things around. But in today's world even this assertion is moot, since while one may argue that Arab nationalism (for instance) is progressive, because otherwise they have feudalism, there is now a serious flaw, as the "Arab feudalism" with its Islamic fundamentalist ideology is actually a part of the capitalist world empire, (which is a higher stage of capitalism than the nation-state classical capitalism). So a quest for anti-imperialist nation-states is quite reactionary these days. I know this is somewhat of an odd idea for Marxism-Leninism, but that's because it hasn't been keeping up lately in terms of theoretical analysis of the present reality.

[Koba Junior]

Denying the obvious.

Sans any kind of citation, I don't really think much of this response.


Hoxha systematically purged nationalists after WWII.

This is incorrect; Albanian nationalism was fostered under Hoxha.


Well, the roots of revisionism are, of course, economic, namely the re-emergence of the class of urban petty proprietors. Nationalism (either in the form of great nation chauvinism, or of oppressed minority secessionism) is the ideology that is invariably endorsed and then disseminated by such a class.

You neglect to explain why that is, making this conjecture of yours wholly unimpressive.


Well, and that notion is patently false, both theoretically and as proved by practice. Mao himself had to call to "bombard the headquarters" in the end, once he realized that his policy of the appeasement of the bourgeoisie had been leading nowhere, especially with no more USSR to prop up the socialist construction.

And yet capitalism somehow persists in China. The Quotations, while not the ultimate determiner of the Chairman's exploits, serve as a pretty poignant incite into the revisionist attitudes of Maoism.


And that was both made possible by and served to further promote all sorts of nationalism in the USSR, turning it from the world proletariat's fatherland into just another nation-state on the capitalist world map (and a quasi-imperialist one at that).

Nationalism was rather common in the Soviet Union even before the advent of revisionism. Nothing gets you ready to fight Nazis like protecting your motherland.


Bottom line: you can't have nationalism without the underlying social relations that fuel it, and those social relations are reactionary ...

And more of the same. Your premises fell flat so your conclusion is necessarily unsound.

[Zulu]

This is incorrect; Albanian nationalism was fostered under Hoxha.

OK, my bad. 'Twas kind of a blunder on my part, really... But look where it got Albania now. Hoxha died, Marxism-Leninism soon went down the drain and Albanians happily engaged in mutual ethnic cleansing with the Serbs, drug trafficking and what not - all under the banner of nationalism. Now I'm curious what Ismail have to say about this... Probably I've mixed up Hoxha with Tito here (oh, horror!), in which case it was at least something Tito did right (although it had no lasting effect without being supplemented by genuinely socialist economic policies).


I'll probably reply to the rest later.

[Ismail]

The USSR and Yugoslavia were multinational states. They tried to create "supra-national" nationalities, so to speak. Hence the terms Soviet and Yugoslav people. Of course this doesn't mean that Russian (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/sovnatq.htm) and Serbian (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/titoites.htm) chauvinism did not emerge out of both with the rise of revisionism. Albania by contrast was and is a largely homogeneous state.

The term "nationalism" has different meanings. It can be used to signify reactionary positions, e.g. chauvinism, national deviations from socialism (e.g. promoting revisionism and reformism under the guide of "our country's history presents a different course"), subordinating internationalism to supposed "national interests," etc. Alternatively it can indeed acquire a progressive usage, e.g. the various bourgeois democrats in Eastern Europe who fought against the stagnating and largely feudalistic Ottoman Empire, those who were willing to pick up the gun and fight against fascist occupation during World War II, and those non-communists who nevertheless saw the rise of Communist Parties as beneficial to national interests in some way.

Of course the lattermost position can present problems as well. For instance, in Yugoslavia Vaso Čubrilović, who was a horrible chauvinist (http://www.trepca.net/english/2006/the_expulsion_of_the_albanians_by_vaso_cubrilovic_ memorandum_in_1937.html) against Kosovar Albanians, joined the postwar Yugoslav government and promptly proposed the expulsion of Albanians in Kosovo in practically the same blatantly racist and reactionary ways as he had done before the war. Such figures shouldn't be welcomed by actual communists.

