Patriotism and nationalism [Archive]

Edelweiss

7th February 2004, 13:48

[topic split from THIS (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=21931&st=40) thread in music forum]

Originally posted by Rob+Feb 6 2004, 11:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rob @ Feb 6 2004, 11:51 PM)
[email protected] 6 2004, 05:38 AM

No, from what I see the Vikingrock bands are much more aggresively pushing forward nationlist ideas than most Oi! bands. I look at the Ultima Thule site (big swedish flag along with the phrase "the national alternative", this is a clear, reactionary, political statemnt IMO).
So what if they're patriotic? I'm patriotic. And as far as that "reactionary" claim goes, you can find reactionary elements in almost any genre. And I'm not just talking about punk sub-genres here. Any kind of music with lyrics will have some reactionary artist singing, and something reactionary in its roots. [/b]
my point is that, unlike Oi! music, the basic idea of Viking rock is reactionary, for the reasons I have give above.
And yes, I think western patriotism is ALWAYS reactionary. Deeply reactionary indeed. "Patriotism" is a tool of the ruling class to control the masses, and to brainwash the people to serve the national interests instead to fight for the interests of their class, sometimes patriotism can have emancipatory aspects in 3rd world nations, but NEVER in industrial, western nations. National pride doesn't go together with class consciousness. As Marx already said in the manifesto: "The worker has no fatherland".

Bad Grrrl Agro

8th February 2004, 16:53

Originally posted by Malte+Feb 7 2004, 02:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Malte @ Feb 7 2004, 02:48 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 11:51 PM

[email protected] 6 2004, 05:38 AM

No, from what I see the Vikingrock bands are much more aggresively pushing forward nationlist ideas than most Oi! bands. I look at the Ultima Thule site (big swedish flag along with the phrase "the national alternative", this is a clear, reactionary, political statemnt IMO).
So what if they're patriotic? I'm patriotic. And as far as that "reactionary" claim goes, you can find reactionary elements in almost any genre. And I'm not just talking about punk sub-genres here. Any kind of music with lyrics will have some reactionary artist singing, and something reactionary in its roots.
my point is that, unlike Oi! music, the basic idea of Viking rock is reactionary, for the reasons I have give above.
And yes, I think western patriotism is ALWAYS reactionary. Deeply reactionary indeed. "Patriotism" is a tool of the ruling class to control the masses, and to brainwash the people to serve the national interests instead to fight for the interests of their class, sometimes patriotism can have emancipatory aspects in 3rd world nations, but NEVER in industrial, western nations. National pride doesn't go together with class consciousness. As Marx already said in the manifesto: "The worker has no fatherland". [/b]
mexico is in the western hemisphere and there, the zapatistas are patriots who want to make mexico a better place and besides which fidel himself considers himself a cuban patriot. so patriotism can also do good things. it is nationalism that is the enemy.

El Brujo

8th February 2004, 21:30

Originally posted by Malte+Feb 7 2004, 10:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Malte @ Feb 7 2004, 10:54 PM)
El [email protected] 7 2004, 04:10 AM
You can see the same scenario with Decibelios in Spain: Decibelios flew the Spanish flag at their shows so boneheads considered them "one of them" and the WP music scene advanced using Decibelios as an influence (never mind the fact that at least half of their...
I very much prefer Oi bands like Oi Polloi than, once at a concert of them where I have been, they burned a German flag on the stage, and I, like most other anti-fascists there, applauded him for that! The drunken fuck who was trying to prevent it got what he deserved...
What can we learn out of that: Burn flags, don't raise them! :D[/b]
Well, I know if someone burned the big Argentinian flag hanging over my bed I would have a score to settle with them (and so would Che, probably).

