What is your stance on Nationalism?

[Comrade Chernov]

This is where I've seen many Leftists argue. Now I must say that I am...let's say, wary of Nationalism. It was, after all, Nationalism, alongside Capitalism, that caused both World Wars, that allowed the conservative German states to unify and crush the 1848 leftist revolutions, that caused the slaughtering of millions of innocents in the name of "racial purity" and "eliminating political dissidents", and that has encouraged the dominating police actions of the United States for the last sixty years.

However, as others have informed me, Nationalism was also, at least partially, responsible for the unification of Vietnam to escape the French colonial noose, and then fight off the United States as a near-unified front. Similar ends were achieved with the People's Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of Korea (pre-Juche), the Soviet Union at its inception, and the Republic of Cuba. Nationalism, as these people have elaborated, can unite the disenfranchised of a country into a formidable, solid front that the Capitalist aggressor must crush in its entirety in order to stop.

So, with these arguments laid out, where do you stand on Nationalism? Should it be included in future Socialist revolutions? Should it, in the event of another Socialist-administered state (ala the USSR, PRC, etc.), be official state policy? Should it be completely disavowed as an enemy of the revolution?

[Thirsty Crow]

However, as others have informed me, Nationalism was also, at least partially, responsible for the unification of Vietnam to escape the French colonial noose, and then fight off the United States as a near-unified front. So, what you're saying is that nationalism is conducive to the struggle for the formation of a bourgeois nation-state.

There is no distinction between the colonial "anti-imperialist" struggle, ultimately dependent on the local bourgeoisie and the Capitalist aggressor (capital letter, really), in that this only represents an inter-capitalist struggle. This is where nationalism comes in really handy, most of all in tying up the post-colonial working classes to the state and the ruling class. Now what was it again that communists advocate? Workers' revolution, global in scope, or the reshuffling of relations between capitals divided by their location and corresponding states? If it's the former, nationalism is only a disaster.

[Comrade Chernov]

Yeah, I have a major issue with posting unnecessary capital letters. Damned german classes, making me think that every noun needs a capital letter. ;)

Aside from that, thank you for your opinion.

Edit: Just realized that, in context, "Capitalist" is an adjective, not a noun. Chock that one up for a fail on my part. :P

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeah, I have a major issue with posting unnecessary capital letters. Damned german classes, making me think that every noun needs a capital letter. ;)I detested German classes in high school :lol:


Aside from that, thank you for your opinion.
What about your own thoughts on my opinion?

[Slavic]

Nationalism is counterproductive to a successful revolution because it creates in our psyche the "other". The "other" are those who are not us and can easily be dehumanized and disenfranchised. Socialism not only seeks but needs global class unity, and separation of man into "us and them" makes unity impossible.

[Red_Banner]

I am an Internationalist.

Nationalism can be a useful tool, but it has it's time and place.

[Per Levy]

Nationalism can be a useful tool, but it has it's time and place.

when? when is it a usefull tool to say there is no classtruggle and we are all brothers, bourgie and prole alike? cause that is what it boils down to in the end.


I detested German classes in high school :lol:

me too and i am a german. german grammar sucks.

[Red_Banner]

when? when is it a usefull tool to say there is no classtruggle and we are all brothers, bourgie and prole alike? cause that is what it boils down to in the end.



me too and i am a german. german grammar sucks.

Cause, pan-Slav nationalism kept Yugoslavia united.

Basically for example, Serbs, Croatians, Montenegrins, Slovenians, Macedonians, you all have stuff in common, stop fighting amongst yourselves.

Nationalism isn't to be an end, but a means.

[Per Levy]

Cause, pan-Slav nationalism kept Yugoslavia united.

Basically for example, Serbs, Croatians, Montenegrins, Slovenians, Macedonians, you all have stuff in common, stop fighting amongst yourselves.

Nationalism isn't to be an end, but a means.

yeah i agree, nationalism is means to keep a capitalist state together. also nationalism had a big part in breaking up yugoslavia wouldnt you say? and im honest, i know to little about yugoslavia, but still was it really that nationalism that kept yugoslavia together? i have my doubts.

[Sea]

Cause, pan-Slav nationalism kept Yugoslavia united.
The real question you have to ask is what they had to be "united" against. It certainly didn't help keep them united with any non-Yugoslav slav! And why is that? Well, I think you'll find that the "united-ness" correlates much better with political matters than whether someone is a slav or not. Nationalism, therefore, is certainly not a very accurate thing!

[Celtic_0ne]

I believe nationalism of oppressed nations peoples and cultures is necessary before full internationalism

[Red_Banner]

yeah i agree, nationalism is means to keep a capitalist state together. also nationalism had a big part in breaking up yugoslavia wouldnt you say? and im honest, i know to little about yugoslavia, but still was it really that nationalism that kept yugoslavia together? i have my doubts.

Well it was inter-nationalism that kept Yugoslavia together.

This internationalism being Yugoslav.

It ment that that many people of different ethnic identities, even non-Slavs like Kosovars could be united under a common flag, a common cause.

Croatian nationalism on the otherhand for example excludes pretty much everyone except Croats.

[Thirsty Crow]

It ment that that many people of different ethnic identities, even non-Slavs like Kosovars could be united under a common flag, a common cause.

The common cause was capital accumulation, with its results - common competition and republic/ethnic division and conflict, particularly over the tax base and its utilization - being the underlying cause of its eventual break-up.

[reb]

Nationalism can not, and has not been, conducive for the emancipation of the proletariat. I feel as it a lot of the defense of such an idea stems from the Bolsheviks and their fellow travelers, trying to justify their own nationalist agendas when they became a part of the state apparatus, even, nationalism probably helped dismantle the USSR in the way that it did.

[Creative Destruction]

I'm generally against nationalism, but I think it has its moments where it is appropriate. A few decades ago, Black nationalism in America would've made sense, but we're so far along with integration nowadays that it wouldn't be a very good idea anymore I don't think. On the other hand, you take the Irish nationalist question, where a good section of the movement is socialist and otherwise internationalist, but they are struggling for a free Ireland as an immediate goal. I think that's valid.

[Red_Banner]

The common cause was capital accumulation, with its results - common competition and republic/ethnic division and conflict, particularly over the tax base and its utilization - being the underlying cause of its eventual break-up.


What rubbish! That was not the cause.

[Thirsty Crow]

What rubbish! That was not the cause.
:lol:

I'm not going to pass judgement on how people who in all probability have read nothing apart from ideological proclamations on ex-YU think they now better than a person living in these regions...and who has looked into it.

[Red_Banner]

:lol:

I'm not going to pass judgement on how people who in all probability have read nothing apart from ideological proclamations on ex-YU think they now better than a person living in these regions...and who has looked into it.

There are foreigners that know more about the USA than most Americans do.
The same is true for your country too.

Just because you are from there does not mean you are a flawless god on the matter.

[Tim Cornelis]

There are foreigners that know more about the USA than most Americans do.
The same is true for your country too.

Just because you are from there does not mean you are a flawless god on the matter.

Then care to explain why he's wrong?

[Thirsty Crow]

There are foreigners that know more about the USA than most Americans do.
The same is true for your country too.

Just because you are from there does not mean you are a flawless god on the matter.
The point is to ridicule the very idea that a person who in all probability hasn't got a clue what s/he's talking about, apart from familiarity with ideology, knows any better than a person who has been spurred on to actually study the matter due to the historical relevance for their own situation.

[Remus Bleys]

An obvious against.

[Blake's Baby]

... you take the Irish nationalist question, where a good section of the movement is socialist and otherwise internationalist, but they are struggling for a free Ireland as an immediate goal. I think that's valid.

And you regard this as being compatible with Luxemburg how?

[Red_Banner]

Then care to explain why he's wrong?

This: "The common cause was capital accumulation"

While the SFRY may have been a degenerated/deformed workers state, corrupted, it was not capitalist.

[Remus Bleys]

This: "The common cause was capital accumulation"

While the SFRY may have been a degenerated/deformed workers state, corrupted, it was not capitalist.

:laugh: "Workers State"

"Wasn't capitalist"

prove it

[Red_Banner]

:laugh: "Workers State"

"Wasn't capitalist"

prove it


Why don't you prove it?

[Remus Bleys]

Why don't you prove it?

The fact that there was competition, wage-labor, and the law of value still operated?

edit: In addition to being in one country.

[Per Levy]

Why don't you prove it?

why should he, you made the claim that yugoslavia wasnt capitalist so you kinda have to prove that claim and not him.


While the SFRY may have been a degenerated/deformed workers state, corrupted, it was not capitalist.

what now deformed or degenerated? as far as i know its not the same thing and trots usally make quite a fus about that it isnt the same.


There are foreigners that know more about the USA than most Americans do.
The same is true for your country too.

Just because you are from there does not mean you are a flawless god on the matter.

the important part of linksrdikals post was the "and who has looked into it." just saying.

[Creative Destruction]

And you regard this as being compatible with Luxemburg how?

I'm not in complete agreement with Luxemburg on every little thing. I'm not as dogmatic as some are around here.

[Creative Destruction]

why should he, you made the claim that yugoslavia wasnt capitalist so you kinda have to prove that claim and not him.

Note, this isn't to say that either person is right or wrong, but this isn't how burden of proof works. The burden is on the person who first made the claim. Since linksrdikals asserted that Yugoslavia was capitalist, it's up to him to prove it. Just as well, since Red_Banner asserted that it was nationalism that kept Yugoslavia together, it's up to him to prove that claim.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not in complete agreement with Luxemburg on every little thing. I'm not as dogmatic as some are around here.

I don't see that as a problem, she's no more a prophet than Marx was. Though her position on the national question is hardly a 'little thing'.

Mind telling me what you do agree with Rosa about?

[Red_Banner]

The fact that there was competition, wage-labor, and the law of value still operated?

edit: In addition to being in one country.

It wasn't a wage-labour system until towords the end when Ante Markovic introduce privatisation.

Yugoslavia was a workers self-managment sydicalist system.

Yes there was integration with the state and there was corruption, but it was not capitalist.

For it to be capitalist you need a Bourgoisie, you need private ownership, and generally a stock exchange to go with it.

It is apparent to me that neither of you have ever worked in a privately owned non-union or semi-non-union corporation.

We do not manage the company, we do not own the company, we do not have any councils where anything is voted on. We don't control who gets paid what.
We do not vote on who manages, we do not vote on who leads the comapny.
We are subject to strange investors.

[Per Levy]

I'm not in complete agreement with Luxemburg on every little thing. I'm not as dogmatic as some are around here.

but luxemburgs anti-nationalism wasnt "a little thing" it was a important part of her politics. also on dogmatic, the question is do you support nationalism, classcolaboration in the name of the nation/country? do you support the national bourgeoìsie? do you support capitalist states?


On the other hand, you take the Irish nationalist question, where a good section of the movement is socialist and otherwise internationalist, but they are struggling for a free Ireland as an immediate goal. I think that's valid.

so has the formation of a "free" ireland helped the irish proles in anyway?


Note, this isn't to say that either person is right or wrong, but this isn't how burden of proof works. The burden is on the person who first made the claim. Since linksrdikals asserted that Yugoslavia was capitalist, it's up to him to prove it. Just as well, since Red_Banner asserted that it was nationalism that kept Yugoslavia together, it's up to him to prove that claim

indeed, the term, burden of proof, escaped me, wich sadly happens with several english words and phrases from time to time, for wich i then try to discribe it some weird way.

[Remus Bleys]

It wasn't a wage-labour system until towords the end when Ante Markovic introduce privatisation. Do you know what wage labour is?


Yugoslavia was a workers self-managment sydicalist system.
Proof of workers management.

Yes there was integration with the state and there was corruption, but it was not capitalist.
You keep saying this.

For it to be capitalist you need a Bourgoisie,[QUOTE] The beuarcacy (terrible word btw. Fuck the french) [QUOTE]you need private ownershipSaudi Arabian oil isn't capitalist?
and generally a stock exchange to go with it.
:laugh::laugh:

It is apparent to me that neither of you have ever worked in a privately owned non-union or semi-non-union corporation.
Who's the other one? And Im 16 in America who takes college classes at night every day. Im not really in a position to find a job.

We do not manage the company, we do not own the company, we do not have any councils where anything is voted on. We don't control who gets paid what. Are you describing yugoslavia or capitalism in general?

We do not vote on who manages, we do not vote on who leads the comapny. Do you think this voting for managers persists into socialism? Leads the company?

We are subject to strange investors.
What does this have to do with yugoslavia?

Is corporatism (third positionism) capitalist in your opinion?

[Creative Destruction]

I don't see that as a problem, she's no more a prophet than Marx was.

Mind telling me what you do agree with Rosa about?

Her unwavering commitment to keeping a revolution democratic and the sole agency of the working class to form and lead their revolution, as opposed to relying on a party of "professional revolutionaries."

[Tim Cornelis]

It wasn't a wage-labour system until towords the end when Ante Markovic introduce privatisation.

Yugoslavia was a workers self-managment sydicalist system.

Yes there was integration with the state and there was corruption, but it was not capitalist.

For it to be capitalist you need a Bourgoisie, you need private ownership, and generally a stock exchange to go with it.

It is apparent to me that neither of you have ever worked in a privately owned non-union or semi-non-union corporation.

We do not manage the company, we do not own the company, we do not have any councils where anything is voted on. We don't control who gets paid what.
We do not vote on who manages, we do not vote on who leads the comapny.
We are subject to strange investors.

This is not a relevant discussion, but: one, legalistic ownership doesn't matter, as long as a functional bourgeoisie exists. Wage-labour did exist. Nominally, self-management existed. In practice, this was workers' co-determination rather than self-management. I have never heard a stock exchange be listed as a defining characteristic, why do you believe this to be relevant?


This: "The common cause was capital accumulation"

While the SFRY may have been a degenerated/deformed workers state, corrupted, it was not capitalist.

Before digressing any further, along this red herring, can you explain why capital accumulation did not exist, and why you believe that it's wrong that competition between republics and ethnic groups lead to nationalism and culminated in the war?

[Thirsty Crow]

This: "The common cause was capital accumulation"

While the SFRY may have been a degenerated/deformed workers state, corrupted, it was not capitalist.
And yeah, my point demonstrated. Not even going to bother.

But what is really interesting is that the ideology I mentioned isn't even Titoist self-management. Nope, it's your everyday Trot drivel.

[Creative Destruction]

but luxemburgs anti-nationalism wasnt "a little thing" it was a important part of her politics.

Again, this kind of goes into how dogmatic some people can be. I don't agree with her to a T. There are major parts of her theory that I agree with, more often than I disagree with. A strident opposition to nationalism at all I don't agree with. I think there is room for nuance, especially in light of the left nationalist movements in the 20th century. Her thought, though, has influenced my politics more than any other theorist.


also on dogmatic, the question is do you support nationalism, classcolaboration in the name of the nation/country?

I think it depends on the movement as to what the character is. Again, I am generally against nationalism, so this attempt to try and paint me that I'm some sort of huge nationalist is disingenuous. At the very least, it's extremely confused.

Ideally, we would live in an internationalist world. However, I live in reality and I recognize reality and that reality pushes me to give qualified support to some nationalist movements. Again, I raise the two I could see myself supporting most: American Black nationalism and Irish nationalism. Significant parts of these movements were/are tied up in movements that are otherwise internationalist, but they advocated having a nation for a variety of very valid reasons. These are complex questions -- ones that have to take into account the movements of actual human beings and historical events and the legacy of those events and how they play into current material reality -- that can't be boiled down into ideological sound bites.


do you support the national bourgeoìsie?

No, of course not.


do you support capitalist states?

This is getting a bit fuckin' ridiculous, to be honest. What do you mean by "support"? I think what Venezuela is doing right now is positive but do I support it as a capitalist state? Of course not.


so has the formation of a "free" ireland helped the irish proles in anyway

It hasn't because the "free" Ireland isn't particularly free. The island is still occupied and there's still an ongoing struggle. I agree with Connolly here:


If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs.

[Comrade Jacob]

I can be useful in times of hardship (war etc) but when you are on an easier playing-field it should be abandoned.

[Regicollis]

A no from me too. Nationalism creates false divisions among workers and thus generally is detrimental to the development of global class consciousness. Nationalism is part of the false consciousness that makes workers believe that they have common interests with the bourgeoisie.

However there are different kinds of nationalism spanning from the "kill all the foreigners" variety to people who like to have a flagpole in their gardens and eating their traditional foods. The latter is quite harmless and we should thus not waste any attention on it.

While nationalism in general is corrosive to class consciousness one could imagine conditions under which a nationalist sentiment is coupled with and promoting a socialist one. Irish nationalism might be an example of this. If the working class of an area experiences a victory regarding independence they might become more confident that they can change the political economic system too. However I think such cases are rare and there is always the danger that the nationalist sentiment will overpower the socialist.

[Red_Banner]

This is not a relevant discussion, but: one, legalistic ownership doesn't matter, as long as a functional bourgeoisie exists. Wage-labour did exist. Nominally, self-management existed. In practice, this was workers' co-determination rather than self-management. I have never heard a stock exchange be listed as a defining characteristic, why do you believe this to be relevant?



Before digressing any further, along this red herring, can you explain why capital accumulation did not exist, and why you believe that it's wrong that competition between republics and ethnic groups lead to nationalism and culminated in the war?

Alright then, who were the functional bourgeoisie in Yugoslavia?

"Wage-labour did exist."
Ok then how?

"I have never heard a stock exchange be listed as a defining characteristic, why do you believe this to be relevant?"
I said "generally".
It isn't an absolute. And this goes along with the strange investors thing as being a charecteristic of capitalism.

"Before digressing any further, along this red herring, can you explain why capital accumulation did not exist, and why you believe that it's wrong that competition between republics and ethnic groups lead to nationalism and culminated in the war?"

Well who were the elitists in Yugoslavia?
Were they government bureaucrats, or did they set up their own private corporations or plantations to exploit labour?

"why you believe that it's wrong that competition between republics and ethnic groups lead to nationalism and culminated in the war?"

I don't believe that. The SFRY did unite these different ethnic groups, even if it was for a limited amount of time.

Do you have the impression that I believe the SFRY was perfect and did no wrong?

I recognize it's faults, however I also recognize it's positives.
We can learn from the past's mistakes, but we can also learn from the positive things.

What disappoints me with alot of the "socialist" states in history is their complacentness, their lack of will to spread revolution.

Yes the SFRY was looking for Bulgaria to join, but their neutrality, their lack of will to spread Internationalism is part of what destroyed them.

So you built socialism in Yugoslavia atleast to some point, great! But hows about spreading that to other countries like Italy, Austria, Greece, Turkey, etc.?

[Comrade Chernov]

The responses here are quite interesting, actually.

This brings me to...*sighs* to this gem. I found this while browsing wikipedia a few days ago.

This...just why. Why does this exist? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism)

EDIT: As for Yugoslavia: Tito kept the place together, and when Tito died, it fell apart because all the Nationalist groups tore each other's throats out.

[Remus Bleys]

EDIT: As for Yugoslavia: Tito kept the place together, and when Tito died, it fell apart because all the Nationalist groups tore each other's throats out.
I do enjoy a Great Man of History.

[#FF0000]

jeez what a thread.

i'm gonna post something with content in a bit but the fact that this is even a question makes me sad or something

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

To start, I think that to talk about internationalism as though it simply erases nations is dishonest. While I'm sure we can agree that nations don't have a "natural" character (that x and y characteristics mean z is a nation), we do have to grapple with the way that nations constitute themselves, which while we could broadly call it nationalism, seems to miss some nuance. Colonial situations, for example, are particularly interesting: while "nations" often precede colonization, they are also transformed by it. Let's run with the Iroquois Confederacy, for example: its existence as a confederation of what we anachronistically describe as nations, certainly precedes colonization. Yet, it is in our current context that Iroquois struggles against settler-colonial domination acquire a "nationalist" character. So, are Tyendinaga and Quebec the same? Can we simply say, "Aha! Nationalism - a project of bourgeois state-formation!" or does proletarianinternationalism mean that we need to think about the relationship between Canadian and Mohawk workers in their specificity? I confess, it's a loaded question. My point being that we can't simply will the social, judicial, political, and consequently material reality of nations away (any more than we can race or gender).

[Sea]

The fact that there was competition, wage-labor, and the law of value still operated?

edit: In addition to being in one country.He said "deformed".

deformed = non-worker's

So Yugoslavia was a non-worker's worker's state.