In Albania, by contrast, a number of progressive bourgeois-democratic figures like Omer Nishani, who more often than not had maintained ties with the Comintern in the 1920's, had struggled against feudalism and became willing to work with the Communists since they felt that the independence and social wellness of the country coincided with their views. Due to the particular circumstances of Albania, most bourgeois democrats there were quite radical and regarded the Bolsheviks as the harbringer of the solution of the problems of Kosovo and the independence of Albania itself. Obviously such figures already held left-wing sentiments.

In 1944 the overwhelming amount of Albanian citizens were illiterate; the only consciousness one tended to have of being an Albanian in the countryside were folksongs and tales and the like within the immediate vicinity of where a person happened to live. The Albanian alphabet had only been adopted in 1908 and the standardization of the language had not yet been achieved and in fact would not occur until 1972. From the 1870's the Albanians went from not being recognized as a nation by their neighbors and the imperialist powers to, in 1912, having successfully fought for the liberation of the country from foreign occupation, one which had taken the form of centuries of backwardness due to Turkish rule. Albanians never harbored imperial ambitions, they were an oppressed people of which national sentiment was further developed, not used for ulterior aims, during the socialist period.

Thus the "nationalism" Albania had was focused on archaeological digs, collecting poems and other literary acts from medieval times and the 19th century, noting influential persons who propagated Albanian culture during those times, educating Albanians about their history, and so on. In this way Albanians in the remotest regions were consolidated as a united nation in their own minds and learned to think of themselves as Albanians, not mountaineering clansmen or whatever. Nationalism of this sort did not have a degenerative effect on the work of socialist construction, and in fact Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labour are attacked today by bourgeois media in Albania as being "traitors" to Albanian nationalism, as adhering to a "Slav ideology" (communism), of viewing things from a class rather than a "national" angle, etc.

One can read any Albanian publication on, say, the treatment of national heroes and suchlike and see that they note the limitations such figures had. E.g. that the national poet, Naim Frashëri, had views on women which were progressive for the time in which he lived (note: he died in 1900), but that they still reflected and could only really reflect a bourgeois-democratic conception of women and their role in society as against the reactionary feudal and tribal conceptions which were then predominant. Frashëri and his two brothers are judged as outstanding figures, but their inevitable limitations and class interests are not ignored. What differentiated Frashëri from other poets of the time was his ability to overcome most of his own objective limitations in order to wage a progressive struggle for the unity of the Albanian nation and for Albania's independence on the basis of bourgeois-democratic socio-economic norms as against those poets and other literary figures who served as apologists for the Ottoman Empire and its religious, anti-national ideology.

[honest john's firing squad]

Alternatively it can indeed acquire a progressive usage, e.g. the various bourgeois democrats in Eastern Europe who fought against the stagnating and largely feudalistic Ottoman Empire, those who were willing to pick up the gun and fight against fascist occupation during World War II
I thought the realisation that it is the social content of movements (in this case, the bourgeois character of the resistance to feudal Ottoman expansionism) that determines whether they are "progressive"/revolutionary or reactionary would have instantly rung alarm bells for you, but apparently this marxist perspective is completely lost on you when it comes to a serious class analysis of the "noble" second world war, which pitted worker against worker. Oh well!

[Ismail]

I thought the realisation that it is the social content of movements (in this case, the bourgeois character of the resistance to feudal Ottoman expansionism) that determines whether they are "progressive"/revolutionary or reactionary would have instantly rung alarm bells for you, but apparently this marxist perspective is completely lost on you when it comes to a serious class analysis of the "noble" second world war, which pitted worker against worker. Oh well!Uh, sure, whatever. Lenin and Stalin noted that a second world war in Europe would see a great surge in the communist movement, and so it did. Some bourgeois-democratic persons decided to tag along with the communists and the proletariat in Eastern Europe since the future belonged to them. Some, of course, later regretted that decision, but unfortunately for them and fortunately for socialism it was too late. Thus in Albania those who aspired for bourgeois parliamentary government like Gjergj Kokoshi and others were expelled from the government. Those like Omer Nishani who recognized the existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a positive development were welcomed.

