How is nationalism in the bourgeoisie's interests?

[Zukunftsmusik]

"We all know" that nationalism is a bourgeois ideology, that it serves the interests of the capitalist class. At least this is repeated again and again. And if we look at the period it grew out of, it matches pretty much with the bourgeois revolutions etc. But I'm curious on how it serves bourgeois interests. If the bourgeoisie is an international class, doesn't the idea of the nation state contradict this? Couldn't they exploit the working class more effectively without the nation states?

As a follow-up question: Are over-national organisations such as the EU a sign that the nation state/nationalism is "dying", that it's no longer serving the interests of the capitalists?

If my questions aren't as clear as I think they are, let me know.

[Desperado]

I think you've got the answer mostly - a lot depends on whether we're talking about a national bourgeoisie class or an international one.

But an international bourgeoisie or even the end of the nation state doesn't mean the end of bourgeois nationalism. It can still be used to divide workers even if war is not an intention, just like racism which can serve the bourgeoisie (though a "race war" would not).

I'd disagree that nationalism is necessarily divisive or bourgeois, but that's another debate.

[Tommy4ever]

Nationalism also has the tremendous power of giving something workers can identify with that is in no way class based - thus making them identify themselves with their local exploiters, of course making it seem stranger to think of those people as enemies.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It should also be noted that the contradictions that exist in capitalism probably would cause capitalism's downfall without the nation-state's protection of property rights, bailouts, etc. etc..

[Ocean Seal]

But I'm curious on how it serves bourgeois interests. If the bourgeoisie is an international class, doesn't the idea of the nation state contradict this? Couldn't they exploit the working class more effectively without the nation states?
The bourgeoisie is an international class. Nationalism doesn't prevent it from being an international class. Nationalism prevents the workers from being an international class.
Keep this in mind. The bourgeoisie are allowed to put up factories wherever they want, and nationalist movements still target immigrants who cross the border into the USA. Hence workers solidarity is broken, and bourgeois internationalism escapes without damage.

Other things:
War. It kills off overproduction (This is probably the most important tactical advantage that the bourgeoisie uses war for in the long run. This delays the coming crisis of capitalism by creating a new sector of industry).
Internationalism would make unemployment rise in the first world and it would prevent the extreme exploitation of the third.
Nationalism creates a false objective for the working class. It is a good rhetoric tool to put aside class struggle because "it is destroying the nation".
Mumbarak uses it, the US uses it, Assad uses it etc. Pretty much everyone can protect their political power by invoking the notion of the foreigner as an evil invader.




As a follow-up question: Are over-national organisations such as the EU a sign that the nation state/nationalism is "dying", that it's no longer serving the interests of the capitalists?

If my questions aren't as clear as I think they are, let me know.
The EU is dying. Nationalism is alive and kicking. Just ask the Russian neo-nazis. Or Putin, or Assad, etc.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I think you've got the answer mostly - a lot depends on whether we're talking about a national bourgeoisie class or an international one

How do you differ between the two - national and international bourgeoisie? Is it simply the location of their exploited workers?

[Zukunftsmusik]

The bourgeoisie is an international class. Nationalism doesn't prevent it from being an international class. Nationalism prevents the workers from being an international class.

I suppose the following question goes slightly off topic, but I still feel it's relevant (see also my latest post, the question to Desperado): What exactly does it mean that the bourgeoisie is an international class?


War. It kills off overproduction (This is probably the most important tactical advantage that the bourgeoisie uses war for in the long run. This delays the coming crisis of capitalism by creating a new sector of industry).

So wars and conflicts between capitalist states doesn't mean that they have differing interests?


The EU is dying. Nationalism is alive and kicking. Just ask the Russian neo-nazis. Or Putin, or Assad, etc.

Some claim that, although the EU is crumbling economically, this is used to put in place policies that strengthen the over-national power, i.e. weaken the nation state's power. Nationalism is on the rise in many EU states too, though. I see you point.