And they had a league of non-communist communists non-league.

And the capital was Belgrade, which had a tendency to fall.

[RedGuevara]

I believe in international solidarity but I think when it comes to liberating a group of people from Imperialist that Nationalism has it's part to play. But once the said group is liberated I believe the Nationalist thought should wither away to give way to International liberation of all the Proletariat of every country.

[d3crypt]

Nationalism has no place among communists. Revolution must transcend cultures and borders.

[boiler]

I think some nationalism is good like in national liberation struggles. But it can be very bad to like with fascism.

[Remus Bleys]

To start, I think that to talk about internationalism as though it simply erases nations is dishonest.Its dishonest to pretend that that is the argument.

While I'm sure we can agree that nations don't have a "natural" character (that x and y characteristics mean z is a nation), we do have to grapple with the way that nations constitute themselves, which while we could broadly call it nationalism, seems to miss some nuance. Colonial situations, for example, are particularly interesting: while "nations" often precede colonization, they are also transformed by it. Let's run with the Iroquois Confederacy, for example: its existence as a confederation of what we anachronistically describe as nations, certainly precedes colonization. Yet, it is in our current context that Iroquois struggles against settler-colonial domination acquire a "nationalist" character. Both were changed by the introduction of capitalism.

are Tyendinaga and Quebec the same? Can we simply say, "Aha! Nationalism - a project of bourgeois state-formation!" Both are done by respective Bourgeoisie, in order to keep that particular bloc seen as a nation and not as classes.

or does proletarianinternationalism mean that we need to think about the relationship between Canadian and Mohawk workers in their specificity?Anti communism. See, Italics does not change the essence of the word.

I confess, it's a loaded question. No, but it is a stupid one.

My point being that we can't simply will the social, judicial, political, and consequently material reality of nations away (any more than we can race or gender).We are not utopians. Did you think that is what the argument is suggesting?

[Marxaveli]

Why is this even a question? Nationalism is intrinsically reactionary, and goes against everything that "proletarians of the world unite!" stands for.

[DasFapital]

Nationalism has a habit of devolving into racism with a flag.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Its dishonest to pretend that [talking about internationalism as though it erases nations] is the argument.

And yet, the extent to which you're willing to grapple with it is to say:


Both were changed by the introduction of capitalism.

Certainly they were, but you don't really say how. Did all nations, upon contact with capitalism, spontaneously divide into bourgeoisie and proletariat? I'm sure you'll agree that this isn't the case. Unless you can elaborate, it still seems as though you're not dealing with nations in terms of their specificity. The way you deal with the example illustrates this nicely:


Both are done by respective Bourgeoisie, in order to keep that particular bloc seen as a nation and not as classes.

Ah, yes, the block of Mohawk bourgeois and proletarians in the anti-colonial struggle. I see you've investigated this in some depth. :rolleyes:


Anti communism. See, Italics does not change the essence of the word.

Nor does engaging with my formatting instead of my point really serve to develop discussion meaningfully. My point is that internationalism, the word itself, concerns things "between nations". The cliche, despite its nice propaganda ring, that the workers of the world have no nation is simply untrue. It's a thing we have to grapple with (since, presumably, we want a world without states, and without the chauvinism that characterizes so much of contemporary national discourses).


We are not utopians. Did you think that is what the argument is suggesting?

Not utopian - ideological. Sweeping away real historical and political specificities to deal in convenient generalities, ultimately in the service of imperialism and settler-colonialism. It's easy to say, "All nationalism is shit!" when your nation isn't continuing to have a slow steady genocide committed against it (as is the case with indigenous peoples in Canada).

[synthesis]

TGDU, if you had to distill your argument into one sentence, how would you put it?

I'd rather hear your answer to that question than join in this argument, but:


It's easy to say, "All nationalism is shit!" when your nation isn't continuing to have a slow steady genocide committed against it (as is the case with indigenous peoples in Canada).

This presumes a common interest between the working class and bourgeoisie of that nation.

[#FF0000]

I believe in international solidarity but I think when it comes to liberating a group of people from Imperialist that Nationalism has it's part to play. But once the said group is liberated I believe the Nationalist thought should wither away to give way to International liberation of all the Proletariat of every country.

Yeah, but the entire 20th century would kind of suggest that this kind of thing doesn't end up happening, doesn't it?

[Bolshevik Sickle]

I think some nationalism is good like in national liberation struggles. But it can be very bad to like with fascism.

Nationalism should only be pushed in times of foreign invasion. Nationalism was good for the Soviets when their country was being invaded by the Nazis.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This presumes a common interest between the working class and bourgeoisie of that nation.

I disagree.

I'm talking about the immediate and nationally peculiar interests of a given national working class to not be annihilated. For "their" bourgeoisie, as illustrated aptly by the neo-colonial situation, this is largely irrelevant: Obama is a pertinent example.


TGDU, if you had to distill your argument into one sentence, how would you put it?

Internationalism means recognizing national specificities, and uniting on this basis. All I'm trying to say is that I'm wary of cookie-cutter anti-nationalism that is often thinly veiled chauvinism and neo-colonial apologia.

[#FF0000]

Nationalism should only be pushed in times of foreign invasion. Nationalism was good for the Soviets when their country was being invaded by the Nazis.

deep sigh

[SyndAnon]

I do believe at first it is necessary, for a revolution to have some form of nationalism, as it is a sort of uniting front, "Change for America's Future" things like that, you have pride for your nation, thus you work harder to accomplish revolution.

Every country is different with their day to day problems, governmental issues, and even the way people are act. Thus i do believe before we can achieve a revolution on a scale of the entire world, we must first do it in every country, and to accomplish such, you must first be proud of your country, to fight for it's future. Which of course once accomplished, and a global change is ahead, you quickly change it to a internationalism, or simply a pride in humanity, that you are fighting for.

If we immediately jump to anti-naitonalism, we are endangering our movement of disenfranchising many people who are new to the concept, and in the early days of revolution, you cannot cast so many out.

If you say, well our revolution hates America...than...many people will think we are a crazy group, we must work it out, slowly, and change their country pride, into international pride. Into a pride for humanity.

[SyndAnon]

I do believe at first it is necessary, for a revolution to have some form of nationalism, as it is a sort of uniting front, "Change for America's Future" things like that, you have pride for your nation, thus you work harder to accomplish revolution.

Every country is different with their day to day problems, governmental issues, and even the way people are act. Thus i do believe before we can achieve a revolution on a scale of the entire world, we must first do it in every country, and to accomplish such, you must first be proud of your country, to fight for it's future. Which of course once accomplished, and a global change is ahead, you quickly change it to a internationalism, or simply a pride in humanity, that you are fighting for.

If we immediately jump to anti-naitonalism, we are endangering our movement of disenfranchising many people who are new to the concept, and in the early days of revolution, you cannot cast so many out.

If you say, well our revolution hates America...than...many people will think we are a crazy group, we must work it out, slowly, and change their country pride, into international pride. Into a pride for humanity.

[synthesis]

I'm talking about the immediate and nationally peculiar interests of a given national working class to not be annihilated. For "their" bourgeoisie, as illustrated aptly by the neo-colonial situation, this is largely irrelevant: Obama is a pertinent example.

But you weren't talking about the "national working class." You were talking about "the nation" existing as a cultural abstraction and being destroyed as a function of capitalism - a nation that necessarily contains a ruling class and a working class. It is the culture that is in danger of being destroyed, not the working class, without which the bourgeoisie obviously cannot exist.

And does it just so happen that the "nationally peculiar interests" of the "national working class" are completely the same as those of the national bourgeoisie? In this you are doing something far more dangerous than "thinly veiled apologizing for neo-colonialism" - by which I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say - you are advocating that they commit the exact same crime that was entirely responsible for the implosion of Marxism in the twentieth century: class collaboration.

[Bala Perdida]

I personally think nationalism is just a manifest used by powers to justify their atrocities most of the time. There are exceptions, like in the case of Palestine, but uprisings should occur to recognize people's right to live. Where they live and how they choose to express themselves is not important.

In short, I am opposed to nationalism, but I will support the people of oppressed territories as they fight to defend themselves from more vicious and dominating nationalists.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

deep sigh

Why?

[Blake's Baby]

Because it's a demonstration of the point that we're trying to make about nationalism. The whole point of the 'Great Patrotic War' is that it ties the Russian working class to the state and their own bourgeoisie (and on the other side, the 'Crusade against Jew-Slav Bolshevism' or whatever it was ties the German working class to the German state and bourgeoisie...).

You may as well have said 'nationalism is great as long as it persuades workers to get involved in killing each other in apocalyptic wars'.

[Popular Front of Judea]

TGDU, if you had to distill your argument into one sentence, how would you put it?

I'd rather hear your answer to that question than join in this argument, but:

This presumes a common interest between the working class and bourgeoisie of that nation.

So in the context of the Canadian First Nations, the Mohawks etc. who are the working class and who are the bourgeoisie? Is it indeed possible to use those terms in this setting?

[synthesis]

So in the context of the Canadian First Nations, the Mohawks etc. who are the working class and who are the bourgeoisie? Is it indeed possible to use those terms in this setting?

The same class rules apply to them as anyone else. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[Popular Front of Judea]

It's always demoralizing reading these type of threads with their stock answers cut and pasted from works often nearly a century old. (At least the discussion of the former Yugoslavia deals with events from 20 - 25 years ago, which here qualifies I guess as recent news) No I am not necessarily "for" nationalism, but the resistance to multi-national, neoliberal capitalism often does take a nationalistic form. We live in an age where it is capital that has no homeland. Much of the opposition to the WTO I witnessed here on the streets of Seattle in '99 was driven by people that did not want their hard won national labor and environmental laws overturned by an unaccountable multinational organization that was beholden to multinational corporations. To the north of me there is the Council of Canadians fighting the good fight against assimilation by the United States. They want to keep what is left of their social democracy and resist the ongoing resource grab by the United States.

If you wish to organize people you need to meet them where they are at -- not where you wish them to be.

[synthesis]

If you wish to organize people you need to meet them where they are at -- not where you wish them to be.

It seems like you should be practicing what you preach in this respect, when it comes to people's political principles at which they have arrived after decades of consideration.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

But you weren't talking about the "national working class." You were talking about "the nation" existing as a cultural abstraction and being destroyed as a function of capitalism [. . .]

I don't know, I think I was pretty clear that I wasn't talking about a "cultural abstraction", but judico-political, cultural, and a whole bunch of factors - I really think we can talk about nations the same way we can talk about race or gender. As for its being destroyed, I'm not talking about an abstract "cultural" destruction, but material destruction of which culture (which I think needs to be understood as ways of life - how re/production is organized) is part. This destruction is part of capitalist strategy, and needs to be resisted.


[. . .]a nation that necessarily contains a ruling class and a working class. It is the culture that is in danger of being destroyed, not the working class, without which the bourgeoisie obviously cannot exist.

The thing is, I'm not convinced that that is true, or not in a narrow sense. There are black capitalists in the United States, but it's white American capitalists who run the show. There are undoubtedly indigenous capitalists in Canada, but we're looking at a population that is by and large excluded from capitalist production proper almost entirely. And who are the threats to Palestinian workers? I have no illusions that Palestinian Authority is proletarian, but where's the primary contradiction in Palestine?


And does it just so happen that the "nationally peculiar interests" of the "national working class" are completely the same as those of the national bourgeoisie?

That's the nature of capitalism, to which the working class is tied. The bourgeoisie also have an interest in the workers eating and re/producing generally. There needs to be a "break" with this (y'know, general strike or whateva), but, the fact of the matter is "Your boss wants you to eat!" is a piss poor argument for starving yourself.


In this you are doing something far more dangerous than "thinly veiled apologizing for neo-colonialism" - by which I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say - you are advocating that they commit the exact same crime that was entirely responsible for the implosion of Marxism in the twentieth century: class collaboration.

OK, but it runs both ways, right? And far more often we see settler and imperialist working classes cooperating with their bourgeois against national struggles for autonomy. As a consequence we get calls for entire peoples to allow themselves to be imprisoned, exterminated, and super-exploited less they "collaborate": so who's actually cooperating with the ruling class then?

[Blake's Baby]

... we see settler and imperialist working classes cooperating with their bourgeois against national struggles for autonomy...

And why do we see that? Because they have fallen for the lies of nationalism, that you support...

The workers have no country. That's fundamental. As soon as any workers are tied to any country they are doing the will of the bourgeoisie. And anyone who supports tying the workers to any country, any bourgeois gang (whether in power or seeking power), is doing the will of the bourgeoisie.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I don't know, I think I was pretty clear that I wasn't talking about a "cultural abstraction", but judico-political, cultural, and a whole bunch of factors - I really think we can talk about nations the same way we can talk about race or gender. As for its being destroyed, I'm not talking about an abstract "cultural" destruction, but material destruction of which culture (which I think needs to be understood as ways of life - how re/production is organized) is part. This destruction is part of capitalist strategy, and needs to be resisted.

But in many cases these cultures have already been destroyed. In Norway, for example, the Sami people's culture/ways of life was/were destroyed through assimilation, forced schooling etc. I can see how that should have been opposed back in the day, but the traditional way of living for the Sami people doesn't exist anymore. Many of them still own reindeer and make their living off that, but using motorised vehicles and even helicopters. Most of them probably earn quite a lot, too, as they sell for a market and not for their own consumption (obviously). Should this "way of life" be supported against, say, the building of dams on "traditionally" Sami owned land? (there was a pretty big political event with regards to specifically this in Norway some decades ago)

I mean, Marxists can often be the worst to cheer on capitalist "development" in indigenous areas, but often the support of indigenous peoples are based on myths and constructed ideals. A while ago I was at a talk given by a Sami reindeer owner. He talked about all the technical stuff. When asked if he knew some joiks (traditional singing ritual thing), he was completely blank. He was basically a business man. I wasn't surprised at all, but I overheard people after the talk who were disappointed because the guy apparently wasn't a "real Sami".

[Bolshevik Sickle]

Because it's a demonstration of the point that we're trying to make about nationalism. The whole point of the 'Great Patrotic War' is that it ties the Russian working class to the state and their own bourgeoisie (and on the other side, the 'Crusade against Jew-Slav Bolshevism' or whatever it was ties the German working class to the German state and bourgeoisie...).

You may as well have said 'nationalism is great as long as it persuades workers to get involved in killing each other in apocalyptic wars'.

Good point. Sometimes nationalism works, sometimes it doesn't. Nationalism has no place in a full complete Marxist society.

[Popular Front of Judea]

It seems like you should be practicing what you preach in this respect, when it comes to people's political principles at which they have arrived after decades of consideration.

We are talking about Revleft here right?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

But in many cases these cultures have already been destroyed. In Norway, for example, the Sami people's culture/ways of life was/were destroyed through assimilation, forced schooling etc. I can see how that should have been opposed back in the day, but the traditional way of living for the Sami people doesn't exist anymore.

Alright, but in many cases, the "destruction" of these cultures isn't a fait accompli, it's ongoing. I'd also argue that it's not so simple as that - since cultures are mutable, not fixed. Nations, like races and genders, reconfigure themselves, relate dialectically to the broader totality of relations. Arguably the collective experience of forced schooling and other violence is key to the re-/constitution of national formations.


Many of them still own reindeer and make their living off that, but using motorised vehicles and even helicopters. Most of them probably earn quite a lot, too, as they sell for a market and not for their own consumption (obviously). Should this "way of life" be supported against, say, the building of dams on "traditionally" Sami owned land? (there was a pretty big political event with regards to specifically this in Norway some decades ago).

OK, but you see the double standard here, right? Dominant, imperial, and colonial national cultures aren't read as ceasing to exist in the course of their development: Norwegians are still Norwegians despite helicopters and motorized vehicles. That you don't parade about in a weird caricature of viking costume blood-eagling monks isn't really the point.

ANYWAY, A QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO ARE "ALWAYS" AGAINST NATIONALISM:

What do you posit as the correct way to relate to anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles, and especially when these struggles have a mass base (ie rather than being a project of a narrow group of elites)?
How should Canadian communists, for example, approach the various native Warrior Society groups? What should our orientation be toward anti-Zionist struggles of Palestinians?

[synthesis]

The thing is, I'm not convinced that that is true, or not in a narrow sense. There are black capitalists in the United States, but it's white American capitalists who run the show. There are undoubtedly indigenous capitalists in Canada, but we're looking at a population that is by and large excluded from capitalist production proper almost entirely. And who are the threats to Palestinian workers? I have no illusions that Palestinian Authority is proletarian, but where's the primary contradiction in Palestine?

I'd like to take a different tack in this discussion and ask you, simply, where does this end? At what exact point does the interest of a national working class diverge from that of their national bourgeoisie? This seems important to define, given your implicit argument that the Palestinian working class, for example, would be better served throwing in their lot with the Palestinian bourgeoisie than with the Israeli and international working class.

[synthesis]

We are talking about Revleft here right?

About the political stance of left-communists, many anarchists and other groups that take a principled opposition to nationalism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'd like to take a different tack in this discussion and ask you, simply, where does this end? At what exact point does the interest of a national working class diverge from that of their national bourgeoisie? This seems important to define, given your implicit argument that the Palestinian working class, for example, would be better served throwing in their lot with the Palestinian bourgeoisie than with the Israeli and international working class.

I don't think that's true per se - I think the interests of the Palestinian working class are in smashing the bourgeoisie and its various states generally - but what is the state and who are the bourgeois who are, first and foremost responsible for the immiseration of the Palestinian working class? It's undoubtedly Israeli.
As for the Israeli working class, as long as it remains in a parasitic settlerist relationship to the Palestinian working class, it will remain at best a dubious ally: one might as well ask, "Why didn't Southern Blacks unite with the KKK?" The answer is blindingly obvious.
On the whole, I don't think this necessarily aligns with the interests of the "Palestinian bourgeoisie", let alone the interests of capitalists in the region, and internationally, who rely on Israel either, on one hand, as a crucial strategic ally in the region, or, on the other (e.g. Iran, Syria), as the perpetual bogeyman whose nuclear might serves as justification for all sorts of repression.
All of this is to say, rather than trying to pick an ideological "point", I think it makes sense to talk about these things in concrete terms.

As for my question, I think your silence speaks volumes.
1. So, again, what should the settler left do in Canada? The Israeli left in Palestine?
2. Where does the settler-left's opposition to anti-imperialist/anti-colonial nationalism cease to serve the interests of their own bourgeoisie?
3. What is labour zionism if not the loyal lapdog of Israeli capital? How is your position different than that of the NDP in Canada? The 1930s CPUSA when they dismantled the sharecroppers union?
4. If you oppose labour zionism and social democracy, please clarify how your position vis-a-vis national liberation is any different in practice (i.e. what do you suggest as steps forward for the Palestinian working class, if not their forcible assimilation into the lowest strata of the Israeli working class?).

[Alexios]

OK, but you see the double standard here, right? Dominant, imperial, and colonial national cultures aren't read as ceasing to exist in the course of their development: Norwegians are still Norwegians despite helicopters and motorized vehicles. That you don't parade about in a weird caricature of viking costume blood-eagling monks isn't really the point.

ANYWAY, A QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO ARE "ALWAYS" AGAINST NATIONALISM:

What do you posit as the correct way to relate to anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles, and especially when these struggles have a mass base (ie rather than being a project of a narrow group of elites)?
How should Canadian communists, for example, approach the various native Warrior Society groups? What should our orientation be toward anti-Zionist struggles of Palestinians?

There are better ways to flaunt your white guilt than shilling for nationalism on a web forum. One of my favorite options is to self-flagellate on the streets of New York while begging for minorities I see to throw stones at me.

[synthesis]

As for my question, I think your silence speaks volumes.

Your question was basically a long-winded request that I explain my position on national liberation struggles. I don't support them for moralist reasons or otherwise.

Here's what "speaks volumes" to me:


As for the Israeli working class, as long as it remains in a parasitic settlerist relationship to the Palestinian working class, it will remain at best a dubious ally: one might as well ask, "Why didn't Southern Blacks unite with the KKK?" The answer is blindingly obvious.

The fact that you've conflated an entire nation's working class with the Ku Klux Klan.

It's very difficult for me to separate this from your implicit support of Third-Worldism. This isn't just a cheap jab - it's the exact same argument.

[Thirsty Crow]

Y
The fact that you've conflated an entire nation's working class with the Ku Klux Klan.

But really.