The Nazi invasion of the USSR spurred the Albanian Communists to unite, found the Communist Party, and initiate the national liberation war. The Soviet liberation of Eastern Europe was the main external factor for the liberation of Albania, too, which never had Soviet troops enter it.

[El Oso Rojo]

Firstly, have you actually ever dealt with Chicano nationalism, yourself? Like have you spoken to any one like that in person, or worked with anyone like that in person?

I don't think so. Know why? Because as a Chicano myself who's been around that kind of thing, I've never come across a Chicano Nationalist or Chicano Nationalist group, I've liked or heard something from them I've liked. They can be some of the most racist bunch of people out there, as any KKK or Neo-Nazi group can. Aztlán is their version of a Neo-Nazi's "Great White Nation", just filled with Latinos instead.

They reject the term Latino, Just Aztlan. some i met are not racist to me.

[El Oso Rojo]

Yes. The workers of the world must not be divided by attachments to the archaic, artificial social constructs of race and nationality that divide us now in the bourgeois era.


I agree with you and magon, but not all La razas group are racist though. Otherwise I wouldn't see( actually that person was a brown rider) them at the PSL socialist conferance that had different races of people. I speak to some la raza members on fb, one of them is not exactly i would say anti marxist, but he believe we don't do anything but protest and yak about theory at a coffee shop.


I agree with that chicanos and African-Americans shouldn't wait for European Americans to raise up and gain concious.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I have a new Marxist-Leninist view on this:

Once it had served its purpose, Stalin reasoned, the Kuomintang, "would be squeezed out like a lemon and then thrown away."

Let's squeeze all the revolutionary power we can out of the nationalists and then send them somewhere else. :p

[BE_]

I don't agree with any kind of racial nationalism at all. It's not the evil white Europeans that want to destroy everything, it's the capitalists.

[Koba Junior]

I don't agree with any kind of racial nationalism at all. It's not the evil white Europeans that want to destroy everything, it's the capitalists.

These capitalists are, for the most part, white Europeans (or people of European extraction).

[BE_]

These capitalists are, for the most part, white Europeans (or people of European extraction).

Yes, most of them happen to be European, but that doesn't mean that all Europeans are capitalists.

[Koba Junior]

Yes, most of them happen to be European, but that doesn't mean that all Europeans are capitalists.

Black nationalism, for instance, isn't about hating some Caucasian proletarians. It's about freeing an oppressed group from the exploitation of capitalists who are primarily white, who created the white identity as a means of exploitation.

[Ismail]

Black nationalism, for instance, isn't about hating some Caucasian proletarians. It's about freeing an oppressed group from the exploitation of capitalists who are primarily white, who created the white identity as a means of exploitation.Black "nationalism" has never been popular amongst actual black communities in the USA. Whatever validity the thesis of a black nation had in the 1920's-40's when the Comintern and CPUSA backed it basically disappeared after those decades. The Black Panther Party, which was enough of a threat for its leaders to be targeted for assassination, was not "nationalist" either.

Today the vast majority of black "nationalists" are reactionaries using quasi-leftist rhetoric mixed in with racism, anti-semitic conspiracy theories, and in the end reformism in favor of "good" (for the petty-bourgeoisie) black politicians (as judged by the opportunistic leaderships of these groups, e.g. the NBPP.)

[Koba Junior]

Black "nationalism" has never been popular amongst actual black communities in the USA. Whatever validity the thesis of a black nation had in the 1920's-40's when the Comintern and CPUSA backed it basically disappeared after those decades. The Black Panther Party, which was enough of a threat for its leaders to be targeted for assassination, was not "nationalist" either.

Today the vast majority of black "nationalists" are reactionaries using quasi-leftist rhetoric mixed in with racism, anti-semitic conspiracy theories, and in the end reformism in favor of "good" (for the petty-bourgeoisie) black politicians (as judged by the opportunistic leaderships of these groups, e.g. the NBPP.)

Christ! It's like no one reads previous posts.

Comrade Ismail, I respect you, but this post, while explanatory, doesn't acknowledge another post I submitted earlier, in which I acknowledged that I may be using the word "nationalism" loosely to mean those movements that unite those identified as a certain racial group under the banner of winning rights for that group.

