What's the issue with nationalism?

[Lex Talionis]

I've seen many leftists state that they view nationalism as deplorable. I am curious as to why many find it so. Is it because nationalism has typically been combined with reactionaries? Is it because of Marx's ideas? What's the deal here?

I myself view nationalism as a tool to unite people under a common goal and a common banner, and I can see its value, but I feel the reasons for certain leftists not liking nationalism may go deeper than that. So here I am asking why.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Nationalism unites the workers and "their" bourgeoisie in support of projects that benefit the bourgeoisie, divide the workers internationally, and more often than not, end up discriminating against, causing harm to, or outright killing, "foreign" workers. Socialists stand for the unity of all workers against the entire bourgeoisie.

[Akshay!]

It depends on what kind of nationalism you're talking about. I don't have any problem with the revolutionary nationalism of anti-colonial/anti-imperialist movements as long as they know that it's a means, not an end. I also don't have any problem with people practicing their traditions, ways of life, and not wanting to become western, etc.. But nationalism in the sense of "American exceptionalism", etc.. which is used to discriminate, justify wars, etc.. - I don't think the left has/should have anything to do with it.

[Blake's Baby]

Because nationalism takes workers from one place and unites them with the bourgeoisie from that place - so gets them to collaborate with their class enemies, who are of course more powerful than they are, being at least a ruling-class-in-waiting if not actually a ruling class, and pits them against other workers lined up behind the banners - but strangely also in front of the representatives of - 'their' bourgeoisie.

It replaces the real class relations with made-up relations based on geography and invented history. It makes about as much sense as organising societies on the basis of any other arbitrary principle, like star-signs.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I think of The Nation is a narrow concept. It can be used to create an illusion of unity; just because we were born on the same bit of rock does not mean I share anything fundamental with the ruling class of my country. Nationality can change over time depending on conquests by 'foreign' powers, immigration, civil wars etc.
I share more with my class based on our relationship to the means of production; the nation we happen to have been born in under captialism is not something to unite behind because it is so limited and, it seems to me, has a strong connection to reactionary ideas.

[Per Levy]

I've seen many leftists state that they view nationalism as deplorable. I am curious as to why many find it so. Is it because nationalism has typically been combined with reactionaries?

no, the point is that nationalism is through and through bourgeois, it is a bourgeois ideology. to quote anton pannekoek


Nationalism is the essential creed of the bourgeoisie.

http://marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/workers-councils.htm#h23


Is it because of Marx's ideas? What's the deal here?

the deal is, as marx said, that workers have no homeland.


I myself view nationalism as a tool to unite people under a common goal and a common banner, and I can see its value, but I feel the reasons for certain leftists not liking nationalism may go deeper than that. So here I am asking why.

as i said, nationalism is a bourgeois ideology, therefore it only is a tool for the bourgeoisie.

[barbelo]

Leftists- whatever broad and heterogeneous group of people this world tries to label- usually support nationalism, only this nationalism doesn't call itself nationalism or veil itself trying to hide its intrinsic class oppression.

See: Palestine, South-Africa, self-determination in Latin America, European socialism (read: reformist capitalism), eastern communist attempts in non-industrialized societies, etc.

I'm glad we live in post-post-modernity, nothing makes sense anymore.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The struggle against national oppression is not nationalism, though it is sometimes confusingly glossed over as a "nationalism of the oppressed". It aims to end existing oppression of the workers (such as the oppression Palestinian workers experience due to the Israeli colonial regime), not unite some imagined nation against foreigners, and it is against the interest of the moderate, conciliatory bourgeoisie (in this case, represented capably by the Palestinian Authority).

[Lex Talionis]

It depends on what kind of nationalism you're talking about. I don't have any problem with the revolutionary nationalism of anti-colonial/anti-imperialist movements as long as they know that it's a means, not an end. I also don't have any problem with people practicing their traditions, ways of life, and not wanting to become western, etc.. But nationalism in the sense of "American exceptionalism", etc.. which is used to discriminate, justify wars, etc.. - I don't think the left has/should have anything to do with it.

I share some of the same ideas. The "American" nationalism is just an excuse to violate other nations' right to self-determination for material gain, when it is used to unite people, that is what I see as beneficial.


no, the point is that nationalism is through and through bourgeois, it is a bourgeois ideology. to quote anton pannekoek.