[Rafiq]

Liberalism is dying. It will soon be replaced by something worse.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[jookyle]

Having a nationalist population is important to the bourgeoisie now more than ever because it's become harder to hide militaristic action, such as coups. In the past, the American population went decades with out knowing about the role the government played in the violant overthrowing of democratic governments.

Technology and what not has made keeping such things so covert much harder, so now, nationalism is used so that the people openly support such actions and the operations may be kept out in the open. It's much easier to drop bombs when it doesn't have to be kept a secret.

[Ocean Seal]

I suppose the following question goes slightly off topic, but I still feel it's relevant (see also my latest post, the question to Desperado): What exactly does it mean that the bourgeoisie is an international class?
It means that it is a class whose interests and consciousness exist along generally international lines. For example, they get resources, build parts, and sell the product in different countries. Non-international classes include the peasantry, the feudal nobility, and the petit-bourgeoisie. The first and third of those mentioned don't really have interactions with their counterparts in other countries. Moreover, they are subjugated by the bourgeoisie like the proletariat, but their revolutionary potential is not liberatory. The petit-bourgeois revolution ends in fascism and the peasant revolution ends in Maoism. Neither of these require global revolution to succeed. In isolation both of these systems are still successful. They suffer from other problems, but internationalism is not one of them. Capitalism like socialism cannot exist in isolation because such break the market mechanism. National capitalism on the other hand ala Qaddafi still exists internationally though it subverts the will of the most powerful capitalists. This is common for capitalists though.



So wars and conflicts between capitalist states doesn't mean that they have differing interests?
War are the result of differing interests. But they are the essentially inevitable among the factions of the capitalist class because of the crises of overproduction. And the effect that they have is beneficial for the capitalist class in the long term because they kill off overproduction (they capitalist class isn't conscious of this though), much like the workers don't understand that reforms will end with them winning state power eventually.



Some claim that, although the EU is crumbling economically, this is used to put in place policies that strengthen the over-national power, i.e. weaken the nation state's power. Nationalism is on the rise in many EU states too, though. I see you point.
This may be true, but it isn't something that I have investigated.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Liberalism is dying. It will soon be replaced by something worse.

What do you mean by this, and how is it relevant to the thread?

[Costello74]

It isnt. It can be sometimes of course but it depends how you define nationalism and the people involved. In occupied Ireland for example, most of the nationalist/republican movements are left wing.
While the Marxist Irish National Liberation Army fought the imperialist British forces in Ireland the so called communists were nowhere to be seen. They fought an died for a socialist republic and in the long term, communism.

[Zukunftsmusik]

It isnt. It can be sometimes of course but it depends how you define nationalism and the people involved. In occupied Ireland for example, most of the nationalist/republican movements are left wing.

"Left wing" doesn't really say much, though. I agree that national liberation movements generally find sympathy among "left wing" organisations, but "left wing" in this sense may just as well mean social democrats, democratic socialists (slightly left wing soc-dems) etc. If nationalism is supported or pursued by such organisations, it's still bourgeois.


While the Marxist Irish National Liberation Army fought the imperialist British forces in Ireland the so called communists were nowhere to be seen. They fought an died for a socialist republic and in the long term, communism.