[Ismail]

The word you're looking for in this case is black power, which was a progressive phenomenon as practiced by the BPP and which actually sought to build ties with radicals of all colors. "Nationalism" makes no sense because blacks are not a nation.

[Koba Junior]

The word you're looking for in this case is black power, which was a progressive phenomenon as practiced by the BPP and which actually sought to build ties with radicals of all colors. "Nationalism" makes no sense because blacks are not a nation.

I disagree that Blacks are not a nation. Are they not a people united by a common history and culture? (By "Blacks," I mean African-Americans.)

[Ismail]

I disagree that Blacks are not a nation. Are they not a people united by a common history and culture? (By "Blacks," I mean African-Americans.)Not really, no. Blacks in Louisiana do not equal blacks in California.

[Koba Junior]

Not really, no. Blacks in Louisiana do not equal blacks in California.

That ignores what they do have in common, though. Blacks are united in the same way that the various proletarians are united. A united effort on the part of white capitalists to oppress Blacks has created a united national identity across America, much in the same way the efforts of the world bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat have created a united identity in resistance to that oppression ... or, at least, it will eventually culminate in such an identity.

[Ismail]

If it "will eventually" create such an identity, then clearly it's not within our lifetimes. Where's the literature? The folksongs? The national heroes? The longing for one's black homeland when in exile or otherwise not in the USA?

Blacks have no national sentiment. They do, however, have an obvious aversion to racism which is exploited by certain opportunists who seek to divide white and black workers.

[Koba Junior]

If it "will eventually" create such an identity, then clearly it's not within our lifetimes.

Did Karl Marx not predict that the centralization of capital and the ensuing centralization of the capitalists' exploitative efforts would create a united international proletariat?


Where's the literature? The folksongs? The national heroes?

I'd hate to be disrespectful, but isn't there quite a lot of Black American literature? Aren't there Black American folk songs? Aren't there Black American heroes? John Henry comes to mind as a Black proletarian of cultural importance.


Blacks have no national sentiment.

Without revealing too much information about myself, I can tell you, from experience, that this most certainly isn't true.


They do, however, have an obvious aversion to racism which is exploited by certain opportunists who seek to divide white and black workers.

We absolutely agree on this, definitely.

[Ismail]

Did Karl Marx not predict that the centralization of capital and the ensuing centralization of the capitalists' exploitative efforts would create a united international proletariat?What's your point?


I'd hate to be disrespectful, but isn't there quite a lot of Black American literature? Aren't there Black American folk songs? Aren't there Black American heroes? John Henry comes to mind as a Black proletarian of cultural importance.But there's no national dimension to such things. Most black heroes of the 19th and 20th centuries were such because they demonstrated that the claim of "blacks are inferior" was a lie, or themselves actively struggled against racism. You won't see George Washington Carver write of the need for an economic base after the liberation of the black homeland via peanut exports.

[Koba Junior]

What's your point?

The point I make is that capitalism has this effect of unifying people in weird ways. Race may be an entirely capitalistic construct, but it unifies people against their oppressors. Proletarianism is the result of capitalism, but it still unifies the working people against your oppressors.


But there's no national dimension to such things. Most black heroes of the 19th and 20th centuries were such because they demonstrated that the claim of "blacks are inferior" was a lie, or themselves actively struggled against racism. You won't see George Washington Carver write of the need for an economic base after the liberation of the black homeland via peanut exports.

I absolutely see your point. In fact, I think I am hereby convinced that I was wrong concerning the national question all along. I am not being sarcastic; I apologize to those whom I criticized.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

You won't see George Washington Carver write of the need for an economic base after the liberation of the black homeland via peanut exports.

lol

Basically, nationalism just doesn't work, period, particularly with groups that don't even have a national identity.

[Rocky Rococo]

Speaking as a Gringo-American, I have to admit that way too often way too many of us are in fact "estupidos". I never find a correct analysis to be offensive.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The word you're looking for in this case is black power, which was a progressive phenomenon as practiced by the BPP and which actually sought to build ties with radicals of all colors. Well in this case it's a semantic argument - most people, including the people involved in the Black Power movements would have called themselves nationalists. Either way, "Black Power" is not inherently progressive, there were parts that were pushing forward and formulated "black power" as local community grassroots power (i.e. the BPP) and then there was also the "black power" of electing black politicians in urban areas or the "black power" of "return to africa" cultural rebellion or the "black power" of increased black business ownership in black communities.