I will take a look at the link you posted and see if I agree with Pannekoek. However, what makes you state all nationalism is bourgeois? What of the struggles in Palestine for national independence?


The struggle against national oppression is not nationalism, though it is sometimes confusingly glossed over as a "nationalism of the oppressed". It aims to end existing oppression of the workers (such as the oppression Palestinian workers experience due to the Israeli colonial regime), not unite some imagined nation against foreigners, and it is against the interest of the moderate, conciliatory bourgeoisie (in this case, represented capably by the Palestinian Authority).

"Nationalism of the oppressed" I think was the nationalism I have a high opinion of. When nationalism is used to divide rather than unite, that's when I see its benevolence end. "Nationalism of the oppressed" can very much be used as a tool to overthrow the bourgeoisie, raise morale, etc.

[Devrim]

I don't have any problem with the revolutionary nationalism of anti-colonial/anti-imperialist movements as long as they know that it's a means, not an end.

Funnily enough they don't. The sort of movements you are referring to don't see it in any way as a stepping stone to world communism. They see it as a part of establishing a national state, with all the things that go alongside that. A prime example would be the 'revolutionary nationalism of those who set up the Turkish Republic, took communist support in the form of Soviet guns and gold, and proceeded to massacre communists, workers, and ethnic minorities.


I also don't have any problem with people practicing their traditions, ways of life, and not wanting to become western, etc..

...And what, if like the Turkish nationalists, they want to become 'more western'?

Devrim

[Fawkes]

Because nationalism implies that I have more in common with my white, American bosses than with my Mexican and Nigerian co-workers.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Funnily enough they don't. The sort of movements you are referring to don't see it in any way as a stepping stone to world communism. They see it as a part of establishing a national state, with all the things that go alongside that. A prime example would be the 'revolutionary nationalism of those who set up the Turkish Republic, took communist support in the form of Soviet guns and gold, and proceeded to massacre communists, workers, and ethnic minorities.

As if the communists, workers, and ethnic minorities would have fared better under an Entente, Whiteguard or Ottoman occupation. This must be the third or fourth time you've brought this up, but what other line could the Turkish communists have adopted? Should they stuck to phrases about how the workers have no country in the middle of an Entente occupation? No. Not only would that have been contrary to everything communists stand for, it would have utterly discredited communism as a revolutionary movement. The communists had no choice but to stand alongside the kemalist forces while they were liberating Turkish areas, and to stand against them when they attacked neigbouring communities.

[CriticalJames]

Nationalism does breed co-operation and unity, but it also sparks division and separation between ethnic groups. That's not to say that flavours of nationalism aren't important in the world, as culture plays a huge part in the happiness and constructiveness of a society. There's certainly a fine line, and it's crucial that the balance isn't toppled.

[Devrim]

As if the communists, workers, and ethnic minorities would have fared better under an Entente, Whiteguard or Ottoman occupation.

I don't like the whole idea of gazing into crystal balls, and alternative histories, but suffice to say that it seems difficult to imagine it having been worse.The policy of the new Turkish Republic was genocide and ethnic cleansing. What did happen was horrific.


but what other line could the Turkish communists have adopted? Should they stuck to phrases about how the workers have no country in the middle of an Entente occupation?

You mean like the phrases the Russian communists adopted when parts of Western Russian were occupied during the First World War?


No. Not only would that have been contrary to everything communists stand for, it would have utterly discredited communism as a revolutionary movement.

I am not sure how you think that advocating a class policy would have 'utterly discredited communism as a revolutionary movement'. Supporting genocidal forces almost certainly played its part in discrediting it though.


The communists had no choice but to stand alongside the kemalist forces while they were liberating Turkish areas, and to stand against them when they attacked neigbouring communities.

Well that is what they did, and by the time the 'liberation' finished in an orgy of mass murder and ethnic cleansing in İzmir, the communists weren't there to 'stand against Kemalist forces' because their organisations had been almost destroyed through murder and repression.

Devrim

[Deity]

"Nationalism does nothing but teach you to hate people you never met"

Nationalism brings unity withing the "nation" this defeats the purpose of global socialism. We want no "nations", borders, or nationalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't like the whole idea of gazing into crystal balls, and alternative histories, but suffice to say that it seems difficult to imagine it having been worse.

Unfortunately, one does not need a crystal ball to see the effect of various Entente occupation governments in the area.


The policy of the new Turkish Republic was genocide and ethnic cleansing. What did happen was horrific.