I'm not completely sure where I stand on nationalism/national liberation (I think I'm slowly turning skeptical towards it), and starting a discussion on Irish liberation or any national liberation movement wasn't my intention. As I said, I can see how nationalism could be "left wing", but I'm not sure if it's socialist, and whether I support it. Let's leave that discussion elsewhere, and make a distinction here: In the OP I meant mainly nationalism growing out of the bourgeois revolutions in the late 17-hundreds and continuing through the 18-hundreds; the nationalism that mainly exists today.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Come to the Balkans and see how well it divides the working class and makes them choose politics that are against their best interests. Nationalism divides and serves as something that the capitalists can fall back on any given time. It gives them a scapegoat for everything. "The economy is in shambles because of (insert ethnic/religious group)" It gives people easy answers. Something the left can't do. The left requires that they analyze capitalism as a whole and understand class struggle before the people can readily identify that their enemy isn't the Jew, or the Croat, or the Muslim, or the Serb, or the German. Their enemy is the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie don't really divide themselves by nation. As it is in their interest to cooperate with one another. However, allowing the working class to cooperate would spell a death sentence for the bourgeoisie as organized labour is a very effective force when pointed in the right direction. When the workers are united and realize that they still suffer from the same exploitation, it is only a matter of time before the fingers are pointed at the bosses.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Come to the Balkans and see how well it divides the working class and makes them choose politics that are against their best interests. Nationalism divides and serves as something that the capitalists can fall back on any given time. It gives them a scapegoat for everything. "The economy is in shambles because of (insert ethnic/religious group)" It gives people easy answers. Something the left can't do. The left requires that they analyze capitalism as a whole and understand class struggle before the people can readily identify that their enemy isn't the Jew, or the Croat, or the Muslim, or the Serb, or the German. Their enemy is the bourgeoisie.

I should perhaps have written in the OP that I'm aware of the dividing effect between workers. I was more concerned with how nationalism didn't divide the bourgeoisie when it does divide the workers, and both Ocean Seal and you point out how. So thanks.


The bourgeoisie don't really divide themselves by nation. As it is in their interest to cooperate with one another. However, allowing the working class to cooperate would spell a death sentence for the bourgeoisie as organized labour is a very effective force when pointed in the right direction. When the workers are united and realize that they still suffer from the same exploitation, it is only a matter of time before the fingers are pointed at the bourgoisie.

I took the freedom to change that last word, as it's the bourgeoisie as a class we oppose, not the bosses as persons (I don't think that was what you meant though, I just think using the word bourgeoisie is more precise in this context)

[Rafiq]

What do you mean by this, and how is it relevant to the thread?

It means that due to the crises of capitalism, like that of which during the great depression, the Bourgeois class will reinvent a new mode of class power, and will reinvent a new mode of ideological mystification to go with it as well.

[Desperado]

How do you differ between the two - national and international bourgeoisie? Is it simply the location of their exploited workers?

The ability of capital (and hence commodities and to a degree labour) to move across borders and the amount it's directly tied to a single nation-state (e.g China's present degree of state capitalism, the state being the investor). If your capital can't easily leave the country you're in, then its interests are going to be with that country, likewise if it's directly tied to that country's government as state capital. As workers become variable capital, then yes, it's also the location of their exploited workers (but also of their factories, the demand for their commodities...).

The state of protectionism and government investment during the 1930s is what made the situation ripe for war - German, Italian and Japanese capital (who lacked the large empires of their rivals) saw it could expand through creating war machines and expanding its borders.

But as said, you don't necessarily need capital to be tied up with national interests for the bourgeoisie to employ nationalism. The international bourgeoisie still needs to divide the workers.

[wsg1991]

nationalism no longer serves the interest of local bourgeois as it used to be
in third world countries , duo to globalization , most bourgeois produce to export and not to local consumption except for smaller size bourgeois who can't export .

Bourgeoisie did not became an international class only after WW2 and globalization , since any further confrontation would be Game over . most rich elite in third world are a reflection of imperialism and depend on imperialism for it's survival , and have no interest in industrialization or national development and modernization of economy , this have been proved numerous times with several nationalist regime in third world . i am not sure about smaller bourgeoisie that produce to local market , but they seem more beneficiary from a nationalist rhetoric

[Psy]

Capitalists are in waring fiefdoms of capital where we have different group of capitalists that want to exploit others capitalist, as capitalists use inside connections with bourgeois states to rig markets to more favorable to them.

What we have a is a contradiction where capitalists are both international (in they can freely move capital around) and bound by bourgeoisie states as if a capitalist don't bribe the state their competitor will and your competitor would get showed with subsidies and very favorable contracts with the state.