"Nationalism" makes no sense because blacks are not a nation.Because segregation is a real aspect of life in the US, this sort of non-nation nationalism (or whatever you want to call it) is sometimes the default sort of populist position. Someone in the early 60s might have been drawn to the NOI because of Malcolm X's politics but never joined because of the inherent conservative politics of the NOI. Working class people might see nationalism's argument that the current system can't be reformed and is inherently unworkable, whereas someone with a more middle class orientation might be drawn to the "lift the community up by it's bootstraps" conservatism of some nationalist rhetoric.

So the key is always in trying to figure out what the class-content of the nationalism/black power appeal is. Even for some of the more conservative forms of black nationalism, there is a difference between the politics of the movement and the aspirations of the people supporting this movement.


Black "nationalism" has never been popular amongst actual black communities in the USA. Whatever validity the thesis of a black nation had in the 1920's-40's when the Comintern and CPUSA backed it basically disappeared after those decades. The Black Panther Party, which was enough of a threat for its leaders to be targeted for assassination, was not "nationalist" either.What? Other than liberalism, nationalism has had the biggest following in the US among blacks. Garvyism for better and worse has a long shadow on US politics. The idea of a geographically separate black nation-state, the black belt in CP-terminology has never had a following and even the CP just used it propaganistically because it never had much traction. There have been some "back to africa" movements that had a relatively high profile, mainly Garvy's scheme, but it's never been a practical aspiration with mass support.

I think if we are going to soon see a rise in anti-racist black or Latino struggle, nationalism is going to play a huge part initially because society has become so much more segregated. And without offical red-lining, I think the explaination that segregation is not systemic but just "because all white people want non-whites in povery" makes more sense on an immediate gut level than it does when the state government and banks are organizing direct segregation. On the positive side is that official segregation has been eliminated which means that potentially we can overcome some of these issues, segregation in the workforce still exists but is probably much less than in housing, and there are a lot more white people who aren't convinced of "white supremacy" compared to say 1968. Also I think it's much easier to make arguments around class and racism and to show the obvious parallels between anti-black and anti-latino and anti-immigrant and anti-arab racism which again makes a more systematic argument around racism in US society easier.

[Zulu]

The term "nationalism" has different meanings.

I'd rather say nationalism can take different forms, but in essence it always remains virtually the same. And in the final analysis it would depend on how relatively strong the bourgeoisie of the nation in question is. Although it usually always contains elements of chauvinism, supremacism and "national-liberationism" is some proportion, with the necessary element being brought to light depending on the present circumstances. Take, for instance, Zionism: the Jewish people were always oppressed: by the Egyptians, Persians, Romans, Christians, Nazis... But when it comes to the question of the Palestinian Autonomy, the Israeli bourgeoisie says "F*ck 'em! Dirty terrorists!" Same with Great Russian nationalism: Russians "oppressed" by the Westerners/Zionists, but it's OK for them to oppress peoples the Baltics, Ukraine, Caucasus, Central Asia... Same with Georgian nationalism: oppressed by Russians/Turks, OK to oppress Abkhazians and Ossetians...

Doesn't really matter that the nation gets liberated, it still holds the grudge, and having being oppressed some time in the past (often in projection back into history to the times when nations did not really exist) is used as pretext to further foment nationalist fervor in the masses - to the net benefit of the bourgeoisie.





Thus the "nationalism" Albania had was focused on archaeological digs, collecting poems and other literary acts from medieval times and the 19th century, noting influential persons who propagated Albanian culture during those times, educating Albanians about their history, and so on. In this way Albanians in the remotest regions were consolidated as a united nation in their own minds and learned to think of themselves as Albanians, not mountaineering clansmen or whatever. Nationalism of this sort did not have a degenerative effect on the work of socialist construction, and in fact Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labour are attacked today by bourgeois media in Albania as being "traitors" to Albanian nationalism, as adhering to a "Slav ideology" (communism), of viewing things from a class rather than a "national" angle, etc.