That was also the policy of the Greek government, of the various British commissioners in the region, of Armenia and Georgia etc. That is why the liberation of Turkish areas from the Entente was a priority - and conversely why no communist could have supported the kemalist forces when they started invading Greek and Armenian areas.


You mean like the phrases the Russian communists adopted when parts of Western Russian were occupied during the First World War?

Not really; the Bolshevik authorities denounced the various German and Entente directorates, hetmanates and the good Christian god knows what else, but they also made it clear that the Russian republic had no real forces that could confront the Germans and the Entente in the west.


I am not sure how you think that advocating a class policy would have 'utterly discredited communism as a revolutionary movement'. Supporting genocidal forces almost certainly played its part in discrediting it though.

Has anyone ever claimed that the Kemalist forces should have received unconditional support? I certainly haven't. But the national liberation of the Turkish people was an important task of the proletariat in that period.


Well that is what they did, and by the time the 'liberation' finished in an orgy of mass murder and ethnic cleansing in İzmir, the communists weren't there to 'stand against Kemalist forces' because their organisations had been almost destroyed through murder and repression.

Again, objectively supporting the Entente would not have helped. Quite the contrary, Turkey would have become an occupied region, with foreign colonists pushing the native population - including the proletarians - out.

[Devrim]

Unfortunately, one does not need a crystal ball to see the effect of various Entente occupation governments in the area.

And they were not worse than, notice I don't claim that they were better than, the genocidal policies of the new Turkish Republic. Also nobody needed a crystal ball to see this, as the military leaders of the nationalist movement had already killed millions of Armenians.


That was also the policy of the Greek government, of the various British commissioners in the region, of Armenia and Georgia etc. That is why the liberation of Turkish areas from the Entente was a priority

This is why a class policy was a necessity.


...and conversely why no communist could have supported the kemalist forces when they started invading Greek and Armenian areas.


But they were in 'Greek areas' (for example the Pontus), and 'Armenian areas' right from the start. The populations were mixed. More to the point, the nationalist project depended on attacking the Greeks and the Armenians. It couldn't have existed without that.


Not really; the Bolshevik authorities denounced the various German and Entente directorates, hetmanates and the good Christian god knows what else, but they also made it clear that the Russian republic had no real forces that could confront the Germans and the Entente in the west.

I am talking about before the revolution when large parts of the west of Imperial Russia were occupied. Yes denounce the entente, but also against your own ruling class.


Has anyone ever claimed that the Kemalist forces should have received unconditional support? I certainly haven't. But the national liberation of the Turkish people was an important task of the proletariat in that period.

The whole think about c0nditional/non-conditional support is a Trotskyist nonsense designed to allow support of the unsupportable.


Again, objectively supporting the Entente would not have helped. Quite the contrary, Turkey would have become an occupied region, with foreign colonists pushing the native population - including the proletarians - out.

So calling for a class policy would have been 'objectively supporting the Entente'. Funnily enough they said the same thing to Lenin.

Devrim

[Alexander99]

Nationalism is a petty-bourgeois ideology. The real powerful bourgeoise are internationalist.

Although nationalism is bad and a way to divide workers the reality is that petty-bourgeoise nationalism (that isn't explcity fascist or supremacist) is a lesser evil than internationalist globalisation.

[Rafiq]

the soviet alignment with Turkey, albeit necessary for the survival of the state, was the first signification of the revolutions coming degeneration as it made clear the revolution had isolated and russia was in need of allies.

it was one of the first times that a descision was made to sustain the state that was opposed to the interests of the proletariat.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Lex Talionis]

Nationalism does breed co-operation and unity, but it also sparks division and separation between ethnic groups. That's not to say that flavours of nationalism aren't important in the world, as culture plays a huge part in the happiness and constructiveness of a society. There's certainly a fine line, and it's crucial that the balance isn't toppled.

That is dependent on the type of nationalism and other factors as well. For example, you look at a Golden Dawn member, he may feel discontent for the Kurds and other racial minorities because the Golden Dawn have have racial nationalist/ethnic nationalist elements within their movement. This is not always the case with all nationalists though, most I've seen are non-racist unless you delve into specific movements, and depending on whether or not they're radical or have certain views.


"Nationalism does nothing but teach you to hate people you never met"

Nationalism brings unity within the "nation" this defeats the purpose of global socialism. We want no "nations", borders, or nationalism.