TGDU, I appreciate your contribution to the boards, but this analogy is just rotten on so many levels.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Nationalism is generally not a good thing, as it is used by the forces of Capital to divide the working class against itself. I like the diversity of cultures, but there really is nothing more pathetic than taking pride in being born within arbitrary lines drawn by the State.

That being said, however, there are certain forms of nationalism that are born out of oppression. Chinese nationalism in the early 20th century (as practiced by the likes of Sun Yat-sen and the May 4th Movement) was a progressive force as it sought to unite the various ethnicities within China against the forces of western Capital, which for several prior generations had exploited and harassed the Chinese people for the sake of imperialism and profit. Black Nationalism within the U.S. came into existence after centuries of African bondage and second class citizenship had left the African American population poor and disadvantaged, and was an attempt to give the African American not only an identity, but a sense of basic dignity in the face of overwhelming oppression from the White establishment.

That does not mean that nationalism is a means in and of itself, but these forms of nationalism were a neccessary stepping stone in the evolution of working class solidarity and, ultimately, the revolution itself.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, to the OP: communism is meant to be stateless, classless, moneyless.

If you ask socialists what they think of the ruling class, you know what answer you'll get. If you ask them what you think of money and its relation to the profit motive, you know what answer you'll get.

So why would you ask people who are working towards a society without nations, what their view on nationalism is? Nationalism has no place in our conception of a fair and just society.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

There are better ways to flaunt your white guilt than shilling for nationalism on a web forum. One of my favorite options is to self-flagellate on the streets of New York while begging for minorities I see to throw stones at me.

If you think that any expression of solidarity with struggles for liberation against colonialism and imperialism is "white guilt", I think it says more about your deeply internalized white supremacist attitudes than anything else.

In any case, the point is that my own struggle, and the struggle of working class people generally, is fundamentally bound up in struggles against colonial and imperial domination. As long as there is the "stick" of cheap labour to bludgeon lower strata, and the "carrot" super-profits for the working class's upper tiers, struggle here will continue to face constant set-backs. It's not a quirky coincidence that the last revolutionary upsurge in the 60s/70s coincided with the global wave of anti-colonial revolts, and ended with the kick-off of our present neo-liberal and neo-colonial order.

So I'm not supportive of national struggles because I feel "bad" about living on stolen land, wearing clothes made in a Taiwanese sweatshop: I'm supportive because I've taken the time to look at the concrete relationships that inform my situation, and developed a revolutionary perspective that's actually interested in ending capitalism. You know, as opposed to being the "best" mud-slinging purist on the internet.

Plausibly this has something to do with actually living in a settler-state and acting to confront it. I don't know where you live, or what you do, but I suspect you haven't often found yourself on the same side of the police lines as people resisting (neo-)colonialism. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and let me know how you relate this apparent contradiction to your broader perspective.


Your question was basically a long-winded request that I explain my position on national liberation struggles. I don't support them for moralist reasons or otherwise.

So, from the Black Panther Party down to the Mi'kmaq Warrior Society, you refuse to support peoples struggles for self-determination against racist and colonial states. Straight-up, that's some white supremacist garbage.


Here's what "speaks volumes" to me:

The fact that you've conflated an entire nation's working class with the Ku Klux Klan.

Alright, are there individual Israeli workers who are anti-zionist, or likely have positions against the occupations? For sure. But the Israeli working class as a whole? The positions taken by their organizations and parties? They're pretty unequivocally in favour of continuing to live in a racist settler state on stolen land. Is comparing that to the Klan unreasonable? Maybe you have a point. I was being hyperbolic. Maybe comparing it to a lynch mob generally, which would include many whites who weren't klanners, or ideologically committed, would be more apt. In any case, if you have a compelling defense of the anti-racist credibility of the Israeli working class, I'd love for you to present it. It would do wonders for my faith in humanity.


It's very difficult for me to separate this from your implicit support of Third-Worldism. This isn't just a cheap jab - it's the exact same argument.

Wait, so are we anachronistically rebranding Lenin a third worldist?
Time to restrict the Leninists to OI!

It is a sad day for the left when nobody is capable of articulating an anti-colonial or anti-imperialist position without being a "third worldist".


Well, to the OP: communism is meant to be stateless, classless, moneyless.

If you ask socialists what they think of the ruling class, you know what answer you'll get. If you ask them what you think of money and its relation to the profit motive, you know what answer you'll get.

So why would you ask people who are working towards a society without nations, what their view on nationalism is? Nationalism has no place in our conception of a fair and just society.

Alright, actually think this through for a second.

If you ask socialists whether or not we should organize on the basis of class, you know what answer we'll get. If you ask socialists (at least, socialists with any degree of feminist consciousness) whether or not we should organize on the basis of gender, you know what answer you'll get. And yet, ask oppressor nation socialists whether or not we should organize on the basis of nation, and suddenly you get a different answer. Funny, that, right?

What I think is most telling about this is the failure to relate class and nation. Look at the US - you've got roughly a million black people doing slave labour in prison (literally, more black people enslaved than during formal slavery). It should be obvious, from this, that the question of the black nation in America is a fundamental class question. Hell, it should be obvious from reading and taking the time to engage with that country's most influential black Marxist organizations. [EDIT: This last paragraph was originally written assuming The Boss was an American because, well, Springsteen. It has been edited accordingly given that this is not the case.]

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Alright, actually think this through for a second.

OK.


If you ask socialists whether or not we should organize on the basis of class, you know what answer we'll get. If you ask socialists (at least, socialists with any degree of feminist consciousness) whether or not we should organize on the basis of gender, you know what answer you'll get. And yet, ask oppressor nation socialists whether or not we should organize on the basis of nation, and suddenly you get a different answer. Funny, that, right?

Not hugely funny, actually. I relate to people in my class, from a political perspective. I relate to other feminists, and i'm sure that most working class women would also relate in some way to other women. But do we, as socialists, really relate to each other in terms of nation? No. Where I relate to someone of the same nationality as me, it's invariably more to do with their class, social and cultural attitudes than it is to do with their Britishness or whatever.

Nations are a bad idea of a joke in terms of things that have been constructed by humans; they were constructed with division and class rule in mind, so I don't really know why you'd want to support them, in any situation.

Besides, you talk about 'oppressor nation ' - i'm British, yet I feel a million more times part of the exploited than part of the exploiting group. And there are people in the poorer nations on earth who will certainly be the exploiting class, the bourgeoisie, and certainly not exploited by the overwhelming majority of people in developed countries.


What I think is most telling about this is the failure to relate class and nation. Look at the US - you've got roughly a million black people doing slave labour in prison (literally, more black people enslaved than during formal slavery). It should be obvious, from this, that the question of the black nation in America is a fundamental class question.

That's a pretty weak example. In any case, I wouldn't support the idea of a separatist black nation in the US any more than i'd support Scottish, Catalan or other independence. Why would we support the creation of more nations, given that as I said above, nations have historically been created to divide and rule over the working class?

The fundamental question relating to race in America is just that - race. Not nation. Not new countries, new borders, separatism, but race. The white race tends to lord it over the black people of America, ergo you have black liberation movements. That isn't the same as a move towards a black nation and, where it is, I oppose it.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The Boss longs for the forgotten days of international working class unity.
http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/images/colonialism1914.jpgBut, seriously, are you actually saying that decolonization has set back the international working class? That fewer states and fewer borders is, in-and-of-itself, a good thing? That the Vietnamese should have thrown down their arms in hopes that the American invasion would follow their positive internationalist example? That the left should cease to support Palestinian resistance to Zionism? That we have no business talking about treaties in Canada, and should address indigenous communities, saying, "Give up your traditions and aspirations to autonomy, and join the Working Class(tm)!"

Because, for fuck's sake, I've been asking for answers for over a page now, and I still have yet to hear a real answer. "We're against nationalism." OK, so then what? "Yo! Colonial subjects! You're doing it wrong! Unite with the white left on the white left's terms!"

[Rational Radical]

I think the correct position would be opposition to colinialism simply based on the immiseration and exploitation of the native working class and not out of some desire of a nation state or native ruling class,I acknowledge this may manifests itself in a nationalistic way but it's out of a genuine proletarian desire for "Food,Clothes and Shelter" that the colonized rightfully view as being denied by the colonial regime. While I'm an internationalist class militant(which I predict some dogmatic ideologue will scream "nationalist" without a second thought due to lack of reading comprehension) I realize that the current situation is much more complex than workers in imperialist countries who rely on century old sloganeering & theory can explain and should be looked at with new eyes in the 21st century. Not all workers are experiencing domination in the same way,the fact that we're in a world dominated by international capital doesn't negate the ethnic cleansing,apartheid,discrimination and abject poverty colonial workers face which require autonomous forms of struggle since after all they're the ones experiencing it in this particular way.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The Boss longs for the forgotten days of international working class unity.
[SPOIL]http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/images/colonialism1914.jpg[/SPOIL

Firstly, that's incredibly childish. I mean seriously, why? But anyway...


But, seriously, are you actually saying that decolonization has set back the international working class? That fewer states and fewer borders is, in-and-of-itself, a good thing? That the Vietnamese should have thrown down their arms in hopes that the American invasion would follow their positive internationalist example? That the left should cease to support Palestinian resistance to Zionism? That we have no business talking about treaties in Canada, and should address indigenous communities, saying, "Give up your traditions and aspirations to autonomy, and join the Working Class(tm)!"

Because, for fuck's sake, I've been asking for answers for over a page now, and I still have yet to hear a real answer. "We're against nationalism." OK, so then what? "Yo! Colonial subjects! You're doing it wrong! Unite with the white left on the white left's terms!"

I made the point that nations - countries to be more specific - are a phenomenon that have specifically taken on the role of helping the ruling class exploit the exploited class by divide and rule. You have taken from that, that I somehow support colonialism and imperialism. The argument doesn't follow.

Further, you have taken opposition to imperialism and colonialism to mean that we shouldn't oppose nationalism, because some 'oppressed nations' (if a piece of land can even be oppressed?!) have historically stood up to oppressor nations (if a piece of soil has the ability to oppress..).

What you're failing to understand is that colonialism does NOT mean America oppresses Iraq, or any other country. What it means is that the ruling class of America, the plutocracy that is not acting on behalf of, nor in the interests of, the overwhelming majority of the American populace, the American working class, this ruling class are exploiting mainly the working class of other countries by invading, occupying, pillaging their land and their economic interests.

When you start to talk of oppressor nations, and oppressed nations, not only are you constructing something that is impossible (a piece of soil cannot oppress another piece of soil), you are losing all sense of class analysis. It is not the nations that oppress each other, it is the STATE of one nation (its military, its economic power) that is used by that nation's bourgeoisie for their political power purposes. I beg that you understand this point, because it's a shame to lose people to this nationalist idiocy.

There are no progressive nations, and no reactionary nations. The nation-state, the country, is just a piece of soil in a geographic region, artificially created by ruling class-initiated wars and bombast, and built on the blood of working people. The country in itself has no oppressive qualities, nor the ability to be oppressed. It is just a tool for oppression used by the bourgeoisie, and as such should be done away with, in all cases.

[synthesis]

Because, for fuck's sake, I've been asking for answers for over a page now, and I still have yet to hear a real answer. "We're against nationalism." OK, so then what? "Yo! Colonial subjects! You're doing it wrong! Unite with the white left on the white left's terms!"

The problem here is that you believe that this is about what "colonial subjects" believe, say, and do. It's not. What you and I think about national liberation struggles is completely irrelevant to the success of those struggles. It's about what you and what people with Marxist politics and what the international working class believes, says, and does.

Part of the reason that, for example, you'll see elements of the Israeli working class expressing nationalistic politics is because there are people on the left, like yourself, arguing that nationalism is an acceptable element of working class politics.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Part of the reason that, for example, you'll see elements of the Israeli working class expressing nationalistic politics is because there are people on the left, like yourself, arguing that nationalism is an acceptable element of working class politics.

I think this is an unfair jab.

Clearly the nationalist politics of parts of the israeli, or palestinian, for that matter, working classes has to do with the (material) conditions in the region, and basically nothing to do with TGDU's opinions. Isn't it slightly idealist to blame (a very vague mass of) ideologues for implementing ideology in poeple's heads?

[Rational Radical]

Synthesis you keep dodging GDUs question and it's making me think you haven't thought it out too well to have a well developed opinion on nationalism. How should the working class of colonized or imperial dominated nation states react to their situations ? We know what you're against ,what are you for in terms of liberation for workers facing imperialism ?

[Zukunftsmusik]

We know what you're against ,what are you for in terms of liberation for workers facing imperialism ?

As I believe synthesis and others in this thread think (sorry if I put words in people's mouth now), to liberate workers from imperialism by forming an independent state isn't going to work/help, it's even besides the question.

Although I do think the "consistent" internationalists dodge the question in this thread, be it a slightly different question: What do you propose as a solution in situations a la Palestine, where the very national conflict is already a defeat to the working classes of the respective countries? How does one go about creating class unity in such situations?

[synthesis]

I think this is an unfair jab.

Clearly the nationalist politics of parts of the israeli, or palestinian, for that matter, working classes has to do with the (material) conditions in the region, and basically nothing to do with TGDU's opinions. Isn't it slightly idealist to blame (a very vague mass of) ideologues for implementing ideology in poeple's heads?

I don't believe it is. The question is, where do each specific worker's individual interests lie? And people presenting those interests as lying in nationalist politics are inherently arguing against internationalist working class politics.

[synthesis]

Synthesis you keep dodging GDUs question and it's making me think you haven't thought it out too well to have a well developed opinion on nationalism. How should the working class of colonized or imperial dominated nation states react to their situations ? We know what you're against ,what are you for in terms of liberation for workers facing imperialism ?

I don't believe that it matters what I'm "for" in that regard. Why would they give a shit what someone who is considered to be "on the other side of the fence" thinks?

The issue is that you don't understand that "not supporting" things like national liberation struggles is not the same as "opposing" them. If I actively opposed them then I'd be throwing my lot in with the nationalists on "my side."

[Lily Briscoe]

The Boss longs for the forgotten days of international working class unity.
pictureBut, seriously, are you actually saying that decolonization has set back the international working class? That fewer states and fewer borders is, in-and-of-itself, a good thing? That the Vietnamese should have thrown down their arms in hopes that the American invasion would follow their positive internationalist example? That the left should cease to support Palestinian resistance to Zionism? That we have no business talking about treaties in Canada, and should address indigenous communities, saying, "Give up your traditions and aspirations to autonomy, and join the Working Class(tm)!"

Because, for fuck's sake, I've been asking for answers for over a page now, and I still have yet to hear a real answer. "We're against nationalism." OK, so then what? "Yo! Colonial subjects! You're doing it wrong! Unite with the white left on the white left's terms!"

Since when is working class struggle the province of 'the white left', though? Where the working class exists, it struggles (however weak it may be in some cases and at particular times), and believe it or not, the working class exists throughout the world. I thought the role of communists was to support workers struggles and, to the extent that they are involved on the ground, to point the way forward, not to pander to whatever cross-class section of a population happens to be involved in some vague spectacle of "resistance" at any given time.

To be fair, I actually used to basically have a similar outlook to yours on this topic, and I will grant you that some of the people arguing against you in this thread aren't doing their "side" of the discussion any favors (see the "how can a piece of soil be oppressed?!?!" line of reasoning for an example).

Of course there is "national" inequality and oppression. And yes, I think it is absolutely important to have an analysis of what this entails in concrete terms in specific cases (though I think it is quite impossible, even for a Canadian superwarrior of the oppressed like TGDU, to have a concrete analysis of every instance of national oppression on the planet, because of their sheer multitude). But what is the solution? Do you really think that in 2013, struggles along national lines, for the formation of new nation states or the recognition of national sovereignty/rights etc., really offer any sort of resolution to national oppression, or even show any realistic promise of success in the first place? I mean, you seem to mock the idea of international working class unity as some sort of pipedream with the implicit assumption that national struggles, in contrast, offer some kind of tangible means of lifting people out of misery and oppression in a meaningful way, and I don't see any evidence for that. But even in some parallel universe where some of these struggles could succeed in a way that really remedied national oppression on a non-superficial level, where would that leave us? A kinder, gentler, more equitable capitalism? Is that the goal of your politics?

Also, before you trot out the "white leftist" diatribe, my understanding from reading your posts is that you're a white male university-educated Canadian leftist, so I'm not sure you are particularly well-positioned to be engaging in bullshit gut-checking in the first place.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

But what is the solution? Do you really think that in 2013, struggles along national lines, for the formation of new nation states or the recognition of national sovereignty/rights etc., really offer any sort of resolution to national oppression, or even show any realistic promise of success in the first place?

Depends by what you mean in terms of success. I think, for example, indigenous struggles in Canada show more promise of crippling capital's North American energy plan than anything else. I'd consider that a success, if it comes to pass. Do I see the real possibility of indigenous autonomy, a la the Zapatistas? Yeah, I do think it's possible, and I do think it pushes forward working class struggle generally.


I mean, you seem to mock the idea of international working class unity as some sort of pipedream with the implicit assumption that national struggles, in contrast, offer some kind of tangible means of lifting people out of misery and oppression in a meaningful way, and I don't see any evidence for that.

I don't mock international working class unity - I mock "unity" on the basis of nationally oppressed people uniting with those who are ideologically committed to and materially benefit from their oppression. Hell, look at New Brunswick, were the NDP (to whom the unions are tightly tied), cheered on the RCMP suppression of the Elsipogtog blockade and arrests of the warriors. Some basis for unity.


But even in some parallel universe where some of these struggles could succeed in a way that really remedied national oppression on a non-superficial level, where would that leave us? A kinder, gentler, more equitable capitalism? Is that the goal of your politics?

I think I was pretty explicit earlier:


In any case, the point is that my own struggle, and the struggle of working class people generally, is fundamentally bound up in struggles against colonial and imperial domination. As long as there is the "stick" of cheap labour to bludgeon lower strata, and the "carrot" super-profits for the working class's upper tiers, struggle here will continue to face constant set-backs. It's not a quirky coincidence that the last revolutionary upsurge in the 60s/70s coincided with the global wave of anti-colonial revolts, and ended with the kick-off of our present neo-liberal and neo-colonial order.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To be fair, I actually used to basically have a similar outlook to yours on this topic, and I will grant you that some of the people arguing against you in this thread aren't doing their "side" of the discussion any favors (see the "how can a piece of soil be oppressed?!?!" line of reasoning for an example).

The point of the 'a piece of soil cannot be oppressed' line of reasoning is that national formations are/have been constructed by humans. No piece of soil in any part of the world is pre-determined to oppress another; rather, the 'national oppression' shit comes about from the people who inhabit that land, the ruling class of that land.

It's not about taking sides, it's about taking a consistent emancipatory line as revolutionaries. If we go down the route of supporting any sort of national bourgeoisie, we end up believing and regurgitating their propaganda. More often than not this relates to the 'evil America' shit, which is why I brought up the 'piece of soil cannot oppress' argument, because some people seem to equate the USA automatically with evil, rather than understanding the class relations within that country, which have resulted in the state apparatus of that nation being used against the working class of other countries.

[Blake's Baby]

Dancing shadows.

'It's no coincidence... that two things co-incided'.

It's no coincidence that the last 'revolutionary upsurge' (if such you want to call it - I shall call this 'phenomen A') co-incided with the beginning of the open crisis at the end of the post-war reconstruction (phenomenon B); nor is it a coincidence that the ruling class fought back with neo-liberal restructuring (phenomenon C).

It's no co-incidence that the last 'global wave of anti-colonial revolts' (if such you want to call it - 'phenomenon D') co-incided with the beginning of the open crisis at the end of the post-war reconstruction.

So; what makes you think there's a direct link between phenomenon D and phenomenon A? Why is the existence of a 'global wave of anti-colonial revolts' at all a precondition of a 'revolutionary upsurge'?