Well, see, first it's those "harmless" archaelogical digs by Hoxha, and in the end Hoxha is a national traitor. How ironic.

Also I've looked your link on the Russian chauvinism, and must say it both contains some omissions (such as the fact that the standards of living were the highest in the Baltic Republics, not the RSFSR) and is methodologically incorrect by focusing on comparative statistics between the republics while implicitly denying the importance of the requirements of economic efficiency (division of production based on geographic conditions), and completely excluding the class contradiction within the nations themselves. Well, the chauvinism did exist but it was primarily "for internal consumption" in the republics. The national party leaderships were "obedient tools" for the Russian chauvinists in Moscow precisely because they had common class interests. The law of value and capitalist accumulation were silently doing their nasty job, creating all sorts of social inequality and the blame was put on the Russians in the republics and on the "nationals" in Russia. Also on the Jews and the communists (who already were not actually communists, as we know) everywhere.

Even along the Comecon/Warsaw Pact lines the relation was not entirely imperialist/chauvinist between Moscow and the Eastern Europe, although the drift was surely that way.

This is all not to encroach on Enver Hoxha's memory, it's just to remind that we, now in the 3rd decade past the "official" dissolution of the socialist bloc, have the unwelcome privilege of knowing where all those political and economic processes he was a contemporary of have actually led, and thus we have to look what the current state of affairs can reveal about the past, that possibly wasn't all that obvious back then.


.

[Zulu]

Sans any kind of citation, I don't really think much of this response.

[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965–1966), [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramadan_Revolution)





You neglect to explain why that is, making this conjecture of yours wholly unimpressive.
Why nationalism goes hand in hand with market?

Well, that's basically the main tenet of the Marxist view on this. Here's how Stalin rehashes it:

"The chief problem for the young bourgeoisie is the problem of the market. Its aim is to sell its goods and to emerge victorious from competition with the bourgeoisie of a different nationality. Hence its desire to secure its "own," its "home" market. The market is the first school in which the bourgeoisie learns its nationalism.
But matters are usually not confined to the market. The semi-feudal, semi-bourgeois bureaucracy of the dominant nation intervenes in the struggle with its own methods of "arresting and preventing." The bourgeoisie – whether big or small – of the dominant nation is able to deal more "swiftly" and "decisively" with its competitor. "Forces" are united and a series of restrictive measures is put into operation against the "alien" bourgeoisie, measures passing into acts of repression. The struggle spreads from the economic sphere to the political sphere. Restriction of freedom of movement, repression of language, restriction of franchise, closing of schools, religious restrictions, and so on, are piled upon the head of the "competitor." Of course, such measures are designed not only in the interest of the bourgeois classes of the dominant nation, but also in furtherance of the specifically caste aims, so to speak, of the ruling bureaucracy.
But from the point of view of the results achieved this is quite immaterial; the bourgeois classes and the bureaucracy in this matter go hand in hand – whether it be in Austria-Hungary or in Russia.
The bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation, repressed on every hand, is naturally stirred into movement. It appeals to its "native folk" and begins to shout about the "fatherland,'; claiming that its own cause is the cause of the nation as a whole. It recruits itself an army from among its "countrymen" in the interests of ... the "fatherland." Nor do the "folk" always remain unresponsive to its appeals; they rally around its banner: the repression from above affects them too and provokes their discontent.
Thus the national movement begins.
The strength of the national movement is determined by the degree to which the wide strata of the nation, the proletariat and peasantry, participate in it.
Whether the proletariat rallies to the banner of bourgeois nationalism depends on the degree of development of class antagonisms, on the class consciousness and degree of organization of the proletariat. The class-conscious proletariat has its own tried banner, and has no need to rally to the banner of the bourgeoisie."
J. V. Stalin. Marxism and the National Question, 1913.
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm

Why revisionism in the Marxist-Leninist parties?