Okay, but couldn't nationalism be used as a tool to unite the oppressed class against the oppressing class? Could we not use nationalism as a tool to unite the working class under one banner?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Why some are saying here that Nationalism would unite proletariat and bourgious is beyond me.

What Nationalism is in essence is an irrational feeling of being united with a group with the same characteristics, be it culture, religion or ethnicity.

What Nationalism does within the proletariat is divide it deeply by means of divide and conquer-tactics. For example, if the workers from country A feel an unrest about the crisis (their jobs deminish and wages are cut), Nationalists tell them it is the fault af people from country X or have the color Y. Soon enough the workers from A are hating X's and Y's. It means a division within the proletariat, nothing more, nothing less.
Why Nationalism is Bourgious? Because the Bourgiousie uses it to break the united workers' strength in numbers.

Conclusion: Bourgious' Nationalism breaks up the proletariat and puts it against itself.

[The Vox Populi]

What of National Socialists?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

What of National Socialists?

Same story there. They are making workersrights cont for native workers only.
See the classical Nazi (National Socialists by Hitler). Hitler wanted a workers-state for his own kind (the Arians or Übermenschen).
So socialism only for your group of affiliats. Outsiders are unwanted, cannot participate in yor socialist-idea's and have to be taken care of (and we all know the result of that).

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Looked this p for you too:


the good workers at the factory should be given clubs so they can beat the hell out of those Jews.

Anti-semitism is also a form of Nationalism (cultural-nationalism).
So in quoting Stalin, we also see Nationalism and Socialism at work at the same time.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

How the fuck is an often racist and segregatory religious fetish over geopolitical institutions going to 'united the working class'!?

I don't see how the balkan wars 'united the balkan working class'.

[RebelDog]

Nationalism is the CEO of Goldman Sachs and his office cleaner believing they have the same interests.

[Blake's Baby]

Why some are saying here that Nationalism would unite proletariat and bourgious is beyond me...

Because that's exactly what it does (or attempts to do). But of course, by 'unite' we mean 'unite on the bourgeoisie's terrain' = 'allow the bourgeoisie to dominate the proletariat'.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

How the fuck is an often racist and segregatory religious fetish over geopolitical institutions going to 'united the working class'!?

I don't see how the balkan wars 'united the balkan working class'.


It doesn't. As i already explained, it divides it and rules over it by using divide-and-conquer-tactics. It unites only a small portion of workers of the same religion, culture or ethnicity.
...
But i see you already read that...

[Akshay!]

Some people (and I'm not talking about anyone specific) think that a country is either occupied or it suddenly becomes a socialist utopia where everybody is a Marxist and they all live happily ever after. Unfortunately, the world isn't like that. Sometimes one has to support lesser of 2 evils. National liberation struggles aren't the end - but they're a step in the right direction. That's why I said we shouldn't blindly oppose any and all forms of nationalism. We should think about the consequences - if it's an anti-colonial/anti-imperialist movement - you might not agree with everything it stands for but you have to support it for the time being while disagreeing with specific aspects of it.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I invite you to come to the Balkans to see what nationalism has created and how "great" it is...:rolleyes:

[Per Levy]

Sometimes one has to support lesser of 2 evils.

so you'll vote for the democrats in the next elections?


National liberation struggles aren't the end - but they're a step in the right direction.

yeah, a step in the direction of national bourgeoisie rule. if national liberation would be a step in the right direction, why is it that when national liberation was achieved no other steps were taken towards socialism?


We should think about the consequences - if it's an anti-colonial/anti-imperialist movement - you might not agree with everything it stands for but you have to support it for the time being while disagreeing with specific aspects of it.

and in this part you name allready a big problem with nationalism, once a country is "liberated" it stops there. workers and other opressed people have no homeland so why fight for the liberation of a country and not for the liberation of the opressed and exploited classes?

[Luís Henrique]

Same story there. They are making workersrights cont for native workers only.

No. National-Socialists suppress workers' rights, period.


See the classical Nazi (National Socialists by Hitler). Hitler wanted a workers-state for his own kind (the Arians or Übermenschen).

No, he didn't. He didn't even recognise the existence of a working class, and he never wanted a worker's State of any kind, not even a German-only "worker's State".


So socialism only for your group of affiliats. Outsiders are unwanted, cannot participate in yor socialist-idea's and have to be taken care of (and we all know the result of that).