[Remus Bleys]

At first I thought tgdu stumped me, and I couldn't really respond because of that.
However, I've been thinking of this for the past couple days. And it dawned on me how wrong you are.
So, ill use an example I know about. As a queer, I am totally disgusted with the liberal class collaborationist bullshit the queer movement has become. How does endorsing companies help the queer movement? How does perpetuation of gender roles, and a shunning of the more "different" queers really help? How does abandoning the transgendered help the lgbtq community?
And this is a result of letting upper class gays lead, and be a part of the movement. In this sense, class collaborationism has been detrimental, as the upper class sought to make the movement more moderate. You may say "well, this is better than nothing" but how is that anyy better than supporting obamacare? How is the situation different?
You mentioned the palestinians a lot, which is really funny, because zionism just shows what happens when an oppressed group takes up nationalism in the name of leftism. What if the palestinians organized around your line? They would be the palestinians, and israel would be israelis. The palestinian proletariat would align itself with the palestinian bourgeoisie,and after gaining their own nation, the palestinian proletariat would see itself seperate than the israeli one, creating a false division.the palestinians would still be in a shitty position, as the palestinian proletariat would be sold out in a second. Now, if the palestinian proletariat saw itself as the proletariat, the organization would follow the line that it is their job to take down the bourgeoisie. The palestinian proletariat would then take down the ruling class of both israel and palestine, freeing itself of the grasps of capital, and uniting the working class.
Anti colonialism and anti imperialism are important. However, the answer to thnis is proletariat dictatorship, not a nation state.
Nationalism is inherently capitalist, and is not progressive. Of course oppressed groups should align themselves with themselves, and seperate organization. However, they all must recognize the proletarian dictatorship is a necessity for their liberation. This is why nationalism should always be opposed, not except, but especially in cases of oppressed groups fighting back.

[Brotto Rühle]

At first I thought tgdu stumped me, and I couldn't really respond because of that.
However, I've been thinking of this for the past couple days. And it dawned on me how wrong you are.
So, ill use an example I know about. As a queer, I am totally disgusted with the liberal class collaborationist bullshit the queer movement has become. How does endorsing companies help the queer movement? How does perpetuation of gender roles, and a shunning of the more "different" queers really help? How does abandoning the transgendered help the lgbtq community?
And this is a result of letting upper class gays lead, and be a part of the movement. In this sense, class collaborationism has been detrimental, as the upper class sought to make the movement more moderate. You may say "well, this is better than nothing" but how is that anyy better than supporting obamacare? How is the situation different?
You mentioned the palestinians a lot, which is really funny, because zionism just shows what happens when an oppressed group takes up nationalism in the name of leftism. What if the palestinians organized around your line? They would be the palestinians, and israel would be israelis. The palestinian proletariat would align itself with the palestinian bourgeoisie,and after gaining their own nation, the palestinian proletariat would see itself seperate than the israeli one, creating a false division.the palestinians would still be in a shitty position, as the palestinian proletariat would be sold out in a second. Now, if the palestinian proletariat saw itself as the proletariat, the organization would follow the line that it is their job to take down the bourgeoisie. The palestinian proletariat would then take down the ruling class of both israel and palestine, freeing itself of the grasps of capital, and uniting the working class.
Anti colonialism and anti imperialism are important. However, the answer to thnis is proletariat dictatorship, not a nation state.
Nationalism is inherently capitalist, and is not progressive. Of course oppressed groups should align themselves with themselves, and seperate organization. However, they all must recognize the proletarian dictatorship is a necessity for their liberation. This is why nationalism should always be opposed, not except, but especially in cases of oppressed groups fighting back.

Good post, but the proletarian dictatorship is a stepping stone to the solution, not the solution in and of itself. The abolition of capital, and coming of a new humanism (communism), the negation of the negation, is the goal...is the solution.

[reb]

Synthesis you keep dodging GDUs question and it's making me think you haven't thought it out too well to have a well developed opinion on nationalism. How should the working class of colonized or imperial dominated nation states react to their situations ? We know what you're against ,what are you for in terms of liberation for workers facing imperialism ?

That's an entirely either/or situation you are presenting that does not correlate with real life. The creation of independent states for each and every ethnicity would still subjugate them to capital, perhaps even more so because they now have an ideological frame work of nationalism to distance themselves from actual proletarian emancipation. This is fairly typical for those who hold social-democratic tendencies because you need a state to implement socialism or for dictatorship, etc, further taking the immediate solution of capitalism away from the agents of revolution and putting it into the hands of party officials.

[Remus Bleys]

Good post, but the proletarian dictatorship is a stepping stone to the solution, not the solution in and of itself. The abolition of capital, and coming of a new humanism (communism), the negation of the negation, is the goal...is the solution.

Well, yeah, but I was going for the compare and contrast of immediate distinction between country wide representation of the bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Of course the abolition of capital is necessary and the dotp can't do this, but I was trying to be poetic with the contrast.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/images/colonialism1914.jpg


Same thing is going on today. Just replace about half of those countries with China.

[Slavic]

Help me understand here, because I am trying to grasp why some posters support the nationalistic character of national liberation movements of oppressed peoples. Now it is to my understanding that ultimately it is the proletariat that are oppressed world wide and this level of oppression fluctuates based on the workers relationship to the state and the means of production. Workers in lets say France can be said to be less oppressed then workers in Palestine due to the level of reforms and concessions made to the working classes in each of these countires. MIND YOU I am not supporting the ideal of reform and worker concessions as an adequate method for bringing about a socialist revolution, I am only taking these into consideration to objectively compare the oppressed state of these two groups.

Now we have the oppressed proletariat of France and the oppressed proletariat of Palestine. Both groups are ultimately under the thumb of their respective bourgeois classes but both groups can be seen as facing different levels of oppression. When the proletariat in a country is being oppressed by the bourgeois, we as socialists I'd assume would support the strengthening of the proletariat class and the eventual overthrow of the bourgeois.

Now here the issue of nationalism arises. The French proletariat are oppressed by the French bourgeois utilizing the French state apparatus. The Palestinian proletariat are oppressed by the Israeli bourgeois utilizing the Israeli state apparatus. Why is it that the struggle of the French proletariat must be a socialist struggle but the struggle of the Palestinian proletariat can be a national liberation struggle?

Why can't a Palestinian proletariat struggle be successful without it having to resort to national liberation. Mind you, that national liberation in itself is reactionary. It does not separate people into classes based on their relation to the means of production, it separates people into classes based on their language, creed, ethnicity, etc.

I live in America and I work for a living. I am oppressed whether my boss is American, French, German, or Palestinian. I do not see the need to overthrow my Palestinian boss to replace him with an American boss. I don't want a boss period.

[Sinister Intents]

I believe in the complete destruction of nationalism and patriotism. It's completely antithetical and harmful to socialist causes. Nationalism and patriotism are to always be opposed and never sypported.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

OK, this is just getting ridiculous. For one, no where in this thread have I said, "The working class of colonized nations should unite with their indigenous bourgeoisie to establish a sovereign state." I haven't spoken against it either, but since I haven't been explicit on it, I'll say that I don't think it's the point zero of nations. I think nations are constructed, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, by a variety of converging social relationships.
Nations precede both capital and states, though they have, as everything, been transformed by capital. As patriarchy has been fundamentally reconfigured by capital in the relationship of women to re/production, that is, in terms of class, so too has capital reconfigured nations in relationship to class.
So, let's look at this:


So, ill use an example I know about. As a queer, I am totally disgusted with the liberal class collaborationist bullshit the queer movement has become. How does endorsing companies help the queer movement? How does perpetuation of gender roles, and a shunning of the more "different" queers really help? How does abandoning the transgendered help the lgbtq community?

Quite so! Just as the collaboration of the imperialist and colonial workers' organizations is totally disgusting! How do the narrow and self-interested activities of the social democrats and business unions, abandoning all the workers under the boot of imperial and colonial domination, serve the working class? They don't.


And this is a result of letting upper class gays lead, and be a part of the movement. In this sense, class collaborationism has been detrimental, as the upper class sought to make the movement more moderate.

OK, but here we see the tensions and fault lines that run through all struggles. You're not presenting (I hope) an argument against queer struggle, but a) a realization that out of queer struggle, contradictions arise between emerging pro-capitalist elements and those committed to emancipatory struggle, and b) a recognition that queer struggle must continue, on a class basis, against these elements. I don't think that's a compelling argument against national struggles -it is an argument that as national struggles bring these class contradictions to the fore, they have to deal with them. I don't disagree at all, and say this is characteristic of all struggles within and against capital.


You may say "well, this is better than nothing" but how is that anyy better than supporting obamacare? How is the situation different?

Uh, 'cos supporting the "positive" projects of the imperialist liberal bourgeoisie is different than a "negative" project of attacking their rule*?

*To clarify, I don't mean positive/negative in the sense of good/bad, but in terms of making/unmaking.


You mentioned the palestinians a lot, which is really funny, because zionism just shows what happens when an oppressed group takes up nationalism in the name of leftism.

Woah! Hold on, you're putting ideology ahead of history here. The "spirit" of Zionism is not the driving force of Israel (contrary to what Israeli propaganda might posit): Israel has been a conscious colonial racist project since its inception. Though it cloaks this in the holocaust and the experience of an oppressed people taking up nationalism, this is essentially untrue. Most of the world's Jews (who you refer to cryptically as "an oppressed group" - I don't disagree, but it seems to generalize a particular history) didn't "take up nationalism", and to this day, the majority of the world's Jews live outside Israel. The conflation of Israel and Jewishness (the colonial project with the people) is wildly ideological, and fails to grapple with Israel in its reality as a colonial project instead parroting the mythical discourse of the Israeli state. Or, in other words, we're not looking at "an oppressed people [taking] up nationalism".


What if the palestinians organized around your line? They would be the palestinians, and israel would be israelis.

This isn't a question of organizing a line - this is a question of social reality. It's a matter of law, walls, military checkpoints, imprisonment, dispossession, etc. The Palestinians experience a distinct condition of being Palestinian, and the Israelis, living on their stolen land, experience a distinct condition of Israeli-ness.
To run with your metaphor, this is like saying "What if queers organized around their queerness? They would be queers, and the not-queers would be not-queers." This isn't a question of picking a political identity at random, but rather of real concrete conditions of heteropatriarchy.


The palestinian proletariat would align itself with the palestinian bourgeoisie,and after gaining their own nation, the palestinian proletariat would see itself seperate than the israeli one, creating a false division.the palestinians would still be in a shitty position, as the palestinian proletariat would be sold out in a second. Now, if the palestinian proletariat saw itself as the proletariat, the organization would follow the line that it is their job to take down the bourgeoisie. The palestinian proletariat would then take down the ruling class of both israel and palestine, freeing itself of the grasps of capital, and uniting the working class.

THE REVOLUTION!
Thank you for pointing out how this is totally a thing that will happen, just as soon as those Palestinian dupes stop demanding the right to return. It was really convincing.


So; what makes you think there's a direct link between [anti-colonial revolt] and [revolutionary upsurge]? Why is the existence of a 'global wave of anti-colonial revolts' at all a precondition of a 'revolutionary upsurge'?

Well, for one, I think this weirdly Newtonian conception of cause-and-effect at the level of world capitalism is totally wack. I guess my initial comment failed to convey this complexity, so in a sense the criticism is apt. However, I think my point stands - that, though the relationships are complex and reciprocal - the blows dealt to global capital across Africa and Asia can't be disregarded when trying to understand the re-emergence of communist praxis in the imperial centres.

[Remus Bleys]

Quite so! Just as the collaboration of the imperialist and colonial workers' organizations is totally disgusting! How do the narrow and self-interested activities of the social democrats and business unions, abandoning all the workers under the boot of imperial and colonial domination, serve the working class? They don't.
How is this contradictory to what I was saying?



I don't think that's a compelling argument against national struggles -it is an argument that as national struggles bring these class contradictions to the fore, they have to deal with them. I don't disagree at all, and say this is characteristic of all struggles within and against capital.Then why are you arguing?
Why would you support this and nationalism?



Uh, 'cos supporting the "positive" projects of the imperialist liberal bourgeoisie is different than a "negative" project of attacking their rule*?

I was talking about gay marriage and class collaboration there.


Woah! Hold on, you're putting ideology ahead of history here. The "spirit" of Zionism is not the driving force of Israel (contrary to what Israeli propaganda might posit)
Of course not.

Israel has been a conscious colonial racist project since its inception. Did I deny?

Though it cloaks this in the holocaust and the experience of an oppressed people taking up nationalism, this is essentially untrue. Most of the world's Jews (who you refer to cryptically as "an oppressed group" - I don't disagree, but it seems to generalize a particular history)
I was talking about Europe and Jews for the vast of post medieval history.


didn't "take up nationalism", and to this day, the majority of the world's Jews live outside Israel. The conflation of Israel and Jewishness (the colonial project with the people) is wildly ideological, and fails to grapple with Israel in its reality as a colonial project instead parroting the mythical discourse of the Israeli state. Or, in other words, we're not looking at "an oppressed people [taking] up nationalism". No. We are talking about a small segment of an oppressed people's upper strata who used nationalism and oppression as an excuse to exploit.


This isn't a question of organizing a line - this is a question of social reality. It's a matter of law, walls, military checkpoints, imprisonment, dispossession, etc. The Palestinians experience a distinct condition of being Palestinian, and the Israelis, living on their stolen land, experience a distinct condition of Israeli-ness.Either a) you are accusing me of saying culture doesn't matter ever or b) putting nationality above class



To run with your metaphor, this is like saying "What if queers organized around their queerness? They would be queers, and the not-queers would be not-queers." This isn't a question of picking a political identity at random, but rather of real concrete conditions of heteropatriarchy. And of course palestinians should organize seperately. But a queer group that sees straight proletariats as "the enemy" or the "other" is a bunch of bullshit. Just as viewing the israeli proletariat as "the enemy" and not viewing the israeli ruling class as the enemy is a bunch of bullshit.


National Liberation!
Thank you for pointing out how this is totally a thing that will happen, just as soon as those Palestinian dupes start collaborating with the Bourgeoisie. It was really convincing.fixed

[synthesis]

To be completely honest, I don't really have a problem with people arguing that a nation would be better off exploited by their own bourgeoisie rather than a foreign one - only as long as the people making the argument don't pretend that it has anything to do with socialism or internationalist working class politics rather than a pseudo-reformist development of the capitalist mode of production.

TGDU, I would wager that everyone in this thread believes they are politically mandated to oppose the imperialism of their own countries. This is qualitatively different from "supporting national liberation struggles."

[blake 3:17]

Now we have the oppressed proletariat of France and the oppressed proletariat of Palestine. Both groups are ultimately under the thumb of their respective bourgeois classes but both groups can be seen as facing different levels of oppression. When the proletariat in a country is being oppressed by the bourgeois, we as socialists I'd assume would support the strengthening of the proletariat class and the eventual overthrow of the bourgeois.

Now here the issue of nationalism arises. The French proletariat are oppressed by the French bourgeois utilizing the French state apparatus. The Palestinian proletariat are oppressed by the Israeli bourgeois utilizing the Israeli state apparatus. Why is it that the struggle of the French proletariat must be a socialist struggle but the struggle of the Palestinian proletariat can be a national liberation struggle?

What Palestinian proletariat are you referring to?

Of course the national question trumps class when a people are being physically and socially destroyed. The Israelis aren't interested in exploiting the Palestinians. They just want them gone.

[synthesis]

Of course the national question trumps class when a people are being physically and socially destroyed.

Poe's Law, I know, but this is literally the exact same way that Hitler framed the plight of the "German people" after the Treaty of Versailles and thereby suckered German workers into class collaboration. You can't validate one as an acceptable line for a socialist without validating the other. There are of course massive differences between Germany and the national liberation struggles that have historically been supported by leftists, but I believe the onus is on you to prove that the line separating "acceptable nationalism" from "unacceptable nationalism" is not entirely arbitrary. (To be clear, because I can foresee some hysterical rhetoric arising in response to this post: I'm not equivocating the German situation in the 30's with the Palestinian situation today; I'm asking you to specify exactly where and why nationalism becomes an acceptable position for a socialist to hold.)

edit: God damn it, I knew I should have double-checked whether or not it was Poe's Law.

[Remus Bleys]

Poe's Law
Since you were semantic about it with me, Godwin's Law.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To be completely honest, I don't really have a problem with people arguing that a nation would be better off exploited by their own bourgeoisie rather than a foreign one - only as long as the people making the argument don't pretend that it has anything to do with socialism or internationalist working class politics rather than a pseudo-reformist development of the capitalist mode of production.

TGDU, I would wager that everyone in this thread believes they are politically mandated to oppose the imperialism of their own countries. This is qualitatively different from "supporting national liberation struggles."

I understand where you're coming from here, but I think at best you're being naive. Since it is illogical to want to be exploited by the national bourgeoisie rather than some other grouping of capitalists, the only logical explanation for wanting to be exploited by 'one's own bourgeoisie' is a national outlook on the world, i.e. identifying with a nation ahead of your own class or other social grouping. The logic end-point being nationalism.

[blake 3:17]

(To be clear, because I can foresee some hysterical rhetoric arising in response to this post: I'm not equivocating the German situation in the 30's with the Palestinian situation today; I'm asking you to specify exactly where and why nationalism becomes an acceptable position for a socialist to hold.)

Don't expect hysteria, just total confusion.

Why should anyone care 'exactly where and why nationalism becomes an acceptable position for a socialist to hold'?

[Blake's Baby]

Because you hold the position that 'nation trumps class'. So synthesis wants some examples of where you think 'nation trumps class', and nationalism becomes an 'acceptable position for a socialist to hold'.

You give the example of Palestine. The Palestinian Authority still oppresses Palestinians. Why should 'nation trump class' there, should Palestinians not struggle against 'their own' government, just because you think they should all be fighting the bad old Jews?

[Communist(stalinist)]

No, how can nationalism be included in revolution ? It's impossible. Socialism and nationalism are incompatible.

[servusmoderni]

Nationalism is the only answer to imperialism. It's time you people understand there's a difference between ultra-nationalism and nationalism. One's Chavez and the other one's Hitler.

[Remus Bleys]

Nationalism is the only answer to imperialism. It's time you people understand there's a difference between ultra-nationalism and nationalism. One's Chavez and the other one's Hitler.
Nationalism is the only answer to imperialism? Not class conflict? Not proletarian revolution?

[servusmoderni]

Nationalism is the only answer to imperialism? Not class conflict? Not proletarian revolution?

The proletarian revolution is the answer to class conflict.

Don't you think a giant territory without borders is ironically similar to an empire? I think nationalism is a vital part of human nature. National identity is important and without it, nothing but imperialism will come out.

There should be two revolutions. A cultural/national one and an economic/social revolution.

[Remus Bleys]

The proletarian revolution is the answer to class conflict.
Imperialism is a result of class conflict.


Don't you think a giant territory without borders is ironically similar to an empire?Don't you think you should read marx?

I think nationalism is a vital part of human nature.I think you need to lose your conservatism.

National identity is important and without it, nothing but imperialism will come out.
?

[Per Levy]

Don't you think a giant territory without borders is ironically similar to an empire?

how so?


I think nationalism is a vital part of human nature.

ouch that hurts, first of all human nature, really? do you belive in that bs? there is no human nature. and second of all, saying that nationalism is a part of being a human being is just so ahistorical. you do know that nations and with that nationalism only exist for a few hundred years, right? even though back than it was probally part of human nature to belive that kings and nobles should rule the lower classes as a devine right or something.


National identity is important and without it, nothing but imperialism will come out.

you obviously have no idea what imperialism is. but whatever, so from your point of view nazi germany and germany during the ww1 werent imperialist since in both cases the country had a very "healthy dose" of nationalism in it. is that right?


Nationalism is the only answer to imperialism. It's time you people understand there's a difference between ultra-nationalism and nationalism. One's Chavez and the other one's Hitler.

that is also pretty juicy, in what way was chavez anti-imperialist? you know being fond of russian and chinese imperialism doesnt make you anti-imperialist one bit.

[Czy]

I'm wary of/undecided on/neutral towards Nationalism

Socialism should inevitably transcend nationalism, but oppressed peoples are, in my opinion, entitled to a sense of nationalism in their revolutionary movement, with the assumption that a global socialist federation could eliminate nationalism through a strong sense of community.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The proletarian revolution is the answer to class conflict.

Don't you think a giant territory without borders is ironically similar to an empire? I think nationalism is a vital part of human nature. National identity is important and without it, nothing but imperialism will come out.

There should be two revolutions. A cultural/national one and an economic/social revolution.

I'm wary to jump back into this thread, and I'm sorry to use you as example servusmoderni, but I think this makes explicit a certain tension running through this discussion.