Let's quote Stalin here again:

"How could it happen, it may be asked, that the powerful British proletariat, which fought with unexampled heroism, proved to have leaders who were either venal or cowardly, or simply spineless? That is a very important question. Such leaders did not spring up all at once. They grew out of the labour movement; they received a definite schooling as labour leaders in Britain, the schooling of that period when British capital was raking in super-profits and could shower favours on the labour leaders and use them for compromises with the British working class; whereby these leaders of the working class, becoming ever more closely identified with the bourgeoisie in their manner of life and station, became divorced from the mass of the workers, turned their backs on them and ceased to understand them. They are the kind of working-class leaders who are dazzled by the glamour of capitalism, who are overwhelmed by the might of capital, and who dreary of “getting on in the world” and associating with “men of substance.” There is no doubt that these leaders—if I may call them that—are an echo of the past and do not suit the new situation. There is no doubt that in time they will be compelled to give way to new leaders who do correspond to the militant spirit and heroism of the British proletariat. Engels was right when he called such leaders bourgeoisified leaders of the working class."
J. V. Stalin. The British Strike and the Events in Poland, 1926.
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/06/08bp.htm

Such a process of "bourgeoisification" totally occurred in the Soviet Union. Under Stalin it was regularly curtailed by the purges, but once Khrushchev condemned that practice, the process went off to a runaway trajectory, spreading from the top party echelons to the vast majority of the working class itself. Once a average person gets a hold of some property he claims as his "own", he can't but want to add some more to it, especially as he takes a look sideways and sees somebody else has already got more... Under socialism even in its crude form that existed by the 1950s it was very hard to find ways around the system of distribution to acquire more than "the society thinks" you deserve, so there was an increasing longing for the return to the market economy, let alone increased consumption in general. Hence, when the market measures (ever increasing emphasis on profitability) were implemented, it met almost no resistance. Basically, the CPSU just followed the general mood that formed in the society in the wake of the initial successes of socialist construction.

So you see, it just all comes together: bourgeoisification, market-based revisionism and nationalism.





Nationalism was rather common in the Soviet Union even before the advent of revisionism.

And that's not that the Soviet Union could be very proud of. Pre-socialist mentality is bound to remain present in the society during socialism, just as classes, state, money, etc. Marx called it "the capitalist birthmarks". Such is the contradictory nature of socialism (which is the lowest stage of communism), that all those things have to wither away, and until that they remain sources of the danger of counterrevolution, which communists have to account for.

Stalin himself is sometimes seen as a Great Russian chauvinist, because of several occasions when he expressed his fascination with the Russian culture and people, but most of all because of Lenin's work "The Question of Nationalities or "Autonomisation"" (http://search.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm).

In short, Lenin, basically called for sort of an "affirmative action" towards the previously (under the Czars) oppressed nationalities, while Stalin opposed giving any concessions to the "national-deviationists". Here is another quote:

"The clause in the programme referred to (Clause 9), speaks of freedom of nationalities, of the right of nationalities to develop freely, of the Party's duty to combat all violence against them. Speaking generally, the right of nationalities, within the meaning of that clause, must not be restricted, it may be extended to autonomy and federation, as well as to secession. But does this mean that it is a matter of indifference to the Party, that it is all the same to it, how a given nationality decides its destiny, whether in favour of centralism or of secession? Does it mean that on the basis of the abstract right of nationalities alone it is possible "while expressing no opinion on the merits of this demand," to recommend, even indirectly, autonomy for some, federation for others, and secession for still others? A nationality decides its destiny, but does that mean that the Party must not influence the will of a nationality towards a decision most in accordance with the interests of the proletariat?"
J. V. Stalin. On the Road to Nationalism, 1913.
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/01/12_2.htm

It is clear, that until the Georgian affair Stalin was more of a Luxemburgist on the question of nationalities, advocating immediate integration of the liberated nations, including in the cultural sphere. After Lenin's criticism, he accepted his point of view, and during the 1920-50s extensive efforts were made by the Soviet government to support the cultural self-development of all the nations of the Union. Not that it helped very much to stem the resistance of the nationalists who belonged to the old proprieted classes. And it backfired in the 1960-80s, when the new bourgeoisie - together with the survivors from before the revolution (or their children) disseminated nationalism both in Russia and all the national republics.

Also, fun fact: one of the charges against the defendants in the Leningrad affair of 1949 was that of Great Russian chauvinism, although the essence of the case, when you get to the bottom of it, was economic: it was all about Voznesensky's attempt of introducing pro-market reforms.