Again, no. There was no socialism under Hitler, or in even in Hitler's plans, at all. There was no "socialist-idea" in which anyone, German or foreigner, could participate.

National Socialism wasn't and isn't "Socialism" in any conceivable sence; it isn't and wasn't some distortion of socialist ideas, but an outright anti-socialist ideology from the very beginning, always focused in suppressing communism, socialism, working class organisation, and the left in general.

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And they were not worse than, notice I don't claim that they were better than, the genocidal policies of the new Turkish Republic. Also nobody needed a crystal ball to see this, as the military leaders of the nationalist movement had already killed millions of Armenians.

Except that the existence of a national Turkish state independent of the Entente protected the Turkish citizens of the region, constituting the majority of the population, from ethnic oppression and colonial projects. Likewise, the existence of an independent national Armenian or Greek state would have protected the Armenian and Greek populations of the former Ottoman Empire.


This is why a class policy was a necessity.

A class policy is always necessary. But what sort of class policy? It seems to me that the only consistent policy would have been support, by communists from all "sides" of the conflict, for the national liberation of all three nations, the Turkish, Armenian and Greek one (including, perhaps, special arrangements in the Pontus and in Crete). And this would have meant conditional support for certain nationalist forces - but not unconditional support, and not for nationalist reasons.

This is another thing that needs to be pointed out: the various forms of nationalism are all in conflict with each other. So Turkish nationalism is opposed to Greek nationalism, for example. But there is nothing contradictory about the national liberation of both the Turkish and the Greek nation.


But they were in 'Greek areas' (for example the Pontus), and 'Armenian areas' right from the start. The populations were mixed. More to the point, the nationalist project depended on attacking the Greeks and the Armenians. It couldn't have existed without that.

Of course, but I never said that the communists should have offered unconditional support to the nationalists. Quite the opposite; communist propaganda should have been focused on national liberation and opposition to the insane empire-building schemes of the Kemalists.

In the Pontus, for example, the communists should not have supported the Kemalist army or the Entente puppet "Pontic Republic", but agitated for a free, neutral, democratic Pontus, or for partition. But the situation in Pontus and, say, in Karaman, was not the same.


I am talking about before the revolution when large parts of the west of Imperial Russia were occupied. Yes denounce the entente, but also against your own ruling class.

Again, I never said that the communists should have refrained from criticising Kemal-pasha. But at the same time, while the Kemalist forces were on the defensive, pushing the Entente out of Turkish areas, the communists and the Kemalists had the same goals. When the Kemalists started attacking Greek areas, for example, the goals of the communists and the Kemalists were completely opposed.

Also, the context of Lenin's defeatist slogans needs to be taken into account. The First World War was an imperialist war, and either side would have grossly violated the rights of the minority nations in the Russian Empire, as well as the rights of workers etc. But to the Turkish worker, the difference between an independent Turkish nation and Greek, French or British occupation was substantial. Furthermore, the defeat of the Russian bourgeoisie opened the way to a communist revolution. The same would most likely not have happened in Turkey, just as a communist revolution was not an option in the Hijaz or the Levant.


The whole think about c0nditional/non-conditional support is a Trotskyist nonsense designed to allow support of the unsupportable.

We Trotskyists are clever bastards, aren't we? We've managed to "design" something that has been in use since the early paleolithic. No matter how much you want it to be so, a communist revolution is not always a viable option, and the proletariat often needs to support bourgeois forces - as it did in Germany, for example, as it needs to do in Syria at the moment etc. - but without fully committing themselves to the bourgeois line.


So calling for a class policy would have been 'objectively supporting the Entente'. Funnily enough they said the same thing to Lenin.

Lenin was accused of supporting Germany. And objectively, the Bolshevik victory did help the German war effort. But what of it? The Germans were no worse than the "free, democratic" states of the Entente, for one thing. And all other considerations are irrelevant when the communist revolution is at stake. So yes, if you can convince me that the military defeat of the Kemalist forces in Turkish areas would have led to a communist revolution, and not simply the creation of Greek and Armenian Israels in Anatolia, I will admit that the policy of the Turkish communists was mistaken.


Looked this p for you too:


the good workers at the factory should be given clubs so they can beat the hell out of those Jews.

Anti-semitism is also a form of Nationalism (cultural-nationalism).
So in quoting Stalin, we also see Nationalism and Socialism at work at the same time.