Your views on that issue of nationalism and patriotism are quite narrow minded. Yes, I can agree that it is a two-sided weapon that the ruling class can use to their advantage (The war in Iraq for example) but the thing is, the working class in every country is fervently patriotic and to rally for the mass support necessary for a revolution, the people have to be apealed to in such ways. Furthermore, capitalism cannot be defeated without the destruction of imperialism so some form of progressive national revolution is the best way to go. Nationalism and patriotism have had many positive effects in the world aside from the Mexican revolution which Petey pointed out. During the Peron era, the bourgeoisie in my country were considered traitors and allys of western imperialism. Peron stirred up a huge sense of class consciousness ammong all oppressed people, rightfully pointing out that the bourgeoisie didn't care about the advancement of their country and oppressed their own people for self interest. The descamisados, who were Peron's working class supporters, went short of lynching members of the ruling class at rallies and Peron was taken out of prison due to mass pro-nationalist rallies (very much like Chavez was after the coup two years ago). Lets also not forget the left-wing peronist guerrillas, the montoneros (who were supported by Che) that fiercely fought against the CIA backed millitary coup. That is true patriotism, IMO and as a Maoist, I believe nationalism of the oppressed is a form of internationalism and once imperialism is weakened, the working class in the US will turn against the bourgeoisie for ignoring local issues and resorting to expansionism. People who flock behind Bush in the name of "patriotism" are nothing more than self-absorbed pricks with an inferiority complex who just get sadistic pleasure about the US controlling a word empire because they themselves are miserable. As I said, I am uncomfortable with American patriotism but if it has leftist or non-chauvinistic intentions, Im all for it. Whatever the case is, you don't have to be a right-winger to love your country.

In terms of Oi!, nothing beate the Angelic Upstarts. Apart from playing damn good music, they are the Woody Guthrie of Oi!. They love their country, respect others and want the best for their people. Me and Mensi see eye to eye on almost everything.

Edelweiss

9th February 2004, 16:15

Originally posted by El Brujo+Feb 9 2004, 12:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Brujo @ Feb 9 2004, 12:30 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:54 PM

El [email protected] 7 2004, 04:10 AM
You can see the same scenario with Decibelios in Spain: Decibelios flew the Spanish flag at their shows so boneheads considered them "one of them" and the WP music scene advanced using Decibelios as an influence (never mind the fact that at least half of their...
I very much prefer Oi bands like Oi Polloi than, once at a concert of them where I have been, they burned a German flag on the stage, and I, like most other anti-fascists there, applauded him for that! The drunken fuck who was trying to prevent it got what he deserved...
What can we learn out of that: Burn flags, don't raise them! :D
Well, I know if someone burned the big Argentinian flag hanging over my bed I would have a score to settle with them (and so would Che, probably).

Your views on that issue of nationalism and patriotism are quite narrow minded. Yes, I can agree that it is a two-sided weapon that the ruling class can use to their advantage (The war in Iraq for example) but the thing is, the working class in every country is fervently patriotic and to rally for the mass support necessary for a revolution, the people have to be apealed to in such ways. Furthermore, capitalism cannot be defeated without the destruction of imperialism so some form of progressive national revolution is the best way to go. Nationalism and patriotism have had many positive effects in the world aside from the Mexican revolution which Petey pointed out. During the Peron era, the bourgeoisie in my country were considered traitors and allys of western imperialism. Peron stirred up a huge sense of class consciousness ammong all oppressed people, rightfully pointing out that the bourgeoisie didn't care about the advancement of their country and oppressed their own people for self interest. The descamisados, who were Peron's working class supporters, went short of lynching members of the ruling class at rallies and Peron was taken out of prison due to mass pro-nationalist rallies (very much like Chavez was after the coup two years ago). Lets also not forget the left-wing peronist guerrillas, the montoneros (who were supported by Che) that fiercely fought against the CIA backed millitary coup. That is true patriotism, IMO and as a Maoist, I believe nationalism of the oppressed is a form of internationalism and once imperialism is weakened, the working class in the US will turn against the bourgeoisie for ignoring local issues and resorting to expansionism. People who flock behind Bush in the name of "patriotism" are nothing more than self-absorbed pricks with an inferiority complex who just get sadistic pleasure about the US controlling a word empire because they themselves are miserable. As I said, I am uncomfortable with American patriotism but if it has leftist or non-chauvinistic intentions, Im all for it. Whatever the case is, you don't have to be a right-winger to love your country.