I think you're approaching nationalism in the same ahistorical sense, which strips it of its class content, as the "internationalists" who suggest that "nations don't 'really' exist!" See, the thing is, nations are neither innate nor vital, and they certainly have nothing to do with "human nature" (always the last refuge of those who've failed to understand a phenomenon historically and materially). Rather, nations emerge out of real contradictions and class dynamics, and these need to be grappled with. I think there is a real distinction to be drawn between a "negative" national project, which challenges the definition of a nation by a dominating juridico-political sovereignty, and constitutes it on the basis of common condition; then, on the other hand, a "positive" national project which aims to "realize" some innate national character. Obviously, in many situations, there is some degree of interplay between these things - in others (e.g. settler colonies, imperial powers) there is only the latter, which, in the 20th century, was taken to some of its horrifying conclusions.

[Remus Bleys]

I think you're approaching nationalism in the same ahistorical sense, which strips it of its class content, as the "internationalists" who suggest that "nations don't 'really' exist!"
Did... did .... did you just compare nationalists to internationalists and say the have the same line of thinking?

[RedMoslem]

An awful evil programme of the bourgeoisie which leads to too much death.

[servusmoderni]

I think it's time you realize that some social constructs are needed for a healthy society. You're the reason why the far-rightist parties around the world are gaining popularity. You're trying to realize the impossible. Some sort of liberal utopia. You tried the same thing during the Spanish civil war, some Trotskyist factions went rogue and the fascists won. Karl Marx's work is brilliant, but it has flaws. Many.

Maybe you've been around bourgeois hippies too much and now consider that cultural marxism is in order, but it's not. Marx valued borders and understood the importance of national borders.

That Trotskyist shit will not get you anywhere. Around the world, leftist parties have been infected by some bourgeois kids and liberals. I used to love the times when communists were not converted in some sort of hipster/feminist bullshit that only fights for individual equality like more women or more gay men in parliament. The true class struggle is dying because of people like you. If you can't realize that nationalism is not a rightist ideology (Even if it's categorized as such) I prefer to look at it as national liberation.

You can't value nationalism until you truly need it. I live in a province that has been conquered by the British in 1763. I want my land to be free from imperialism. We do not need to convert the empire into a socialist union. We need to CRUSH the empire.

And please stop with that nazi stuff.

I have 4 years in Marxist studies, I can tell you that this liberal retardation that came out of the new kind of socialist is an abomination to real socialism.

[Remus Bleys]

I think it's time you realize that some social constructs are needed for a healthy society. You're the reason why the far-rightist parties around the world are gaining popularity. You're trying to realize the impossible. Some sort of liberal utopia.

That Trotskyist shit will not get you anywhere. Around the world, leftist parties have been infected by some bourgeois kids and liberals. I used to love the times when communists were not converted in some sort of hipster/feminist bullshit that only fights for individual equality like more women or more gay men in parliament. The true class struggle is dying because of people like you. If you can't realize that nationalism is not a rightist ideology (Even if it's categorized as such) I prefer to look at it as national liberation.

You can't value nationalism until you truly need it. I live in a province that has been conquered by the British in 1763. I want my land to be free from imperialism. We do not need to convert the empire into a socialist union. We need to CRUSH the empire.

And please stop with that nazi stuff.
This is a total troll post. Who are you referring to?
And don't bring up the holocaust. My family died in the holocaust - not for lack of nationalsim, but because of capitalism. You misusing their deaths and accusing me of being my own's family's deaths as a slur should be enough to get you shot, and at the very least banned.

[servusmoderni]

This is a total troll post. Who are you referring to?
And don't bring up the holocaust. My family died in the holocaust - not for lack of nationalsim, but because of capitalism. You misusing their deaths and accusing me of being my own's family's deaths as a slur should be enough to get you shot, and at the very least banned.

You should know better. That's exactly the separatist movement within the socialist movement that I talked about. You want to shoot comrades instead of capitalists. Here's what's wrong with everything in this forum. And yes, the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany can be attributed to the failures and the treachery inside the socialist movement of the Weimar republic. Germans failed to keep the workers on the socialist side! How weak is that!! + Hitler did a magnificient job with the economy, now I agree he had flaws on his foreign policy... a bit agressive if I may say... The Freikorps didn't even have to fight the socialists, they destroyed themselves from the inside.

Same kind of people who made the fascists win in Spain. Imperialists always had the successful policy of divide and conquer. We are divided and we're being conquered.

And I don't give me that that "holocaust" thing. It's been a capitalist machine since the end of WW2.

SOMEONE'S FAILURE IS SOMEONE ELSE'S VICTORY

[Remus Bleys]

Your not my comrade. Don't call me that.

[Craig_J]

Nationalism has no place in a true communist/ socialist/ anarchist revolution. Nationalism is probably alongside religion and greed as the three biggest killers of all time in terms of wars and genocides. Also, nationalism depends on the theory that nations are independent sovereign bodies which should compete with each other as they offer each other mutual competition which then leads to healthy rivalry which betters their people - a capitalist excuse for the existence of nationalism.

Natinalism and socialism can't exist together as at best it would cause capitalism to evolve from having social classes within nations to simply having it outside with, for example, africa being a poor socialist nation whilst more developed countries are richer socialist nations. Even that is unlikely as it would probably just develop into full blown capitalism as well.

Also, nationalism can start of quite innocently such as "be proud of your nation" and then evolve into something quite sinister. It highlights a difference in which border your from which then leads to people sensing that difference as "your different, thus you don't belong to us". It can quickly lead to racialism (e.g. We're successful because we're European, they're not because they're African) which then inevitably leads to racism (e.g. Therefore we are superior). AND FINALLY that racism can then lead to Fascism (e.g. because we're superior you're less than us and less than human).

It simply would be detrimental to achieving socialism. However, I should say that if socialism was ready to erupt in one nation, say France for example, then I would support it on the sole condition that it's still an internationalist movement which seeks to unite with other socialist countries and to promote leftist-ideals globally untill we can all be under the single banner of 'earth'.

[servusmoderni]

Your not my comrade. Don't call me that.

I'm sorry to hear that, Comrade. You should read or watch some of Thomas Sankara and tell me want you think about him. He's all about national liberation and so am I.

I've already have enough of this Trotskyist forum. I feel like I want to throw an ice axe into the admin's head. :laugh:

(Thanks for confirming my theory, though...)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Did... did .... did you just compare nationalists to internationalists and say the have the same line of thinking?

I compared certain "internationalists" to nationalists - though I'd argue that the former's internationalism isn't internationalist at all. In fact, it's de facto chauvinism, which subordinates the interests of colonized peoples to the interests of their nation's bourgeoisie. In both cases, the real dynamics of imperialism aren't grappled with.

Honestly, I'm more interested in critiquing "internationalists" only insofar as I'd like to see a more nuanced internationalism develop, that supports anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle as necessary for crippling global capitalism.

As for servusmoderni, I don't think I really need to bother. The "positive" nationalism they advocate is the "MRA"-thinking to the faux-Internationalist "I'm not sexist - I treat men and women the same!"

[servusmoderni]

Nationalism has no place in a true communist/ socialist/ anarchist revolution. Nationalism is probably alongside religion and greed as the three biggest killers of all time in terms of wars and genocides. Also, nationalism depends on the theory that nations are independent sovereign bodies which should compete with each other as they offer each other mutual competition which then leads to healthy rivalry which betters their people - a capitalist excuse for the existence of nationalism.

Natinalism and socialism can't exist together as at best it would cause capitalism to evolve from having social classes within nations to simply having it outside with, for example, africa being a poor socialist nation whilst more developed countries are richer socialist nations. Even that is unlikely as it would probably just develop into full blown capitalism as well.

Also, nationalism can start of quite innocently such as "be proud of your nation" and then evolve into something quite sinister. It highlights a difference in which border your from which then leads to people sensing that difference as "your different, thus you don't belong to us". It can quickly lead to racialism (e.g. We're successful because we're European, they're not because they're African) which then inevitably leads to racism (e.g. Therefore we are superior). AND FINALLY that racism can then lead to Fascism (e.g. because we're superior you're less than us and less than human).

It simply would be detrimental to achieving socialism. However, I should say that if socialism was ready to erupt in one nation, say France for example, then I would support it on the sole condition that it's still an internationalist movement which seeks to unite with other socialist countries and to promote leftist-ideals globally untill we can all be under the single banner of 'earth'.

Sure being proud of what your people built ultimately leads to genocide. :huh:

[servusmoderni]

1. I don't think you actually understand Sankara.

2. You sound like a fucking NazBol. In case you were unaware, that's a pretty different matter than national liberation.

Maybe you should learn French, because I'm not a nazi and neither is he.

And no I'm not a national bolshevik. You do know the world is made of shades of grey. Nothing is white nor black. Stop trying to put me in a camp saying left or right. I love my homeland and I love every human on earth, maybe not zionists, but all the others.

So I understand from you're point of view, Palestinians are nazis so are Basques and northern irish and Corsicans.

You know there's more than 2 positions of the political spectrum (which should be reformed by the way...) That old thing is useless and it doesn't represent anyone anymore.

[Remus Bleys]

Maybe you should learn French, because I'm not a nazi and neither is he.

And no I'm not a national bolshevik. You do know the world is made of shades of grey. Nothing is white nor black. Stop trying to put me in a camp saying left or right. I love my homeland and I love every human on earth, maybe not zionists, but all the others.

So I understand from you're point of view, Palestinians are nazis so are Basques and northern irish and Corsicans.

You know there's more than 2 positions of the political spectrum (which should be reformed by the way...) That old thing is useless and it doesn't represent anyone anymore.TGDU just ban him for being a troll.
I mean he is seriously misrepresenting the argument you are using and clearly is only interested in calling things Nazi if they aren't nationalists.

[servusmoderni]

TGDU just ban him for being a troll.
I mean he is seriously misrepresenting the argument you are using and clearly is only interested in calling things Nazi if they aren't nationalists.

Are you kidding me? He clearly said that I didn't understand Thomas Sankara. I replied saying I did.

What's wrong? If we analyze the thread's messages we can clearly conclude that people here think Cuba is the Fourth Reich.

Shades of gray people! Not everything is black or white!! ;)

[Aware]

Nationalism only serves to divide. We are all human, period. There is no "Chinese" human, no "American" human, no "Pashtun" human. All these social constructs serve only one group, the elites.

[servusmoderni]

Nationalism only serves to divide. We are all human, period. There is no "Chinese" human, no "American" human, no "Pashtun" human. All these social constructs serve only one group, the elites.

Please, tell me, what purpose does it serve to the elite to have a well constructed society after thousands of years of research and accumulated knowledge?

[Bala Perdida]

Exploiting people of another race is easier apparently, when you do it to your own it's "inhumane ". Also nationalism and the belief that your race is superior to another goes side by side with racism as a good way to rally support for brutal actions against a "foreign nation ".

[Nihilism]

Exploiting people of another race is easier apparently, when you do it to your own it's "inhumane ". Also nationalism and the belief that your race is superior to another goes side by side with racism as a good way to rally support for brutal actions against a "foreign nation ".

Totally agree, the idea that "Your" Nation is better than all others only serves to divide working class people. Seems like the ruling classes way destroying the unity of the working class to me.

Kind of fits in with racism, homophobia, sexism, religion.

We're not members of the same class! He's black and I am white. He's gay and I am straight. She's a woman and I a man. I'm atheist and he is christian. I am American and he is Canadian.

:lol:

[Aware]

Please, tell me, what purpose does it serve to the elite to have a well constructed society after thousands of years of research and accumulated knowledge?
Well if having racial concepts to manipulate people into compliance is "a well constructed society, this society'a structure would ultimately serve to benefit the elites an the bourgeoise. Race isn't thousands of years of research, it's thousands of years of ignorance and immaturity. We all have our own histories, and some peoples are more connected to some more than others, but ultimately, we are all simply human. These differences we see are largely superficial.

I understand the national liberation dynamic; one people freeing themselves, deciding their future, take control of their productive capacities without interference for outside groups that have no stake in the local community or local relevance. But in the end, to maintain a division for no reason other than "race" is foolish, and establishing a moivement on it may last but there will always be contention, and ultimately, bloodshed, as "foreigners" are highlighted within society more and more. Inequality naturally arises from racial divisions, so why embrace something like this.

[Comrade Chernov]

Nationalism is not compatible with Marxism.

Nationalism is compatible with Socialism, but certainly not with Communist revolution.

I personally dislike Nationalism, I dislike Patriotism, I dislike any form of pride/boastfulness at the achievements of a country. As an American citizen I live in one of the most boastful nations on the planet, and it's annoying, it's childish, it's just plain ignorant and rude, and it's sickening. It's a neo-fascist system of indoctrination.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

We're all in this together. While there's nothing wrong with a bit of national patriotism any struggle for freedom, the more a revolution is concentrated on one country or one people, the less likely it is to spread--and the main objective of leftists is for the revolution to spread internationally.

[Slavic]

I find nationalists more detestable then capitalists. The capitalist I can understand his position, a position of extreme selfishness and insatiable appitite for capital accumulation. It is essentially self-preservation for the well off. I understand why a capitalist would think and feel this way given his privileged position.

The nationalist follows a different kind of self-preservation, not that of selfishness like the capitalist, but that of ignorance, intolerance, and hate. The nationalist separates people and classifies people based on their differences. Such classification is a breeding ground for irrational hate, racism, and xenophobia. The nationalist, whether socialist or capitalist, doesn't want to improve the lives of others but only the lives of those he considers to be part of his own kind.

[Dagoth Ur]

Nationalism is better than servility, and class consciousness better than nationalism. Some people don't have the luxury of discarding friends who aren't what they want ideologically. It's easy to sit here in the west and critique others, but much harder to walk in their shoes.

Nationalism has elevated the entire First and Second Worlds to a point where nationalism can only be reactionary. The third is still a mixed bowl and nationalism has its purpose (the Afghans could do with a fair amount of Nationalism and exterminating the Pashtuns would be objective no.1) as they're racked with imperialism. But nobody ever said it was some end goal. And for those who scream "but revolution?", if a revolution will happen it wil happen.

[Slavic]

Nationalism is better than servility, and class consciousness better than nationalism. Some people don't have the luxury of discarding friends who aren't what they want ideologically. It's easy to sit here in the west and critique others, but much harder to walk in their shoes.

Nationalism has elevated the entire First and Second Worlds to a point where nationalism can only be reactionary. The third is still a mixed bowl and nationalism has its purpose (the Afghans could do with a fair amount of Nationalism and exterminating the Pashtuns would be objective no.1) as they're racked with imperialism. But nobody ever said it was some end goal. And for those who scream "but revolution?", if a revolution will happen it wil happen.

So you state that nationalism has its purposes still in the third world since the third world is still affected by imperialism, then for an example you suggest that the Afghans should exterminate the Pashtuns as an objective of their nationalism.

I must have misread your post because that analysis of the necessity of nationalism is revolting.

[motion denied]

I live in the third world and nationalism is shit. Don't be fooled.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Nationalism is better than servility, and class consciousness better than nationalism. Some people don't have the luxury of discarding friends who aren't what they want ideologically. It's easy to sit here in the west and critique others, but much harder to walk in their shoes.

'Friends' aren't people who you 'put up with', or at least they shouldn't be, if we are speaking of political philosophy.

Realpolitik is one thing, but there are some leftists who go beyond this and build nationalism into their political philosophies, which is revolting.

[Comrade Chernov]

The third is still a mixed bowl and nationalism has its purpose (the Afghans could do with a fair amount of Nationalism and exterminating the Pashtuns would be objective no.1)

I'm sorry, maybe I read this part wrong, but are you advocating genocide of Pashtuns?

[the debater]

So, with these arguments laid out, where do you stand on Nationalism? Should it be included in future Socialist revolutions? Should it, in the event of another Socialist-administered state (ala the USSR, PRC, etc.), be official state policy? Should it be completely disavowed as an enemy of the revolution?

Nationalism in the sense that a country or nation is fighting off oppression is fine with me. If nationalism on the other hand is about pride, and thinking that your country is better than the other country, and that they're "inferior" to you, that's when I get a little nervous. This kind of prideful attitude is in line with exceptional-ism, and I definitely do not believe exceptional-ism is healthy for anyone, or any country. Pride causes people to be completely ignorant of reality, and it really damages your objectivity.

[Venas Abiertas]

100% AGAINST.

Ever since I was a little kid I hated the ideas of countries, borders, my-group-that-I-just-happened-to-be-born-in-by-sheer-chance is better than yours, etc. It's knee-jerk infantile tribalism complete with atrocities on a scale unknown before in human history. There is a fine line between taking pride in one's customs or culture and using it as a stick to beat everyone else with, especially if they are in a minority. This fine line is easy to cross and has been abused time after time by those who wish to see working people fighting each other instead of their exploiters.

Some of you have suggested that nationalism can be a stepping stone to a more independent country which will then be free to opt for socialism. Others have pointed out that there are no examples of that ever happening. In fact, just the opposite may occur. The Soviet Union is an example of a multi-ethnic country founded on class lines which during Stalin's rule became increasingly Russified and intolerant of other peoples' cultures. The triumphs of the Soviet Union were presented as proofs of the superior "Russian" way of doing things instead of as a triumph of diversity of working people and socialism.

Think of all the ideas, energy, and sacrifices spent by people working to create a nation state and build it up which could have been better used in an international effort to create worker solidarity and build socialism. Imagine if the 1930's Germans had used their creativity and work ethic to promote socialism instead of becoming the bullies of Europe, or if the USA and its incredible industrial and technological capacity had really dedicated itself to the emancipation of workers everywhere.

One thing I like in general about Cuba and the modern Latin American leftists is that they don't promote nationalism but instead encourage fraternity and solidarity among their neighbors. The Soviet Union pretended to do this (Patrice Lumumba University and all that) but they never really got the hang of it. Instead, bigotry abounded, and seems to have gotten even worse today there. I can assure you, though, that people of all colors and origins are welcome among leftists in a Latin American city or university. By downplaying ethnic and national origins, they have created an international culture in which everyone can feel at home.

[Comrade #138672]

Nationalism is better than servility, and class consciousness better than nationalism. Some people don't have the luxury of discarding friends who aren't what they want ideologically. It's easy to sit here in the west and critique others, but much harder to walk in their shoes.

Nationalism has elevated the entire First and Second Worlds to a point where nationalism can only be reactionary. The third is still a mixed bowl and nationalism has its purpose (the Afghans could do with a fair amount of Nationalism and exterminating the Pashtuns would be objective no.1) as they're racked with imperialism. But nobody ever said it was some end goal. And for those who scream "but revolution?", if a revolution will happen it wil happen.(Emphasis added.)

It is not really about conflicting ideologies, but about fundamentally antagonistic class interests.

[alkemest]

Right, so I apologize for not reading the whole thread, I'm tired, but let me give my two cents.

Nationalism can be both a good and bad thing, depending on how it's used. For example, as has been pointed out (and in one of it's most extreme examples) you had the Nazis which were nationalists, extremely so, and as such it was used to justify atrocities not really mirrored anywhere else throughout history. It allowed otherwise good people to justify, or at the least, turn a blind eye to the eradication of millions of innocent people. It is an incredibly powerful tool at any given leaders disposal, granting that he has the will or ability to use it. For example, the Tea Party relies heavily on nationalistic sentiments, and it's reflected in their backwards religious based ideology, unified by a 'common heritage' and their hatred of the 'other', which is the Mexican immigrant now days, as well as strong support for the state through their support of the military and economic power structures.

In contrast to this, you have uprisings like the Zapatistas, which while using nationalism to an extent, remain heavily based in true Marxist and socialist ideologies of universal human rights and true democracy. Nationalism was used as a rallying point, but it was decided upon by the peoples of Chiapas, and has not been used to justify brutality on the 'other'. Now, whether this is a byproduct of their relatively small size and relative lack of 'power', is another matter entirely. Judging by everything I've read into about it though, it would seem that it's simply a rallying point as opposed to an ideology of justification for atrocities.

In summary, it's really all dependent on the culture or nation that you're promoting. If your nation historically is strong on human rights, and nationalism takes on an atmosphere of spreading human rights and equality, well then it's a good thing. Sadly, it seems that most instances of nationalism err on the totalitarian/authoritarian side of the spectrum, so I suppose I'd say it's best, overall, to be avoided.

[tallguy]

This is where I've seen many Leftists argue. Now I must say that I am...let's say, wary of Nationalism. It was, after all, Nationalism, alongside Capitalism, that caused both World Wars, that allowed the conservative German states to unify and crush the 1848 leftist revolutions, that caused the slaughtering of millions of innocents in the name of "racial purity" and "eliminating political dissidents", and that has encouraged the dominating police actions of the United States for the last sixty years.