I think most of us would like to see a source for that bizarre quote. And no, socialism is opposed to anti-Semitism as it is opposed to all forms of racism and ethnic chauvinism.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

No. National-Socialists suppress workers' rights, period.



No, he didn't. He didn't even recognise the existence of a working class, and he never wanted a worker's State of any kind, not even a German-only "worker's State".



Again, no. There was no socialism under Hitler, or in even in Hitler's plans, at all. There was no "socialist-idea" in which anyone, German or foreigner, could participate.

National Socialism wasn't and isn't "Socialism" in any conceivable sence; it isn't and wasn't some distortion of socialist ideas, but an outright anti-socialist ideology from the very beginning, always focused in suppressing communism, socialism, working class organisation, and the left in general.

Luís Henrique

That's what i thought at first too. But he was actually somewhat of a socialist at first. Socialism had a big part in the NSDAP at first (up till 1930) led by Ernst Röhm.
Hiter said it repeatedly before the 1930: "Ich bin ein Sozialist".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Adolf_Hitler_Ich_bin_Sozialist_Monument_for_the_Ge rman_Labour_Front%2C_Deutsche_Arbeitsfront_%28DAF% 29%2C_1935.jpg/640px-Adolf_Hitler_Ich_bin_Sozialist_Monument_for_the_Ge rman_Labour_Front%2C_Deutsche_Arbeitsfront_%28DAF% 29%2C_1935.jpg

Only after 1930 his policy become more concentrated on the nationalist-part of his politics.
That leading to the leaving of all socialists out of the NSDAP.
Also because he let the big companies and capitalists be, as long as they were not Jewish, black, gay etc.

After the 1930's Hitlers politics are no more socialist and thus it is where the term National-socialism should cease to be used as regards him and his kind.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If everyone who proclaimed themselves a socialist or used socialist rhetoric was an actual socialist, we would already be living in a socialist society.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

If everyone who proclaimed themselves a socialist or used socialist rhetoric was an actual socialist, we would already be living in a socialist society.

Look, The Vox Populi asked, i answered. Of course i don't think National-Socialism is socialism. Point is that the term exists and i explained how it came to be.

[Rural Comrade]

Nationalism by what I can tell is one of three things: love of one's racial majority and rule in a country (Liberal Democratic Party of Russia), those wishing to liberate themselves from foreign domination (Viet Mihn), or excessive love of one's nation (American Nationalists). It i easy to see how the first and the last are dangerous, but the second did attempt to bring socialism to Vietnam (but eventually failed in the 80s); it was used as a tool to inspire the people. This type of nationalism could become dangerous if let to grow into the other two and should be downplayed to patriotism.

For those who are unaware patriotism is the love of the land you live and work on.

Feel free to point out any flaws here but please be constructive.

[Luís Henrique]

That's what i thought at first too. But he was actually somewhat of a socialist at first. Socialism had a big part in the NSDAP at first (up till 1930) led by Ernst Röhm.

Ernst Roehm was a Freikorp-er.


He was one of the senior members in Colonel von Epp's Bayerisches Freikorps für den Grenzschutz Ost (Freikorps Epp), formed at Ohrdruf in April 1919, which finally overturned the Munich Soviet Republic by force of arms on 3 May 1919

As for Gregor Strasser and Otto Strasser, also commonly fabled as actual socialists within the NSDAP,


In 1919 [Gregor] and his brother Otto joined the right-wing Freikorps led by Franz Ritter von Epp.

That's the common history of all such people: far-right demagogues who were seriously in the business of physically suppressing communists and social democrats. They adopted the label "socialist" as a way to better fight actual socialists, but their political actions were always the political actions of people in the far-right.

But, yes, the NSDAP was so far to the right that those totally anti-communist and reactionary guys were actually in its "left" wing. Much like Jon Huntsman is in the left wing of the Republican Party, and yet is certainly right of the centre.

Luís Henrique

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Ernst Roehm was a Freikorp-er.



As for Gregor Strasser and Otto Strasser, also commonly fabled as actual socialists within the NSDAP,


Damn you're right, had the wrong names. I'm sorry about that.



But, yes, the NSDAP was so far to the right that those totally anti-communist and reactionary guys were actually in its "left" wing. Much like Jon Huntsman is in the left wing of the Republican Party, and yet is certainly right of the centre.