In terms of Oi!, nothing beate the Angelic Upstarts. Apart from playing damn good music, they are the Woody Guthrie of Oi!. They love their country, respect others and want the best for their people. Me and Mensi see eye to eye on almost everything. [/b]
As I already said, patriotism/nationalism (I don't make a difference) can have emancipatory aspects in 3rd world countries, I do not deny that. Nevertheless is it a very bourgeois concept that I entirely reject, as every communist should do IMO. Us communists, especially in 1st world nations, should do everything to get class consciousness into the heads of the people, and national consciousness out of the heads, which have been brainwashed by the bourgesie to emotionally assiciate with their nation. That is an inevitable conclusion out of Marx's writings for me, it would be diametricly against the interests of the exploited class to support and impel national ideas.
The exploited class has to realize not to fight for the intrerests of their nation, which just are some lines on a map (made by foreign, imperialist powers in the case of Argentinia BTW), but for the interests of their class, that is true internationalism, not your Maoist twaddling that "oppresed nationalism" is internationalism. And so is Che a true internationalist, who was born Argentinian, and still was willing to fight for the weak, exploited and oppresed of all nations likewise.
Communists movements shouldn't unneccissarily appeal to national sentiments, that would be blatant opputunism, as the ulimative goal of the communist society is the abolishment of the nation state.

Saint-Just

10th February 2004, 14:13

If patriotism and nationalism were to disappear entirely culture and language would have to disappear since in loving your culture or language you are identifying with your national character. Are culture and language undesirable? I don't think they are although their existence will inevitably mean a lack of understanding and communication between different nations.

Elect Marx

10th February 2004, 14:57

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 10 2004, 03:13 PM
If patriotism and nationalism were to disappear entirely culture and language would have to disappear since in loving your culture or language you are identifying with your national character. Are culture and language undesirable? I don't think they are although their existence will inevitably mean a lack of understanding and communication between different nations.
How are patriotism and nationalism linked to national bounderies? Language is based on culture but I don't see that culture must have anything to do with a nation. Actually there are many cultural and counter cultures groups that have no connection to nations. Just because some cultures adopt a nationalist attitude, doesn't mean they need to.

As long as the nations are co-operative, there is no reason to grow apart. Take it a step farther and abolish the national bounderies.

I don't understand how you can believe these things Chairman Mao. Do you think nations must form and there must be national conflict? Do you also believe that war is inevitable and that international communist movements are futile?

redstar2000

10th February 2004, 15:11

I don't see how any western communist could defend nationalism/patriotism in the imperialist world. (By the way, I understand that Japanese leftists are very anti-patriotic and anti-nationalist.)

As to the "third world", I think it's something that they will have to work out for themselves; historically, it's been used by both leftists and rightists in the course of class struggles within those countries.

I don't think it's our job "in the west" to either praise or condemn nationalism/patriotism in "third world" countries...almost always, we don't really know enough to speak intelligently on the subject.

About western patriotism/nationalism, we are all "experts"...we know it is reactionary to the core.

Consequently, let us condemn it wholeheartedly whenever "our own" ruling class raises it...and remain silent whenever it arises in the oppressed nations.

We are not obligated to take a "public position" on "everything".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Rob

10th February 2004, 19:48

If your ideology makes it so you have to reject patriotism/nationalism, good for you. It doesn't for me (and don't tell me that I'm not really communist, because I'm not so I don't care). My biggest point is that if you're gonna reject vikingrock for being reactionary, you better start rejecting most every other kind of music, cause there's gonna be something that your ideology will make you reject in almost any genre or sub-genre.

Edelweiss

10th February 2004, 20:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:48 PM
If your ideology makes it so you have to reject patriotism/nationalism, good for you. It doesn't for me (and don't tell me that I'm not really communist, because I'm not so I don't care). My biggest point is that if you're gonna reject vikingrock for being reactionary, you better start rejecting most every other kind of music, cause there's gonna be something that your ideology will make you reject in almost any genre or sub-genre.
No, I just don't reject it for beeing reactionary. As you said, most music is reactionary. I'm listening to reactionary music. Vikingrock is not only reactionary in a way which most music is reactionary (doesn't questioning the status quo, and "opium for the people"), Vikingrock is far more than that, I deeply reject it as an anti-fascist because of it's role it plays to deliver young recruits to the neo-nazi scene, and that can be explained with the basic nature of the music and lyrics, Britney Spears and other pop shit doesn't do that, so I see an very important difference here.

Rob

10th February 2004, 21:27

Well yeah, but as Brujo pointed out, there are actively anti-fascist viking bands, so it's not really the Hitler youth training camp you make it out to be.