Nothing gets you ready to fight Nazis like protecting your motherland.

And some people thought that protecting the motherland required them to fight FOR the Nazis... See, nationalism is a tricky thing. And the first thing that you actually need to fight the Nazis is a strong socialist economy, and the second thing is a Marxist-Leninist party to mobilize it. Anyway, the Nazi invasion of the USSR and the way it went was such a tragedy not in the least because so many communists and class-conscious proletarians gave their lives, and in the end the victory was retrofitted to serve the blooming "Soviet nationalism" under Brezhnev - at the same time as everything those communists had fought for was being undone.



Black nationalism, for instance, isn't about hating some Caucasian proletarians. It's about freeing an oppressed group from the exploitation of capitalists who are primarily white, who created the white identity as a means of exploitation.

"The attachment that members of an oppressed community may feel for their own culture of oppression, much as we may respect the feeling in the abstract, is nevertheless the product of the crisis of democracy. It is because the effectiveness, the credibility, and the legitimacy of democracy have eroded that human beings take refuge in the illusion of a particular identity that could protect them. Then we find on the agenda culturalism, that is, the assertion that each of these communities (religious, ethnic, sexual, or other) has its own irreducible values (that is, values that have no universal significance). Culturalism, as I have said elsewhere, is not a complement to democracy, a means of applying it concretely, but on the contrary a contradiction to it."
Samir Amin. Imperialism and Globalization, 2001.
http://monthlyreview.org/2001/06/01/imperialism-and-globalization

Even if nationalism is not about hating somebody (which is, frankly, doubtful - it ALWAYS ends with some form of xenophobia, even if it does not begin with it), it still derails the entire premise of the class struggle. And it inevitably leads to the senseless radicalization of the political discourse, making iteven harder to return it to the class struggle. First you base it around this "identity" crap, then you add exclusions to your membership regulations, then you draw in all sorts of bigots to your cause, then bigots on the other side all fire up. And then it just spirals out of control. Even in the course of the class struggle itself this disruptive dynamic manifests itself, as some proletarians begin to claim superiority and entitlement just by the merit of their "social background" over the intellectuals (even those who support the proletariat), and that fuels the intellectual and class chauvinism on the other side.

The solution to ALL these contradictions, the liberation of all social groups from all kinds of oppression can be achieved ONLY in the field and by the means of political ECONOMY, which is the BASIS of the human society. That solution is planned economy. As long as you pursue the principle of central planning, you are at odds with all forms of oppression as well as other social evils (crime, corruption, etc.), simply because they are detrimental, make your job of economic planning and complying with the plan harder, so you naturally strive to eliminate them once and for all.

The market principle, on the contrary, does not give a damn about oppression, corruption and crime. In fact, the market principle favors all those things, because there is a lot of money to be made on them... So when you engage in these "identity based" politics and struggles, that do not directly attack the market principle and promote the planning principle instead, you're not helping anything at all. You just fall for what the capitalists want you to fall for, namely, the bourgeois prejudices.

I'll finish with yet another quote of Comrade Stalin:

"It was formerly the "accepted" idea that the only method of liberating the oppressed peoples is the method of bourgeois nationalism, the method of nations drawing apart from one another, the method of disuniting nations, the method of intensifying national enmity among the labouring masses of the various nations.
That legend must now be regarded as refuted. One of the most important results of the October Revolution is that it dealt that legend a mortal blow, by demonstrating in practice the possibility and expediency of the proletarian, internationalist method of liberating the oppressed peoples, as the only correct method; by demonstrating in practice the possibility and expediency of a fraternal union of the workers and peasants of the most diverse nations based on the principles of voluntariness and internationalism. The existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which is the prototype of the future integration of the working people of all countries into a single world economic system, cannot but serve as direct proof of this."
J. V. Stalin. The International Character of the October Revolution, 1927.
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/11/06.htm



.

[Koba Junior]

Regarding the previous post by Comrade Zulu ...

Holy shit, that was thorough. Why can't more posts be like that?

I have no other choice but to examine this extremely carefully and begin to temper my views on nationalism with regards to this information.