Luís Henrique

I know it was in no way socialist (as i already said), but The Vox Populi asked about it and i explained the name.
What i said is merely an explanation, not my personal opinion. Milosovic started out as a (self-proclaimed) communist. We all know he wasn't.
I explained the term, i did not (mean to) defend it.

Just to make things clear: i am against all forms of Nationalism (never felt proud of my country or ethnicity or whatever. If what i've even felt ashamed of it). Nationalism, even the National-liberation movements some of us like (can't imagine why) is pure evil. Noone is better than another and likewise no country is better than another.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Nationalism, even the National-liberation movements some of us like (can't imagine why) is pure evil. Noone is better than another and likewise no country is better than another.

Why do some people persistently act as if support for, say, Palestinian or Tamil national liberation means "liking Palestine more than other countries"? We are talking about actual, living workers who are being killed, not some imaginary Tamil or Palestinian Heimat. If anyone thinks that stopping colonial regimes from killing Palestinians or Tamils is "pure evil", they need to take a good long fucking look at what they're doing.

[CriticalJames]

Okay, but couldn't nationalism be used as a tool to unite the oppressed class against the oppressing class? Could we not use nationalism as a tool to unite the working class under one banner?

Maybe this would be true under certain conditions in a very specific society or community, but the reality is that its quite rare to see entire classes united under the same nationality, ethnicity or culture - especially in our increasing globalized/multicultural world. The rich and powerful can easily disguise and unite themselves under the same nationalistic banner by getting involved in patriotic movements, and this can quickly lead to immigrants and minority groups being targeted. Of course there's a balance, but as mentioned before - this balance can be easily toppled. This is why I don't think nationalism is the best "tool" for this job.

[Lex Talionis]

No. National-Socialists suppress workers' rights, period.

That may be what Hitler did, although certainly other factors may have played a role in the reasons why National Socialism suppressed unions. From what I can understand in Germany's political climate in the 20's and early-30's, unions held the leftist parties (Social Democratic Party of Germany, may have been some Communist Party sympathizers in the mix too) in high regard. So this may have played a factor in the reason why Hitler suppressed unions.

Hitler also wrote in Mein Kampf that trade unions can be used by the National Socialists in Mein Kampf, I may be able to PM you the link if you're interested in reading it.


No, he didn't. He didn't even recognise the existence of a working class, and he never wanted a worker's State of any kind, not even a German-only "worker's State".

Hitler himself never really was worker-oriented when he created the Third Reich. However, movements within National Socialism wanted a more socialist, worker-oriented form of it. Otto Strasser and Gregor Strasser come to mind, they were booted from the NSDAP and created their own dissident group called the Black Front, and made Strasserism.


Again, no. There was no socialism under Hitler, or in even in Hitler's plans, at all. There was no "socialist-idea" in which anyone, German or foreigner, could participate.

This is pretty accurate. Although someone posted before he did have socialist ideas in the beginning, although he transitioned to a more nationalist and racialist view later on.


National Socialism wasn't and isn't "Socialism" in any conceivable sence; it isn't and wasn't some distortion of socialist ideas, but an outright anti-socialist ideology from the very beginning, always focused in suppressing communism, socialism, working class organisation, and the left in general.

It wasn't socialism at all. The means of production were still in private hands, but we have to look at other factors as to why Hitler suppressed the left. It wasn't because Hitler was a plaything of the bourgeois, he suppressed them because they opposed nationalism. They opposed his racialist and nationalist worldview, and thus was eliminated.

[Blake's Baby]

How could we use 'nationalism' (ie, belief in 'the nation' which is a cross-class entity which divides workers) to unite workers? That's like saying 'why don't we use scissors as glue?'

Because it doesn't fucking work that's why. How do you use (for example) American nationalism to unite American, Mexican, Chinese, Haitian, Greek, Italian and Irish workers? You can't, you end up uniting American workers with American bosses against the 'immigrants taking our jobs'. Now replicate that argument for every country in the world.

[Akshay!]

btw, I'm curious as to what would be the policy of some of the people here who're totally opposed to any kind of support to national liberation struggles on the Egyptian uprising in 2011? Would you stand in the middle of Tahrir square and declare that you oppose everybody because they're fighting for national liberation, creating a capitalist state (and that too with elements of Islamism)? Or would you join the workers in overthrowing the pro-US, pro-Israel Mubarak dictatorship? Again, in India would you oppose the Quit India Movement because Nehru, Gandhi etc.. were nationalists or would you support the Indian people in overthrowing British rule and getting at least a little bit of independence? Obviously anybody can say "no I would maintain my personal purity and oppose everybody (with no exceptions) and then do Nothing because no socialist revolution is going on" but that's just stupid.