However, as others have informed me, Nationalism was also, at least partially, responsible for the unification of Vietnam to escape the French colonial noose, and then fight off the United States as a near-unified front. Similar ends were achieved with the People's Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of Korea (pre-Juche), the Soviet Union at its inception, and the Republic of Cuba. Nationalism, as these people have elaborated, can unite the disenfranchised of a country into a formidable, solid front that the Capitalist aggressor must crush in its entirety in order to stop.

So, with these arguments laid out, where do you stand on Nationalism? Should it be included in future Socialist revolutions? Should it, in the event of another Socialist-administered state (ala the USSR, PRC, etc.), be official state policy? Should it be completely disavowed as an enemy of the revolution?
National borders are necessary for socialist states to defend themselves against capitalist ones. National borders are not necessary between socialist states who operate exactly the same socialist systems.

[annconn]

It's plays off a false sense of security and identity. It's basically saying We're better than 'B' because we're from 'A'. It's flaw is that if you go so far back we've come from all kind of places anyway so what's there be be so proud about if we're actually not 100% ethnic to a particular nation.

[tallguy]

It's plays off a false sense of security and identity. It's basically saying We're better than 'B' because we're from 'A'. It's flaw is that if you go so far back we've come from all kind of places anyway so what's there be be so proud about if we're actually not 100% ethnic to a particular nation.
Hold on, you are conflating ethnic issues with national ones. They may co-occur, but they may not also.

[CharisaAce]

I am against nationalism. Period.

[tallguy]

I am against nationalism. Period.Fine, so am I. However, if would be wrong to conflate cultural nationalism with national border controls. Whilst they may co-occur, they may also not. I'm not sure if you are doing that, so would you please clarify your position with regards to border controls.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Nationalism feels inherently wrong to me, always has.
Borders are, and always have been, arbitrary and subject to change for any number of reasons throughout history (wars being chief among them). Flags can and have changed, official names of countries change. When a sense of 'pride' in where you happen to have been born is fostered, I think it too often leads to an 'us versus them' attitude that can mutate into racism and bigotry within your own country as well as distrust and hatred for other nations / nationalities.
My sense of unity with anyone is based on class, shared interests / outlooks and ultimately being a fellow human being. The national unity argument creates outsiders who get no choice / say in the matter because they are usually minorities in some artificial way (skin colour, accent, parents' place of birth etc etc).

[tallguy]

Nationalism feels inherently wrong to me, always has.
Borders are, and always have been, arbitrary and subject to change for any number of reasons throughout history (wars being chief among them). Flags can and have changed, official names of countries change. When a sense of 'pride' in where you happen to have been born is fostered, I think it too often leads to an 'us versus them' attitude that can mutate into racism and bigotry within your own country as well as distrust and hatred for other nations / nationalities.
My sense of unity with anyone is based on class, shared interests / outlooks and ultimately being a fellow human being. The national unity argument creates outsiders who get no choice / say in the matter because they are usually minorities in some artificial way (skin colour, accent, parents' place of birth etc etc).
Again, I am seeing a conflation between cultural-nationalism/racism/xenophobia and border controls. The charge often made against the left that it is it's own worst enemy is being illustrated to sadly great effect here.

In a world where the dominant ideological system is implacably hostile to socialism, whilst a no-border policy between allied socialist states would of course be fine, it become a practical necessity for any socialist system to have border controls to protect that fledgling system from hostile capitalist infiltration, Otherwise it's game-over before it begins.

Get-real people, or do you just like playing philosophy in books and on forums as an end in itself?

[Comrade #138672]

Again, I am seeing a conflation between cultural-nationalism/racism/xenophobia and border controls. The charge often made against the left that it is it's own worst enemy is being illustrated to sadly great effect here.Border controls are inherently racist. Whether you call it "culturism", "ethnicism", or xenophobia, does not matter, because it is the same racist shit. Border controls reinforce racism, whether you want it or not.

[servusmoderni]

I believe in international solidarity but I think when it comes to liberating a group of people from Imperialist that Nationalism has it's part to play. But once the said group is liberated I believe the Nationalist thought should wither away to give way to International liberation of all the Proletariat of every country.
Exactly what I wanted to say.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Again, I am seeing a conflation between cultural-nationalism/racism/xenophobia and border controls. The charge often made against the left that it is it's own worst enemy is being illustrated to sadly great effect here.

In a world where the dominant ideological system is implacably hostile to socialism, whilst a no-border policy between allied socialist states would of course be fine, it become a practical necessity for any socialist system to have border controls to protect that fledgling system from hostile capitalist infiltration, Otherwise it's game-over before it begins.

Get-real people, or do you just like playing philosophy in books and on forums as an end in itself?

So, if a 'socilaist' state arises next door to a capitalist one, it better enforce some strict border controls to prevent capitalist infiltrators. Will potential migrants be quizzed on socialist theory? Luggage searched for Ayn Rand or other subversive works?
Seriously, what controls would work best for a 'socialist' state?

(Maybe a big wall with barbed wire?)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Sorry to keep popping in to differentiate my analysis vis-a-vis nations and nationalism, but, yeah, border control seems like one of the points that is way less key to anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle, at least in the sense which borders now exist. Like, the ability to prevent resource extraction, and capitalist activity in a given territory doesn't really require check-points in the way that existing capitalist borders use to prevent the free movement of people.

[tallguy]

Border controls are inherently racist. Whether you call it "culturism", "ethnicism", or xenophobia, does not matter, because it is the same racist shit. Border controls reinforce racism, whether you want it or not.
So, the inescapable, lunatic logic of the above is that if a capitalist army mached into a socialist area and set up in occupation, your position would be that no-one in that socialist area should defend it? Because, of course, if they did, they would be doing so on the basis of a border, actual or implied, wouldn't they. And we can't have that can we cos it would be racist...apparently.

Do you actually want socialism to succeed!? You are giving a very good impression of someone who is far more content to disappear up his own philosophical orifice, just so long as he does so in a philosophically pure and consistent manner. And you are not the only one I have noticed. This place is beginning to seem more and more like a cult than any kind of public debating arena discussing real and viable means by which we get rid of the greedy bastards who are currently running the show.

[Blake's Baby]

There's no such thing as a 'socialist area'.

Why are you trying to defend the concept of the state, tallguy? OK, Comrade #138672 may be mistaken in saying 'borders are inherently racist', because one can believe in the necessity of borders without having a conception of racial hierarchy, but borders are by definition exclusionary. That's what borders are for.

[tallguy]

There's no such thing as a 'socialist area'.

Why are you trying to defend the concept of the state, tallguy? OK, Comrade #138672 may be mistaken in saying 'borders are inherently racist', because one can believe in the necessity of borders without having a conception of racial hierarchy, but borders are by definition exclusionary. That's what borders are for.
Ah yes, I have no problem in agreeing with you that borders are, by their very nature exclusionary. I would argue that exclusion of a hostile force that seeks to destroy a socialist project is a good reason for the existence of border controls. Then again, I am more than prepared to listen to the rational arguments of others for why such border controls would still be a bad idea, even under such circumstances. What I strongly object to, however, is the dumb-assed, mindless, dogmatic platitudes being spewed out on this forum on what seem to be a pretty regular basis. And not just on this thread on this topic, but on a number of topics.

Like I said previously, this kind of mindless bollocks is reminiscent of cult-think.

[tallguy]

Now I have just discovered that if anyone starts a thread that is, presumably, deemed "off-message" it disappears from the "new posts" page almost immediately!

The below is the OP from a new thread that appeared at the top of the "new posts" page around 9pm (18 mins ago). I went to check back on it to make a reply about 5 mins ago and it was gone. Thinking it must have hurriedly moved down the list due to a flurry of new posts elsewhere on the board, I checked though all the pages of new posts. Nope. Gone. Disappeared.

The threads still exists somewhere on the forum's server. I know this because a link to it is in my history folder and I am able to revisit it directly by clicking on the relevant page history. in fact, I can see it is still in the "learning" section of the forum. However, unless someone was specifically looking for it, they would never know of it's existence by simply looking at the new posts page. Or, at least, they would if they were exceptionally quick and/or exceptionally lucky enough to look at that page before the resident censors got there.

Nice.

Okay, this is one alienated working-class person who is done here.


Do you think the radical left is alienating working-class people? There are a few different behaviors and attitudes I encounter among self-proclaimed radical leftists (socialists/communists and anarchists alike) that I feel really alienate working-class people and damage the cause. You may or may not agree, but I surely can't be the only person who feels this way. I'm not suggesting that these problems characterize every leftist movement, but that they are real and damaging.

1) "excessive intellectualism". This is not to say that intellectual activities are bad, but that intellectualism, with its "ivory tower" demeanor, is ultimately a lot of fluffy jargon and rubbish. Unfortunately, there are too many Marxists who like to spend their time arguing over the pettiest and most inconsequential things, often with a holier-than-though attitude. IMO this alienates the same working-class people we are trying to win over. People who are busting their asses working 40, 50, or 60 hours a week working shitty jobs under shitty bosses don't care about the minutiae of this or that leftist school of thought. They have real concerns in the real world. Self-proclaimed Marxists who spend all their time at the coffee shop with their noses in books are not going to relate to the toiling masses. This is why we are painted as "detached" and outdated.

Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that robust political, historical, economic, and so on, discussions and explorations are unimportant, but that the attitudes of most "hyper-intellectual" Marxists are detached from the real world.

2) Reckless hostility to the "sacred" beliefs of others

I am not religious myself. It can be well argued that materialism demands atheism. You should not be stop being hostile to reactionary institutions and traditions. BUT the fact is that many normal, hard-working working class people hold their personal religious and cultural beliefs, whether reactionary or not, closely. So if you want to relate to these people, don't start off the conversation with "Fuck your God!" :rolleyes:

3) "Correcting" other people

Here is the most challenging one to criticize. We should, after all, always stand against homophobia, misogyny, and oppressive attitudes. Nevertheless, there is a way of going about it that is less alienating to most working class people. Like it or not, people are going to say ignorant things. A worker taking his short lunch break might drop the F word or say "that's retarded". You should not join him and ultimately these derogatory remarks have to end. But you also shouldn't say something like "that's ableist, you evil homophobe!". People have been conditioned their whole lives with these attitudes, and they aren't going to stop doing something simply because some holier-than-though pseudo-intellectual leftist told them to stop. I'm just sayin'. Take from this what you will.

The reality is that people out there have concerns that we need to appeal to: they are worried about their wages, their jobs, education, affording healthcare, their children, et cetera. We should, first and foremost, worry about these things. Thoughts?

[Rafiq]

Nationalism is weakness, it is meek and impotent. Remember the revolutionary fire of young Mussolini, and recall it's exstinguishment by nationalist fevor, ironically perceived by him to usher a new era, and Italy became just another bourgeois state.

[Red Shaker]

Nationalism is reactionary. It is saying that I have more in common with my boss because we share a national identity, than with workers from another country. The national liberation struggles of the past have all ended badly.

[Lily Briscoe]

Now I have just discovered that if anyone starts a thread that is, presumably, deemed "off-message" it disappears from the "new posts" page almost immediately!lol I think you need to chill out a little... Once you view a thread under 'new posts' it will no longer continue showing up there (for you) until it receives a new response.

[tallguy]

lol I think you need to chill out a little... Once you view a thread under 'new posts' it will no longer continue showing up there (for you) until it receives a new response.Maybe, maybe not.

However, I am not going to "chill out". This forum is basically a wankathon for folks who would prefer to spew dogmatic ritualised bollocks on the finer points of fuck all while the world burns. I don't lay that charge at everyone on here by any means. But I do lay it at a significant number of posters I have seen.

If this place is actually representative of the so called radical left, then we're basically buggered.

Anyway, I'm off.

[Comrade Chernov]

No, we're not buggered. There's a difference between organizing an army out of the workers for the purpose of crushing the capitalist class, and putting a bunch of people along an imaginary line with instructions to shoot every one of our potential comrades who's trying to cross said imaginary line.

There is no such thing as a "socialist area". Get it through your head - socialism is a global movement. To succeed in the "socialist experiment" requires as a bottom line the destruction of capitalist systems the world over. Border controls are not necessary. Armies of the workers that can mobilize quickly and effectively to continue the spread of the revolution? Sure. But we're not keeping anyone out.

[MaximMK]

Nationalism doesn't unite people. On the contrary it divides people im many modern tribes and tells them they should care for a certain group of people more than the rest of humanity. It is the basis of nazism and other xenophobic ideals. It is the basis of stupid opinions like you are born a certain nationality and u cant do anything to change that. Most of the people think of nationality as something inherited trough blood forever ( especially trough the blood of the father ). They do not see it as an idea made up by people they dont see different nations as just different cultures they see them as something permanent and biological. This is stupid and dangerous.

Where i live even if u declare yourself "no nationality" nationalists will claim exact quote: " That doesnt make ur blood less macedonian!" If u try and say that nationalities are just imaginary cultural groups and as such they didnt exist always nor they have to exist forever you will be labeled as a traitor to your blood heritage.

It is a dangerous thing made up by right wingers to rally the people with a stupid idea that cultural affiliation is passed down trough the blood and u cant ever leave the culture u were born in.


Just another opiate for the masses alongside with religion the two main brainwashing weapons of the right-wing.

[Comrade #138672]

So, the inescapable, lunatic logic of the above is that if a capitalist army mached into a socialist area and set up in occupation, your position would be that no-one in that socialist area should defend it?Obviously workers should defend themselves against invading capitalist armies. I am certainly not denying that. If I were, then you might have been justified in calling me a "lunatic", but since I am not, well...


Because, of course, if they did, they would be doing so on the basis of a border, actual or implied, wouldn't they. And we can't have that can we cos it would be racist...apparently.No. They would do so, not because of imagined borders, but because workers simply do not want to die, with or without borders.


Do you actually want socialism to succeed!? You are giving a very good impression of someone who is far more content to disappear up his own philosophical orifice, just so long as he does so in a philosophically pure and consistent manner. And you are not the only one I have noticed. This place is beginning to seem more and more like a cult than any kind of public debating arena discussing real and viable means by which we get rid of the greedy bastards who are currently running the show.Of course I want socialism to succeed. Of course I am trying to be consistent. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is necessary to be consistent, if we want socialism to succeed. What is so "cult-like" about being opposed to nationalism, which is nothing more than bourgeois ideology? You know, the ideology of the enemy. I do not see what is "real" and "viable" about endorsing bourgeois ideology. It is counter-productive and keeps us locked inside the system we are supposedly fighting against.

[Blake's Baby]

Ah yes, I have no problem in agreeing with you that borders are, by their very nature exclusionary. I would argue that exclusion of a hostile force that seeks to destroy a socialist project is a good reason for the existence of border controls...

Are you talking about a war? I don't think they stop for passport control.

If you're not talking about a war then I don't know what your 'socialist area' or 'socialist project' is. Care to explain it?

[Zizz01010101]

I believe that if the people are happy with their government, they are happy with their nation. Thus, it stands to reason that one would also be proud of/loyal to that nation which seems to be a good thing to me.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Nationalism doesn't unite people. On the contrary it divides people im many modern tribes and tells them they should care for a certain group of people more than the rest of humanity.

Of course, false internationalism doesn't unite people either, but upholds real material national differences. It is precisely putting "a certain group of people" - ie those in the imperial and colonial nations! - ahead of all others!


It is the basis of nazism and other xenophobic ideals. It is the basis of stupid opinions like you are born a certain nationality and u cant do anything to change that.

See, I think you're really conflating two things here - xenophobia and racism, while undoubtedly part of bourgeois nationalism, and undoubtedly counter to internationalism, aren't necessarily part of nations (which emerge from shared historical experience, culture, language, etc. and attendant juridico-political formations). Looking to historical "North American" indigenous nations, "nationality" was neither racial (as it became under colonialism) nor innate, but premised on shared life.


Most of the people think of nationality as something inherited trough blood forever ( especially trough the blood of the father ). They do not see it as an idea made up by people they dont see different nations as just different cultures they see them as something permanent and biological. This is stupid and dangerous.

I agree wholeheartedly! However, I think you're committing a serious error in suggesting that nations were simply "made up" - we need to understand their historical development the way we understand race or gender. Nations emerge historically out of real material relationships that have to be grappled with and understood - this has to be the concrete basis for real internationalism. In the same way we'd never say, "Women and queers, unite with patriarchal men to build the struggle against patriarchy!" we need to see why it's equally hogwash to say, "Colonized and super-exploited peoples, unite with imperialism to struggle against imperialism!"


Where i live even if u declare yourself "no nationality" nationalists will claim exact quote: " That doesnt make ur blood less macedonian!" If u try and say that nationalities are just imaginary cultural groups and as such they didnt exist always nor they have to exist forever you will be labeled as a traitor to your blood heritage.

And certainly, those of us in oppressor nations should be traitors to our "blood heritage"! In my own context, I believe I should absolutely say, "I am a settler Canadian, and I wish to be a traitor to Canada!"


It is a dangerous thing made up by right wingers to rally the people with a stupid idea that cultural affiliation is passed down trough the blood and u cant ever leave the culture u were born in.

Just another opiate for the masses alongside with religion the two main brainwashing weapons of the right-wing.

See, the thing is, it's not "made up" - try crossing a border without a passport and see how far you get. To be properly internationalist, we need to confront this reality head on!

[AntiFascism]

The ethnic, blood and soil, racist, fascist nationalism should obviously be condemned. But I am in favour of the anti-imperialist/colonial national liberation struggles of groups like the Palestinians, Irish Republicans, Basques, Bretons, Corsicans et al. Anything that will weaken imperialism should be welcomed. Secession of these smaller nations will also lead to greater cooperation: smaller countries will need to become part of regional federations to survive and this will foster the right conditions for healthy and mutual internationalism. I think Lenin basically said the same thing. All nations must have autonomy and independence for internationalism to be truly mutually beneficial and voluntary.

However, I condemn the bourgeois separatist groups like the Padanian nationalists or Azeri separatists in Iran which is basically only supported by the wealthy elites.

[Dagoth Ur]

Internationalism isn't an overnight phenomenon. You win your own nation, then you help workers around the world, and especially your periphery, to liberate their own nations. People liberate themselves and like it or not national identity is a real concern of the working class . Socialism is the only way to erode such sentiments, not sloganeering not idealism, material motherfucking results.

Internationalism is nations truly working together, not zero nations.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Internationalism isn't an overnight phenomenon. You win your own nation, then you help workers around the world, and especially your periphery, to liberate their own nations. People liberate themselves and like it or not national identity is a real concern of the working class . Socialism is the only way to erode such sentiments, not sloganeering not idealism, material motherfucking results.

Internationalism is nations truly working together, not zero nations.

:laugh:

Were you born brainwashed or did you have to work on it?

[Dagoth Ur]

Great response. Did it take you long to figure out that brain-buster?

[Remus Bleys]

Great response. Did it take you long to figure out that brain-buster?

Yes in the communist manifesto marx said that the proletariat of each nation would rebel and spread to other nations and establish its dictatorship.
But in principles of communism, engels noted that the proletarian revolution, the change in the mode of production, the establishment of socialism, had to be worldwide. Socialism in one country finds no basis in marxism.

Its interesting you would use the line found in the communist manifesto because I seem to recall the idea that "the workers have no country".

[Remus Bleys]

Maybe, maybe not.

However, I am not going to "chill out". This forum is basically a wankathon for folks who would prefer to spew dogmatic ritualised bollocks on the finer points of fuck all while the world burns. I don't lay that charge at everyone on here by any means. But I do lay it at a significant number of posters I have seen.

If this place is actually representative of the so called radical left, then we're basically buggered.

Anyway, I'm off.

Hey there. Fuck you too buddy.
Itt assholes who would "update" and "revise" marxism to make it compatible with nationalism, stripping communism of its revolutionary fury.
Revleft is hardly representive of the left, but both the left and revleft suck, but what are you going to do in a non revolutionary situation?
Also this horseshit about the post not showing up ...... have you never used the internet before?

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

Nationalism causes unneeded conflict and struggle between a human race that used to be undivided by borders. It also breeds extreme reactionaries like those from our friends at SF. However, it can sometimes be loaned to a revolution to foment cohesion among workers and use the argument that multi-national corporations go against our nationalistic values thereby creating even more dissent. Then, once the revolution is complete, it can be disposed of in a convenient fashion. After all, the Vietnamese workers' fought under a national flag for 30 years against Japanese, French, and then American imperialism.