Saint-Just

11th February 2004, 17:12

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 10 2004, 03:57 PM
How are patriotism and nationalism linked to national bounderies? Language is based on culture but I don't see that culture must have anything to do with a nation. Actually there are many cultural and counter cultures groups that have no connection to nations. Just because some cultures adopt a nationalist attitude, doesn't mean they need to.

As long as the nations are co-operative, there is no reason to grow apart. Take it a step farther and abolish the national bounderies.

I don't understand how you can believe these things Chairman Mao. Do you think nations must form and there must be national conflict? Do you also believe that war is inevitable and that international communist movements are futile?
Culture had developed within nations. Thus the culture of one group of people is strongly linked to their nation, this link could disappear. The concept of nation can disappear, however the existence of culture means we are left with a big element of nationalism. It will be culturalism, ranging from the belief in the superiority of one's culture to the love of one's culture.

Of course I do not think nationalism will disappear for a very long time, if it ever does. And, if it does then you will have to wait for culturalism and language to disappear before there is no elements of nationalism left.

Unless however, you believe that nationalism is not necessarily negative and can exist without chauvanism.

I would like to believe that nations will not create conflicts that lead to war. This is a complicated issue and I don't have the answers to it, like many issues.

I do think that culture and language do mean a lack of understanding and communication between people. It will not necessarily lead to war, however it is not an ideal state of being to not quite understand some of your fellow human beings. What we must do is be as tolerant as possible, and humans can definately do that.

STI

11th February 2004, 20:12

As I said, I am uncomfortable with American patriotism but if it has leftist or non-chauvinistic intentions, Im all for it.

So, you're saying that the ends justifies the means?

The Children of the Revolution

11th February 2004, 20:19

About western patriotism/nationalism, we are all "experts"...we know it is reactionary to the core.

Consequently, let us condemn it wholeheartedly whenever "our own" ruling class raises it...and remain silent whenever it arises in the oppressed nations.

It may indeed be against the principles of Communism; however, it has its uses.

Chairman Mao raises a good point here - nationalism helps promote "individual" national cultures. This is of utmost importance. Firstly, I don't think any of us want to see American "mono-culture" imposed throughout the world. This would be terrible. And secondly, it would only serve to aid the capitalist cause.

Perhaps this is pessimistic, but I don't see a revolution in the West at any time in the near future. So the best method we have of opposing capitalism is by working against it; nationalism becomes a medium for this resistance.

A nationalist country in the West will reject the ultimate free-market, will reject exploitation abroad (because it means less jobs at home) and will, importantly, reject globalisation and corporate culture. This is in our - and the workers - interests.

Besides, I love my countries culture. I like a "colourful" history. And I am an avid supporter of England in all sporting endeavors. Especially rugger!

Edelweiss

11th February 2004, 20:58

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 11 2004, 11:19 PM

About western patriotism/nationalism, we are all "experts"...we know it is reactionary to the core.

Consequently, let us condemn it wholeheartedly whenever "our own" ruling class raises it...and remain silent whenever it arises in the oppressed nations.

It may indeed be against the principles of Communism; however, it has its uses.

Chairman Mao raises a good point here - nationalism helps promote "individual" national cultures. This is of utmost importance. Firstly, I don't think any of us want to see American "mono-culture" imposed throughout the world. This would be terrible. And secondly, it would only serve to aid the capitalist cause.

Perhaps this is pessimistic, but I don't see a revolution in the West at any time in the near future. So the best method we have of opposing capitalism is by working against it; nationalism becomes a medium for this resistance.

A nationalist country in the West will reject the ultimate free-market, will reject exploitation abroad (because it means less jobs at home) and will, importantly, reject globalisation and corporate culture. This is in our - and the workers - interests.

Besides, I love my countries culture. I like a "colourful" history. And I am an avid supporter of England in all sporting endeavors. Especially rugger!
Damn, you can't seriously advocate western nationalism as a "medium for resistance". I'm shocked! What blatant opportunism! That's even worser than advocating this Maoist "nationalism of the oppresed" bullsit. It's totally against socialist thinking. How can you seriously, after you know the European history of wars, advocate European nationalism??? Who does your view differ from the view of the BNP at all than? You are advocating English nationalism here, England is a competitive imperialist nation, so you seriously think it would harm capitalism at all if you support your own imperialist nation instead of the "big evil" US? What a deeply reactionary stance! I'm not a Marxist-Leninist, but I support Lenin's analysis of imperialism, that you obviesly haven't understood at all. What you are saying here is maybe meant well, but it hasn't to do anything with communism, so I would suggest you to just remove your Lenin avatar.
The enemy is in your own country! Fight him! (a good lesson for all non-US communists)

As for "culture": Culture is not a unverisally positive thing, you can justify all kind of bullshit with "it's culture and tradition". As leftists we should question our culture and tradition, see the positive things in it, but also the negative, and not blindly follow and worship it!