[Bostana]

Not only does Nationalism divide the international worker but it's just fucking stupid.

Every fucking day I hear people tell me that I should be proud to be an American because of the rights I have and that I don't live in some dictatorship where I don't have freddom of speech. What? Do you mean the dictatorships that America installs because they're anti-commie and pro-American. Because they allow American businesses to exploit the shit out of their countries workers? Am I suppose to be proud that my country does that?

Nationalism is fucking stupid

[Blake's Baby]

btw, I'm curious as to what would be the policy of some of the people here who're totally opposed to any kind of support to national liberation struggles on the Egyptian uprising in 2011? Would you stand in the middle of Tahrir square and declare that you oppose everybody because they're fighting for national liberation, creating a capitalist state (and that too with elements of Islamism)? Or would you join the workers in overthrowing the pro-US, pro-Israel Mubarak dictatorship? Again, in India would you oppose the Quit India Movement because Nehru, Gandhi etc.. were nationalists or would you support the Indian people in overthrowing British rule and getting at least a little bit of independence? Obviously anybody can say "no I would maintain my personal purity and oppose everybody (with no exceptions) and then do Nothing because no socialist revolution is going on" but that's just stupid.

Do you think that the uprising in Egypt was a 'national liberation struggle'? From which nation were they liberating themselves? Their own? That's a pretty post-modern 'national liberation struggle' there... I'd say that those who support national liberation struggles should be the ones opposing the uprising - after all, were it a 'national liberation struggle' then the members of the same nation (eg Mubarak) would be on the same side.

Instead of lining up behind the bourgeoisie, we - socialists that is - support the independent action of the working class.

[Akshay!]

Do you think that the uprising in Egypt was a 'national liberation struggle'? From which nation were they liberating themselves? Their own?

US and Israel. Mubarak was a US puppet. Ever heard of the term "neo-colonialism"?

[Blake's Baby]

Brilliant. So the striking workers were actually against US-Zionist Imperialism - I never knew that. But it is illuminating at least. I've often wondered how certain people sleep at night, and now I know. Thanks for enlightening me.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

From which nation were they liberating themselves? Their own?

Thanks BB!
I am pro-palestine, but it is more an anti-israel kind of thing.

That being said, i must add that we need to look at the term National Liberation.
National Liberation is fighting to free your country from others opressors. I must admit that if the Basques are in fact Spanish, can we call it National Liberation? Or are we to admit that Basqueland is invaded by Spain? In that instance, we must also admit that the Palistinian struggle is also National Liberation.
If it is not, then we should also not support the Basques and others alike.

Also, on account on my not supporting National Liberation: it leads to new nations, not to a coherent world. It is only a new form of opression. Only the leaders change. What has it to do with anything the left wants? Nothing. Maybe freedom from an opressor, but again, instating a new leader isn't solving opression.

[#FF0000]

Aside from what everyone else is saying, I think it's also blatantly contradictory to be against property but then for nationalism -- the idea that a certain group of people have some special right or claim to a chunk of land.


This is pretty accurate. Although someone posted before he did have socialist ideas in the beginning, although he transitioned to a more nationalist and racialist view later on.

What do you mean "socialist"? Hitler always believed in private property. He said as much in his earliest speeches (talking about how "true socialism" respected property rights). Then see the "table talks" where he goes on about regretting ever having used the word "socialist".

The fact is the Nazis used the word "socialist" the same way pretty much every country uses some combinations of the word "democratic republic". Just words that sound nice to people (at the time) but are not necessarily an accurate description.

[CognitiveDissident]

I do think that there is some value to unifying people around common geography. This is because there are some common geographical interests. For example, drinking water, food and clean air are are some of the most basic human requirements to live. Those items are sourced geographically, and as such, local geography does create some common interests. Additionally, geography does impose common interests with regards to things like flood control, earthquakes and other disasters. There are also common interests in waste disposal, i.e. sewage.

However, clearly there are capitalists with, shall we say, false consciousness in that they may not care about the environmental conditions around them, so long as they can live behind gates with their own private sewage handling etc.