[G4b3n]

Nationalism of the oppressors, i.e, western powers is not only undesirable but is dangerous and ought to be combated. Nationalism of the oppressed, while undesirable in terms of the worker's interests, is not inherently dangerous and has been used as means to weaken imperialism (while the former is a means to enforce imperialism).

[reb]

Internationalism isn't an overnight phenomenon. You win your own nation, then you help workers around the world, and especially your periphery, to liberate their own nations. People liberate themselves and like it or not national identity is a real concern of the working class . Socialism is the only way to erode such sentiments, not sloganeering not idealism, material motherfucking results.

Internationalism is nations truly working together, not zero nations.

In what way is "Internationalism is nations truly working together, not zero nations" not sloganeering?

This is such a backwards reading of what internationalism is that it's almost reactionary. You're just trying to appropriate bourgeois structures and abstractions for the "benefit" of working class interests, a thoroughly anti-communist and social-democratic position, instead of actually addressing capital as a world wide system with it's own objective movements.

[reb]

Again, I am seeing a conflation between cultural-nationalism/racism/xenophobia and border controls. The charge often made against the left that it is it's own worst enemy is being illustrated to sadly great effect here.

In a world where the dominant ideological system is implacably hostile to socialism, whilst a no-border policy between allied socialist states would of course be fine, it become a practical necessity for any socialist system to have border controls to protect that fledgling system from hostile capitalist infiltration, Otherwise it's game-over before it begins.

Get-real people, or do you just like playing philosophy in books and on forums as an end in itself?

Here's your problem. You're the one that's spewing out dogmatic understandings of what socialism is when you say "socialists states" as if they've ever been anything other than anti-communist and anti-proletarian emancipation.

[laoch na phoblacht]

nationalism can be a tool to counter western imperial hegemony there i support nationalism as part of anti colonialism not jingoistic European and american nationalism

[reb]

nationalism can be a tool to counter western imperial hegemony [...]

In the name of supporting your own bourgeoisie and your own imperialism and hegemony. No where has this ever led to socialism or the abolition of capital.

[MaximMK]

Of course, false internationalism doesn't unite people either, but upholds real material national differences. It is precisely putting "a certain group of people" - ie those in the imperial and colonial nations! - ahead of all others!



See, I think you're really conflating two things here - xenophobia and racism, while undoubtedly part of bourgeois nationalism, and undoubtedly counter to internationalism, aren't necessarily part of nations (which emerge from shared historical experience, culture, language, etc. and attendant juridico-political formations). Looking to historical "North American" indigenous nations, "nationality" was neither racial (as it became under colonialism) nor innate, but premised on shared life.



I agree wholeheartedly! However, I think you're committing a serious error in suggesting that nations were simply "made up" - we need to understand their historical development the way we understand race or gender. Nations emerge historically out of real material relationships that have to be grappled with and understood - this has to be the concrete basis for real internationalism. In the same way we'd never say, "Women and queers, unite with patriarchal men to build the struggle against patriarchy!" we need to see why it's equally hogwash to say, "Colonized and super-exploited peoples, unite with imperialism to struggle against imperialism!"



And certainly, those of us in oppressor nations should be traitors to our "blood heritage"! In my own context, I believe I should absolutely say, "I am a settler Canadian, and I wish to be a traitor to Canada!"



See, the thing is, it's not "made up" - try crossing a border without a passport and see how far you get. To be properly internationalist, we need to confront this reality head on!



When i say made up i don't want to say that it happened overnight. What im trying to say is that its a concept created by humans that doesn't exist biologically. Nationalism can be used to unite the people of an oppressed country to overthrow the others but that is wrong. When their union is based on their nationality they are not likely to accept others in it. They will see it as a fight of their nation against the other oppressing ones with this generalizing all the people of the nation-oppressor as all evil when its not true. When they look back they will see a war between nations that will just breed hate towards other nations and praise to theirs. Eventually all oppressed nations after they liberate with a national-war turn into oppressors themselves with the right wing using these war between nations to breed national hatred and create the image of their nation being still under threat and having to fight against all these other evil nations that still threaten them. ( Example: People in the Balkans )

Now if they united not based on nationality but purely based on class division of a government oppressing a group of people since all these oppression are actually not equal divisions of capital making one group rich on the sake of other they should be united by the idea of fighting the government that oppresses them as a mass of people united by poverty, bad living standards etc. That way people of other nationalities can join even people that belong to the nationality of the oppressors and it will not be a war of a nations but a war of two classes divided by ownership of the means of production and power in the state.

Thats why i think that nationalism has no place in the revolution and that is my answer to the poll because if we want a truly united and internationalist community we cannot base its creation on national struggle and war but on a struggle of oppressed class with oppressor class, of people who don't like their society with the people in power.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Nationalism of the oppressors, i.e, western powers is not only undesirable but is dangerous and ought to be combated. Nationalism of the oppressed, while undesirable in terms of the worker's interests, is not inherently dangerous and has been used as means to weaken imperialism (while the former is a means to enforce imperialism). so anti-imperialism is cool even if its nationalist proponents have no qualms with outlawing or straight up shooting communist/working class organizations

Also I have a general question how on earth did shitty left-tribalist groups like the FLQ and the ETA get sincere supporters

[tachosomoza]

so anti-imperialism is cool even if its nationalist proponents have no qualms with outlawing or straight up shooting communist/working class organizations

What is not cool is to deny oppressed groups the right to self determination and the right to band together as a nation to enable the breaking the ankles of the imperialists and slave drivers with their boots on their necks. Freedom from imperialist exploitation is top priority to an oppressed people. That's why communists were active in the ANC during apartheid times and in the US civil rights/black/chicano power movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

[o well this is ok I guess]

What is not cool is to deny oppressed groups the right to self determination and the right to band together as a nation biggest denial of agency around. Grouping everyone around with an abstract community, even where real community is lacking. local and minority opinions are disregarded, as the general will (that of "the nation" or anti-imperialism or whatever) takes priority on the political stage.
Let's phrase this simply. Would a trotskyist support a state of affairs in which trotskyism would be looked at unfavourably? Or does the trotskyist assume that uncritical anti-imperialism makes it generally likeable/bulletproof?


Freedom from imperialist exploitation is top priority to an oppressed people. That's why communists were active in the ANC during apartheid times and in the US civil rights/black/chicano power movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Freedom from overseas exploitation! Power to local exploitation! The filipino ilustrado is washed of his sins for his patriotism, regardless of his reliance on wage labour and absentee land ownership (which it has no intention of abolishing, no less).

[tachosomoza]

Freedom from overseas exploitation! Power to local exploitation! The filipino ilustrado is washed of his sins for his patriotism, regardless of his reliance on wage labour and absentee land ownership (which it has no intention of abolishing, no less).

Would you have been against the Haitian Revolution? The ANC/MK? The colonial revolutions against the Spanish? Nobody is washed of his sins, but in a struggle against overseas exploitation and slavery or the oppression of a nation within the state, such as blacks in South Africa or the United States, the liberation of the oppressed nation from said exploitation and slavery should be the first priority, not stirring up internal strife and hatreds to further drive apart the oppressed group to the benefit of none but the outside boss. When you're oppressed as an ethnic group or as a "race", internal strife and confusion distracts from the goal of liberation.

A Trotskyist wouldn't sit idly by as a group suffers under imperialist oppression and worry whether or not they'd come hang him just because he's a Trotskyist. They shouldn't, because he would undyingly support their freedom struggle as a Marxist and out of solidarity.

[tachosomoza]

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1970/no043/trotsky2.htm



Leon Trotsky: Self-Determination for
the American Negroes
Coyoacan, Mexico
April 4, 1939



We cannot say to them, ‘Stay here, even at the price of economic progress’. We can say, ‘It is for you to decide. If you wish to take a part of the country, it is all right, but we do not wish to make the decision for you.





We must foresee that their reaction will show its power during the revolution. They will enter with a great distrust of the whites. We must remain neutral in the matter and hold the door open for both possibilities and promise our full support if they wish to create their own independent state.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Would you have been against the Haitian Revolution? The ANC/MK? The colonial revolutions against the Spanish? Nobody is washed of his sins, but in a struggle against overseas exploitation and slavery or the oppression of a nation within the state, such as blacks in South Africa or the United States, the liberation of the oppressed nation from said exploitation and slavery should be the first priority, not stirring up internal strife and hatreds to further drive apart the oppressed group to the benefit of none but the outside boss. When you're oppressed as an ethnic group or as a "race", internal strife and confusion distracts from the goal of liberation. Mohammed Ja'far on Palestine

Let us suppose, just for a moment, that Tamari's theory is correct and that the creation of a bourgeos Palestinian state will, by solving the national question, give rise 'for the first time' to conditions necessary for the class emancipation of the Palestinian workers and peasants. It follows then that Palestinian socialists like Tamari would have to postpone their fight for socialism and struggle alongside a barely existing Palestinian bourgeoisie through, or in alliance with, its political organisation - the PLO - for the purpose of establishing the PLO's objective of a Palestinian state. The creation of this state, solving the Palestinian national question, thereby opens up a new historical period in which, for the first time presumably, Palestinian socialists will start to struggle against their own bourgeoisie, who will now not only be constituted economically as the dominant class (which they were not before), but will also wield all the considerable resources of a state apparatus. Following through Tamari's reasoning, then, we can say: this ascendency of the Palestinian bourgeoisie will have been achieved by the efforts of the Palestinian masses and the socialists themselves (who else?), who would then be entitled to struggle for liberation from the formidable creature which they themselves will have helped to bring into being!
tl;dr it's a bit ridiculous for working class organization to occur among allegedly working class organizations for interests other than, say, working class interests.
The fuck should I give a shit about social fragmentation at a national level? Am I supposed to prefer indigenous exploiters to white ones? What does national liberation offer one as a worker? As a wage labourer? As someone who has to work for a fucking living? And more to the point, how does indigenous exploitation further the move towards communism moreso than international exploitation?

also, I can't support the haitian revolution without Dessalines? The Philippine revolution without Aguinaldo? Fuck that. Dessalines was a tyrant and Aguinaldo a coward.
By this I mean that I'd rather support the good elements of whatever struggle than just take the lot and run with it. Which, evidently, is not cool in your books, seeing as you'd rather see yourself martyred than towing a different line than the dominant anti-imperial line among anti imperial lines.


A Trotskyist wouldn't sit idly by as a group suffers under imperialist oppression and worry whether or not they'd come hang him just because he's a Trotskyist. They shouldn't, because he would undyingly support their freedom struggle as a Marxist and out of solidarity. will shit man here I was thinking communism was the agenda, not anti-imperial martyrism. I recall reading stories about missionaries being lynched by their flock, and their positive enjoyment of the prospect of a christ-like death. And forgive them, for they know not what they do.
but being sacrificed to a "deformed workers state" like vietnam seems like a shitty way to go, just saying.
Let me rephrase: does dying for/by local bourgeoisie in place of international bourgeoisie really benefit anyone else but the bourgeoisie?

[tachosomoza]

Let me rephrase: does dying for/by local bourgeoisie in place of international bourgeoisie really benefit anyone else but the bourgeoisie?

What part of the slaves that revolted against France was bourgeois? They were slaves, they weren't allowed to own property. They WERE property. What part of the MK was bourgeois? Blacks in South Africa weren't allowed to own property. What part of the slaves in the US were bourgeois?

When you're an oppressed and exploited nation, when you fight to liberate yourself as workers and peasants and students, or fucking slaves, that's exactly what you're doing. Fighting against slavery and oppression. Imperialism is to be combated at all costs, and all oppressed nations are entitled to self-determination. Are you suggesting oppressed nations shouldn't fight to liberate themselves and Vietnam should have remained a French colony or split in two with the bottom half being a corrupt American puppet state?

[DOOM]

Nationalism is the way of the bourgeoise to separate the working men. A true communist/anarchist/whatever can't be a nationalist, it's against the ideas of communism.

[tachosomoza]

A true communist/anarchist/whatever can't be a nationalist, it's against the ideas of communism.

You can support national liberation, and you're supposed to, but you can't be a first world nationalist, no. National liberation is anti imperialism, as is communism.

http://links.org.au/node/164



The colonial and semi-colonial countries of the world—now known as the Third World—have been brought into the capitalist world system by imperialism, but they have not gone through an independent process of capitalist development such as the imperialist powers went through. Their capitalist development has been conditioned by the needs of the imperialist bourgeoisie.

Imperialist domination of the Third World is an insurmountable barrier to their independent industrialisation and development. Imperialism blocks their bourgeois-democratic revolutions. As a result, in the imperialist epoch, the principal content of the national question has been the struggle against imperialism by the oppressed nations, colonies and neo-colonies. The national movements have been driven forward by the working class and rural poor. They are part of the struggle to overthrow imperialism and for socialism.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks, building on the foundations laid by Marx and Engels and applying them to the new era, put great emphasis on the right of oppressed nations to self-determination as part of their revolutionary arsenal, both during the Russian Revolution and in the struggle against world imperialism.

The demand for the right of national self-determination applies only to oppressed nations. It is a democratic political demand that means an oppressed nation has the right to determine its political relationship to the oppressor nation, including the right to secede and form a separate nation-state.

Marxists defend this right, Lenin explained, because "nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice".

[o well this is ok I guess]

What part of the slaves that revolted against France was bourgeois? They were slaves, they weren't allowed to own property. They WERE property. What part of the MK was bourgeois? Blacks in South Africa weren't allowed to own property. What part of the slaves in the US were bourgeois?

When you're an oppressed and exploited nation, when you fight to liberate yourself as workers and peasants and students, or fucking slaves, that's exactly what you're doing. Fighting against slavery and oppression. Imperialism is to be combated at all costs, and all oppressed nations are entitled to self-determination. Are you suggesting oppressed nations shouldn't fight to liberate themselves and Vietnam should have remained a French colony or split in two with the bottom half being a corrupt American puppet state? the part where slaves weren't the only class existing in Haiti. In case you forgot, Mulatto's owned slaves to almost the same degree as the white slave owning population, and many of them flew the red cockade all the same. There's also the part where Dessalines kept the now freed africans on the plantations in, well, much the same way as the old white and mulatto slaveowners did. Liberation!
I suppose at this point you are going to tell me that the bourgeoisie class can only be white, and south africa is actually a deformed workers state? I don't need tell you what's bougie about the MK and the ANC.

Why should I care if vietnam or any other colonial nation is split in two or even three, if none of them can get above "corrupt vietnamese state" or "corrupt american puppet state"? And why should I care about the present state of affairs except insofar as its hostility to left politics?
Seriously bro this sort of abstract anti-imperialism is sort of hollow when wage labour continues either way. You've yet to prove why the french boot is less desirable than the algerian boot, other than fuck the french or whatever.

[tachosomoza]

the part where slaves weren't the only class existing in Haiti. In case you forgot, Mulatto's owned slaves to almost the same degree as the white slave owning population, and many of them flew the red cockade all the same. There's also the part where Dessalines kept the now freed africans on the plantations in, well, much the same way as the old white and mulatto slaveowners did. Liberation!
I suppose at this point you are going to tell me that the bourgeoisie class can only be white, and south africa is actually a deformed workers state? I don't need tell you what's bougie about the MK and the ANC.

Why should I care if vietnam or any other colonial nation is split in two or even three, if none of them can get above "corrupt vietnamese state" or "corrupt american puppet state"? And why should I care about the present state of affairs except insofar as its hostility to left politics?
Seriously bro this sort of abstract anti-imperialism is sort of hollow when wage labour continues either way. You've yet to prove why the french boot is less desirable than the algerian boot, other than fuck the french or whatever.

Oh, I'm sorry that a bunch of newly freed illiterate slaves and peasants who had never seen money before and were used to working under a whip didn't immediately abolish wage labor and set up a socialist utopia. The problem with the left, I think is that we generally want things to happen too fucking fast and we want too much. The real world, especially the third world, doesn't work that way. National liberation of oppressed nations is progressive in and of itself, they aren't going to immediately seize all private lands and organize armies of labor and organize a perfect socialist state. It would be nice and we'd all love it if they did, but if we who live in the industrialized world haven't gotten around to it yet, newly liberated third world nations most certainly aren't and it's very unfair to expect them to do so. The French boot is imperialist and the Algerian boots belong to the Algerian people and the Algerian people have the right to self determination, that's why the French boot is less desirable.

I also see you asking "why should you care". You seem like a selfish sort concerned with only yourself. It's not about you, it's about the oppressed having the right to not suffer under imperialism.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Algerian boots belong to the Algerian people i just
i don't even
wow man i'm a pretty shitty person but i've never seen such a flagrant disregard for human suffering in all my time on this forum

[E-Shock Executioner]

This is where I've seen many Leftists argue. Now I must say that I am...let's say, wary of Nationalism. It was, after all, Nationalism, alongside Capitalism, that caused both World Wars, that allowed the conservative German states to unify and crush the 1848 leftist revolutions, that caused the slaughtering of millions of innocents in the name of "racial purity" and "eliminating political dissidents", and that has encouraged the dominating police actions of the United States for the last sixty years.

However, as others have informed me, Nationalism was also, at least partially, responsible for the unification of Vietnam to escape the French colonial noose, and then fight off the United States as a near-unified front. Similar ends were achieved with the People's Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of Korea (pre-Juche), the Soviet Union at its inception, and the Republic of Cuba. Nationalism, as these people have elaborated, can unite the disenfranchised of a country into a formidable, solid front that the Capitalist aggressor must crush in its entirety in order to stop.

So, with these arguments laid out, where do you stand on Nationalism? Should it be included in future Socialist revolutions? Should it, in the event of another Socialist-administered state (ala the USSR, PRC, etc.), be official state policy? Should it be completely disavowed as an enemy of the revolution?

Simplistic

It's bad stupidity nationalism.

Bam.

[MaximMK]

Nationalism is a way of uniting a group of people we need to unite all of them trough class consciousness not many seperate groups trough nationalist feelings.

"Capital is an international force. To vanquish it, an international workers' alliance, an international workers' brotherhood, is needed.
We are opposed to national enmity and discord, to national exclusiveness. We are internationalists."
Lenin

[keine_zukunft]

Totally against it and is in reality incompatible with communism in it's truest sense. it's the cause of so much oppression and imperialism ironically. i also believe national lib struggles can be somewhat self damaging too, those who experience subjugation by a nation state would want their own nation state so that they can oppress themselves. the fight for real autonomy becomes forgotten in nationalist struggles.

[Celtanarchy]

I'm not really a nationalist, but I do love my heritage and my country's culture.
Is that such a bad thing?:unsure:

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'm not really a nationalist, but I do love my heritage and my country's culture.
Is that such a bad thing?:unsure:

Your heritage sucks, your culture sucks.

Yes, it's a bad thing. It's that sort of unwarranted fancy that leads down the path to nationalism; it is nascent nationalism. There is nothing to love about it. All cultures are sick.

[radiocaroline]

The amount of nationalism in the UK is particularly disgusting. Its almost an inherent phenomena in a country which had so much power over other countries in the heyday of imperial Europe and is full of whining nationalists particularly amongst the working classes, who's ideas have been sculpted by moral panics in the media over immigration. It is sad to see when we need a united class struggle amongst all ethnics in a country who share the economic struggle of the proletarian class, instead of the fragmented causes of nationalist groups.

Overall I believe that nationalism is a hindering cause against international communism as in the global capitalist system people see the liberation of national minorities in oppressive countries as the main struggle of the people of the world.

However, ultimately many many years from now when almost all nationalist struggles are solved, the proletariat will still be exploited exactly how they have been for the last 3 centuries. This time however the realisation that all along, the international class struggle and the fight for communism is the only way to completely eradicate inequality in the world we live in.

Nationalism is by no means good, but I believe it will always exist, particularly in the minds of those subject to the right-wing media.

Cultures create nationalism and nationalism inevitably creates state narcissism and the immoral organisation of patriots against each other in pretense of a nation state.

Regardless of the fact that it is the main cause of war!

[tallguy]

Your heritage sucks, your culture sucks.

Yes, it's a bad thing. It's that sort of unwarranted fancy that leads down the path to nationalism; it is nascent nationalism. There is nothing to love about it. All cultures are sick.
All cultures are sick are they? From this, we may logically extrapolate that all socially cohesive interactions are sick, since it is such interactions which are the engines of cultures. From which we may further logically extrapolate that the social instinct itself is sick, since it is this that provides the fundamental foundation to all of the above.

That's the problem with logic. Whilst it may be reliable, if its underlying assumptions are invalid, it's just so much bollocks.

[Tenka]

All cultures are sick are they? From this, we may logically extrapolate that all socially cohesive interactions are sick, since it is such interactions which are the engines of cultures.

No, we may not.


From which we may further logically extrapolate that the social instinct itself is sick, since it is this that provides the fundamental foundation to all of the above.

No, we may not.


That's the problem with logic. Whilst it may be reliable, if its underlying assumptions are invalid, is just so much bollocks.

Indeed, as you have yourself shown. How do you come to the idea that something that gives rise to something else is sick because that thing which it gave rise to is sick? Cultures are very complex, and yet almost stereotyped today; they do not exist independent of their context, after all. Every national culture is holding us back from realising the world culture of the proletariat; every national culture promulgates myth and division and is therefore sick, at least when considered apart from the global culture (which today is bourgeois and equally sick).

[tallguy]

No, we may not.



No, we may not.



Indeed, as you have yourself shown. How do you come to the idea that something that gives rise to something else is sick because that thing which it gave rise to is sick? Cultures are very complex, and yet almost stereotyped today; they do not exist independent of their context, after all. Every national culture is holding us back from realising the world culture of the proletariat; every national culture promulgates myth and division and is therefore sick, at least when considered apart from the global culture (which today is bourgeois and equally sick).
He/she didn't merely suggest national cultures are sick. He/she suggested all cultures are sick including, presumably, a "world culture of the proletariat". Which is just about the dumbest thing I have read in some time.

[Tenka]

He/she didn't merely suggest national cultures are sick. He/she suggested all cultures are sick including, presumably, a "world culture of the proletariat". Which is just about the dumbest thing I have read in some time.

But a revolutionary world culture of the proletariat doesn't exist (added revolutionary to make clear that this would be the culture of the proletarian dictatorship. Culture in Communism is necessarily global; there is no room for national cultures). All cultures that exist today are indeed sick. I think you are just disagreeing for the sake of it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Your heritage sucks, your culture sucks.

Yes, it's a bad thing. It's that sort of unwarranted fancy that leads down the path to nationalism; it is nascent nationalism. There is nothing to love about it. All cultures are sick.

This is ridiculous. Who the fuck are you to tell someone that they shouldn't be interested in an aspect of the history and culture that is local and regional to them?

This is not an anti-nationalist attitude you are displaying, it is an ahistorical, cultural vandalism.

Why the fuck should someone feel guilty about investigating history that is local/regional/national to them? It doesn't necessarily mean someone is proud of it, it doesn't mean they are exceptionalist or triumphalist.

[RedAnarchist]

I'm a family historian, I like to research my family tree and I like to find out more about my ancestors and their lives as working class people in Britain and Ireland. One thing you really find out about this sort of thing is that most people are just trying to make a living, just trying to put food on the table, just trying to keep themselves and their families alive. Some of my family fought in the world wars, against other working class people who happened to be from Germany or some other country the UK was fighting. Some never made it back to Britain, being buried in Belgium or Malta or elsewhere, fighting a war that the ruling classes of all involved nations started.

Nationalism is a deadly enemy of the worker.

[Bala Perdida]

All cultures have their sick side. But the positives are what is to be studied and held. Music, food, clothing, art. Other aspects of culture and traditions should be added if they promote mutual aid and egalitarianism. Racism and cultural casts shall be dropped. I'm very into Latin American culture myself, but the some ideas that have been built into modern day Latin American society and culture are quiet horrendous.

[Tenka]

This is ridiculous. Who the fuck are you to tell someone that they shouldn't be interested in an aspect of the history and culture that is local and regional to them?

This is not an anti-nationalist attitude you are displaying, it is an ahistorical, cultural vandalism.

Why the fuck should someone feel guilty about investigating history that is local/regional/national to them? It doesn't necessarily mean someone is proud of it, it doesn't mean they are exceptionalist or triumphalist.

Did you even read what she was responding to?


I'm not really a nationalist, but I do love my heritage and my country's culture.
Is that such a bad thing?:unsure:
(bold mine)

And yes, it does reek of nascent nationalism. I do not believe pointing that out is ahistorical. It would be good if it was cultural vandalism.

[tachosomoza]

And yes, it does reek of nascent nationalism. I do not believe pointing that out is ahistorical. It would be good if it was cultural vandalism.

You're not going to tell me that as a person of partial African and jewish descent, that I can't study and learn from the struggles, history and cultures of those groups. You can study and respect something without thinking that it's better than something else.

Seriously, this fucking hostile attitude is not going to win us anything, people already think that this is how leftists behave, why would you confirm it by saying venomous shit like this? Somebody hears us say this condescending bullshit, they run off and go fascist or reactionary.

[Krasnyy]

I'm not really a nationalist, but I do love my heritage and my country's culture.
Is that such a bad thing?:unsure:
Then you're kind of a National Bolshevist.

[Sinister Intents]

Then you're kind of a National Bolshevist.
No..... National Bolshevism is Nazism, but for Nazi's that like Stalin.

[Derendscools]

I'm very into Latin American culture myself,

Ha, me too.

[Per Levy]

Seriously, this fucking hostile attitude is not going to win us anything, people already think that this is how leftists behave, why would you confirm it by saying venomous shit like this?

who is us? and what do we want to win? seriously the "revolutionary left" has made concessions to any group ever, to nationalists, religious fundamentalists, national bourgoisie and what not, mostly it got those leftists bullets in the head. and more seriously, we arnt a culture heritage society but all for class struggle.


Somebody hears us say this condescending bullshit, they run off and go fascist or reactionary.

that somebody would be quite pathetic "someone said something i dont like so now im a fash", i have my doubts that anybody thinks that way.

[tachosomoza]

There's a difference between saying things that people don't like and being downright nasty/insulting people. Not being a rude asshole isn't a concession, and you can be an anti nationalist while also having an interest in and enjoyment of certain cultures that are local or in some other way connected to you. How dare you go up to an African American or Latino or Jewish or Irish comrade and tell them to fuck their culture and to not study their history because they might become national chauvinists? Fuck you.

[Celtanarchy]

Oh shit haha, I didn't think my reply would have started so much conversataion.
Let me clarify what I meant, probably in better wording this time. Hear me out. I'm an Anarchist. I really love the history of Ireland and surrouding Celtic countries. I believe in the preservation of Irish culture. Infact I believe in the preservation of any culture that a country/region has, and that it should be important to the people of that country, if they want it to be. I think anyone should be allowed to be proud of their culture and ancestors, without being made out as evil by other "anti-fascists" for celebrating what they love.
I think that anyone who tells someone that their culture is evil, and shouldn't be celebrated, is a fascist.
Sorry if this is poorly written but I'm in a rush.

[Chainsaw]

I firmly believe that Nationalism is a powerful tool for recruiting an otherwise disinterested population into revolutionary activity.

It can be an effective means of protection from global capitalist claws in a state undergoing transformation into another mode of production.

That being said, looking at the world realistically, with its imperialism and Trillionaire elites that will stop at nothing to protect their money and their potential investments, we need precursor states and systems before we can achieve the method of human management that we want.

[Derendscools]

I'm not really a nationalist, but I do love my heritage and my country's culture.
Is that such a bad thing?:unsure:

I've got to say, the first time I heard Irish, I thought it was the most beautiful language I've ever heard.

[Per Levy]

I'm an Anarchist. I really love the history of Ireland and surrouding Celtic countries. I believe in the preservation of Irish culture. Infact I believe in the preservation of any culture that a country/region has, and that it should be important to the people of that country, if they want it to be.

culture is always changing, adapting to new times, to new ways of thinking and thats why i think "preserving" culture is pretty much impossible.


I think anyone should be allowed to be proud of their culture and ancestors,

i always find it weird that people are proud on things that they had no influence on and that only by luck of birth they are part of.


I think that anyone who tells someone that their culture is evil, and shouldn't be celebrated, is a fascist.

i think you should read up on what fascism is and not just use it as an insult to peeps who dont agree with your views.

[CanadianRed]

I'm not sure what to think about nationalism.

I think that the world would be better off without any nationalism. That probably isn't likely to happen any time soon. My basic views on it are that it seems like it could be a very useful tool, but also -as history has proven- very dangerous.

Aside from that, I think nationalism is stupid. How can you logically take pride in something that you personally had nothing whatsoever to do with?

Perhaps nationalism for some people is justified. For example; If we successfully create a leftist paradise of some kind. Again, though, the danger of that... when one gets caught up in nationalism they can do insane things.

"Nothing is more dangerous than armed men with utopian dreams".

[Comrade Thomas]

It is cancerous.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

fuck nationalism, been there done that and that shit is stupid.

[Remus Bleys]

Why is this thread still around?

[#FF0000]

Why is this thread still around?

why are YOU still around?

[Remus Bleys]

why are YOU still around?

I don't know I keep trying to leave. Every now and then I guess the prospect of something beneficial to someone somewhere is keeping me around, and that happens just enough for me to be convinced that'll happen every time because I'm stupid I guess.

[#FF0000]

I don't know I keep trying to leave. Every now and then I guess the prospect of something beneficial to someone somewhere is keeping me around, and that happens just enough for me to be convinced that'll happen every time because I'm stupid I guess.



same

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I don't know I keep trying to leave. Every now and then I guess the prospect of something beneficial to someone somewhere is keeping me around, and that happens just enough for me to be convinced that'll happen every time because I'm stupid I guess.

dude...wat

[Marshal of the People]

Ethnic nationalism is horrible (I mean really horrible), disgusting and literally evil and would hinder the formation of a socialist or communist society.

I also hate civic nationalism (this would also severely impede the formation of a socialist or communist society), however it is nowhere near as bad as ethnic nationalism and isn't as destructive. Civic nationalism has been useful in holding states together (India, Britain, America) however it is of no use in a socialist society due to the fact that it focuses on a single nation and is counterproductive to uniting the people of the world together in a single society free of boundaries or restrictions.

[Dagoth Ur]

Ethnic nationalism can be progressive vis a vis liberation struggles by oppressed minorities, and even played a significant role in the expanse of capitalism itself which is also progressive. Soviet "Nationalism" was also laudable as it was about being several distinct peoples under one banner working harmoniously.

But I'm from America and white so nationalism will do nothing for me or my oppressed fellows.

[Thirsty Crow]

Ethnic nationalism can be progressive vis a vis liberation struggles by oppressed minorities, and even played a significant role in the expanse of capitalism itself which is also progressive. Soviet "Nationalism" was also laudable as it was about being several distinct peoples under one banner working harmoniously.

But I'm from America and white so nationalism will do nothing for me or my oppressed fellows.
What you here call "progressive" is the formation of a nation-state and a separate unified national market; it's basically the formation of a distinct bourgeoisie.

As you correctly note, once this indeed fueled social development and could be legitimately called progressive (on the grounds of eliminating the old feudal ties and that particular web of oppression and exploitation, and clearing the way for a) the development of the productive forces capable of ensuring the material basis for communism and b) the development of that specific productive force, the proletariat, which is a potential gravedigger of global capitalism).

But the thing is, these days are long, long gone. They were long gone with the post-WWII decolonization struggles as well.

What this means is this: it is completely disastrous for communists to think ethnic nationalism can be progressive in any way today. This can only produce a terrible political confusion and completely stunt any possibility for the development of the organizations of communists.

[Dagoth Ur]

What you here call "progressive" is the formation of a nation-state and a separate unified national market; it's basically the formation of a distinct bourgeoisie.
Duh. This is 101 tier shit.


As you correctly note, once this indeed fueled social development and could be legitimately called progressive (on the grounds of eliminating the old feudal ties and that particular web of oppression and exploitation, and clearing the way for a) the development of the productive forces capable of ensuring the material basis for communism and b) the development of that specific productive force, the proletariat, which is a potential gravedigger of global capitalism).
There are still peasants and feudal structures in the world. Hence nationalism still has a historic task to accomplish (like Tibet for example).


But the thing is, these days are long, long gone. They were long gone with the post-WWII decolonization struggles as well.
They're gone for us westerners only because their task has been accomplished. Well at least for us white people. Black Nationalism still has a role to play in the west for example.


What this means is this: it is completely disastrous for communists to think ethnic nationalism can be progressive in any way today. This can only produce a terrible political confusion and completely stunt any possibility for the development of the organizations of communists.
Every national liberation movement contains communists. Most famous communists of the 20th cut their teeth in national liberation struggles. I'm not saying we need nationalism but to act as though it has no more work to do is absurd especially considering the abject weakness of the ICM.

[Thirsty Crow]

Duh. This is 101 tier shit. You know what's not really 101 tier? The political implications.

Yugoslavia experienced a deep social-economic crisis in the 80s; the working class didn't remain passive, and militant struggles were widespread.

This was the "deep" backdrop, and a cause to the rise of ethnic nationalisms back then. Basically, what happened was the federal republics and the state apparatuses found themselves in the position of fierce competition induced by the crisis.

The difference in ethnic nationalisms was that of political strategy; the Great Serbian chauvinism was reborn then with the purpose of keeping the unified state together, albeit with the express purpose of benefiting the republics' local bourgeoisie (not to be sociologically equated with its "Western" counter-part) and that only meant Serbian dominance.

The Slovene and Croatian bourgeoisie didn't employ the strategy of slugging it out for supremacy within the unified state; on the contrary, national independence was their solution.

Both sides effectively and quite consciously employed nationalism as an ideological stick to pummel workers with; war was the next step in that.

Now, supposing that the argument that Serbian supremacy existed prior to the 80s,and given the fact that Serbian nationalism was effectively on a warpath - meaning that future oppression was guaranteed - what would that mean for communists activity in Croatia and Slovenia?

The answer is clear. Support for their own ethnic bourgeoisie and the formation of separate states.
And losing even the last shreds of class autonomy in the process; completely wrecking any communist organizing that isn't a cesspool of opportunism and outright reformism, but this time with a nice ethnic nationalist flavor. And ultimately, support for the war and the more ambiguous and unfinished project of casting Serbian inhabitants out from the new nation-state.



There are still peasants and feudal structures in the world. Hence nationalism still has a historic task to accomplish (like Tibet for example).
Completely irrelevant.

What you don't get due to your rigid stagist conception is that the only class who's in the position to fulfill any historic task today is the global proletariat.

And as the history of decolonization has shown, especially in Africa, quasi-feudal and colonial structures, once they are removed, don't signal any kind of a capitalist development that is favorable for the working class.

Quite the contrary. These have become what's called the global South, zones where indigenous capital cannot develop in the way to ensure the integration of ever larger laborers into capitalist production and global production/exchange chains. These are surplus populations, redundant people.


They're gone for us westerners only because their task has been accomplished. Well at least for us white people. Black Nationalism still has a role to play in the west for example.
It does have a role to play, and a counter-revolutionary one at that, irrespective of what people participating in it think they're accomplishing.

[Alexios]

But I'm from America and white

really...I never would have guessed!

[Dagoth Ur]

Oh like you're not? :rolleyes:

@LR: ... you seem to have mistaken me for someone who just blindly supports nationalism. I still don't see how you can call black nationalism counterrevolutionary. The Black Panther Party was the most significant revolutionary organization to exist in modern America.

[DOOM]

We don't have to use right wing ideas to spread our theories.
(structural) antisemitism is also a powerful tool for criticizing capitalism. Should we use it?
Well fuck no.

[Dagoth Ur]

Nationalism is not a right wing idea. Back when Leftists were Nationalists the Right was a bunch of monarchists fuckshits. Nationalism itself is neutral, it is its application that determines its spirit.

Also structural antisemitism means nothing and does not critique capitalism at all. If anything it critiques the dumb feudal assholes who would only let jews be bankers, jewelers, and loan sharks.

[synthesis]

It doesn't matter whether nationalism is "right-wing" or "left-wing." It's bourgeois, always has been and always will be. The whole idea and construction of a nation is inherently bourgeois. Nationalism originated in the bourgeois opposition to feudal empires and holds no benefit whatsoever for socialists ever since the feudal empires went out of style, in function if not in form. "Right-wing" nationalism works for the current bourgeoisie of a nation, while "left-wing" nationalism works for the aspiring bourgeoisie of a nation, and neither one of them works for the national or international working class.

[Dagoth Ur]

I don't deny that it is bourgeoisie. National Liberation is a People's struggle. But just because a thing is bourgeoisie does not mean it lacks utility for communists. The state is bourgeoisie and we aim to take that unto ourselves.

Again you don't seem to really be paying attention to my selective support of nationalism. Which is mostly relegated to places where feudalism still rules (ie Saudi Arabia) and where minorities are oppressed at a cultural level. If anyone judged my posts by the responses I get on this topic you'd think I was some White Nationalists agitating for nationalism always and in every circumstance.

[DOOM]

Nationalism is not a right wing idea. Back when Leftists were Nationalists the Right was a bunch of monarchists fuckshits. Nationalism itself is neutral, it is its application that determines its spirit.

Also structural antisemitism means nothing and does not critique capitalism at all. If anything it critiques the dumb feudal assholes who would only let jews be bankers, jewelers, and loan sharks.

Well back in the days liberalism was also a "left" idea. Today we identify it as right wing bullshit.

lol nice joke. Structural antisemitism is the personification of capitalism. It's a really powerful tool, since critique on interest and "banksterism" is really popular and widespread. Does it mean we have to use it? No, because it's wrong and it's bullshit. It's the ideological non-sense that led to national socialism.

The same goes with nationalism. It may be a powerful tool for propaganda and revolution, but it's still wrong. The working men have no country. We communists do not advocate for national liberation, but for the liberation of the working class.

[Dagoth Ur]

Structural Antisemitism is a direct attempt to ignore class relations. Thus it supports capitalist hegemony.

And yes communists have argued for national liberation and self-determination since there have been communists. Revleft is not a good barometer for the tone of the ICM or world communists. No internet site is.

Oh and lastly nothing is wrong when it aids in strengthening the cause for worker's emancipation. Nothing.

[VivalaCuarta]

The class-conscious workers combat all national oppression and all national privileges, but they do not confine themselves to that. They combat all, even the most refined, nationalism, and advocate not only the unity, but also the amalgamation of the workers of all nationalities in the struggle against reaction and against bourgeois nationalism in all its forms. Our task is not to segregate nations, but to unite the workers of all nations. Our banner does not carry the slogan “national culture” but international culture, which unites all the nations in a higher, socialist unity, and the way to which is already being paved by the international amalgamation of capital.

-- V.I. Lenin, "Once More on the Segregation of the Schools According to Nationality," December 1913

[Dagoth Ur]

....... Nationalism is clearly not an end.

[synthesis]

I don't deny that it is bourgeoisie. National Liberation is a People's struggle. But just because a thing is bourgeoisie does not mean it lacks utility for communists. The state is bourgeoisie and we aim to take that unto ourselves.

Again you don't seem to really be paying attention to my selective support of nationalism. Which is mostly relegated to places where feudalism still rules (ie Saudi Arabia) and where minorities are oppressed at a cultural level. If anyone judged my posts by the responses I get on this topic you'd think I was some White Nationalists agitating for nationalism always and in every circumstance.

Well, it's not about "agitating for nationalism always and in every circumstance." Literally nobody does that. It's about never agitating for nationalism in any circumstance. Whether or not some national bourgeoisie has a progressive role to play should be irrelevant to any consistent Marxist. If it's progressive - and I don't think it is - then it will resolve itself without any assistance from socialists, and if socialists don't pick up and retain that bourgeois ideological baggage, we'll be that much stronger for it.

[Dagoth Ur]

National Liberation is not just some national bourgeoisie adventure. It is a worker's struggle that oppressed bourgeoisie latch onto as it directly affects them as well. It should also be noted that communists have participated in every major effort of national liberation of the 20th, many of which in the end resulted in socialist regimes.

Again I don't think liberation or sovereignty have any value on their own.

[Sinister Intents]

National Liberation is not just some national bourgeoisie adventure. It is a worker's struggle that oppressed bourgeoisie latch onto as it directly affects them as well. It should also be noted that communists have participated in every major effort of national liberation of the 20th, many of which in the end resulted in socialist regimes.

Again I don't think liberation or sovereignty have any value on their own.

And what were these 'socialist regimes'?
Edit: I should add I know of many 'socialist regimes' but I don't see any I'd call truly socialist. Also one of the worst of my stoned posts. I should stop posting tsoday