Invader Zim

11th February 2004, 21:56

It depends entirley on the situation, for example come the World cup I will be chearing on the England team with the rest, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the time I feal the need to wave a flag, or some crap.

The Children of the Revolution

11th February 2004, 23:27

Damn, you can't seriously advocate western nationalism as a "medium for resistance".

I just did.

... the European history of wars ...

These are "history". Not relevant now - any European nation would have a hard time extracating themselves from the E.U, let alone facing the "might" of the UN and NATO.

You are looking at nationalism through the wrong eyes. You consider nationalism to be "Nazism". The core thesis behind nationalism is the idea that the political and national units should be one. That is all. Anything else you indentify with nationalism (extreme conservatism, fascism) is a misconception - nationalism was a feature of all these, not the other way round.

so you seriously think it would harm capitalism at all if you support your own imperialist nation instead of the "big evil" US?

Yes. As I mentioned, it restricts the free market and slows globalisation.

I support Lenin's analysis of imperialism, that you obviesly haven't understood at all.

You mean "Imperialism: The Highest State of Capitalism"?? Well, Lenin's definition of Imperialism and yours are different for a start. And I maintain that nationalism and imperialism are quite different - although they do, in certain circumstances, (British Empire Days) overlap. This is unfortunate... but will not happen to a significant extent nowadays.

As leftists we should question our culture and tradition, see the positive things in it, but also the negative, and not blindly follow and worship it!

I like Fish and Chips. I am ashamed of my countries legacy in Africa. Happy?

Calm down, I'm no nationalist. I simply feel that embracing (or at least not criticising) nationalism would be in our best interests at the moment. Ok?

redstar2000

12th February 2004, 00:31

You are looking at nationalism through the wrong eyes. You consider nationalism to be "Nazism". The core thesis behind nationalism is the idea that the political and national units should be one.

Almost...but not quite. The "reason" that the political and national "units" should be one is to separate the "superior" from the "inferior".

Of course, that is rarely stated in plain words...except by outright Nazis.

But it's the basic underlying assumption: humans are divided into cultural, ethnic, linguistic, "racial", etc. groups which we call "nations"...and the one I'm a member of is one of the "superior" ones.

It's really family/clan/tribe affiliation swollen to monstrous proportions...and irrevocably opposed to the revolutionary ideal of international proletarian solidarity.

It's not some kind of "bizarre accident" that reactionary opinions of all sorts tend to gravitate around patriotism/nationalism...they are all "of a piece". They "go well together". They "match up" in nearly all ways.

I'm aware that here and there you will find a "liberal patriot"...someone who appears to hold many "progressive" opinions on many issues of the day and yet claims he does so because he "loves his country".

Like religious people who claim to be "communists", I think that "left" patriots are simply confused.

They rise in righteous condemnation of the current evils that "their government" is guilty of...but consciously or unconsciously ignore the pattern of evil found throughout "their country's" history.

They even go so far as to say that this or that current evil is a "monstrous violation" of "our country's traditions"...when, in fact, it's business as usual.

As I mentioned, it [patriotism/nationalism] restricts the free market and slows globalisation.

Not in the "west" it doesn't...though it may do so in the "third world".

There are Christian-fascists in the U.S. (Pat Robertson & Co.) who oppose globalization from patriotic "motives"...but they are completely comfortable with the "free market" otherwise.

Why shouldn't they be?

And I maintain that nationalism and imperialism are quite different - although they do, in certain circumstances, (British Empire Days) overlap. This is unfortunate... but will not happen to a significant extent nowadays.

A breath-taking statement! The U.S. and the British have just occupied an oil-rich country in the Middle East in the name of "national security" (an obvious variant of nationalism/patriotism)...and that's not "significant"???

Good grief!

Calm down, I'm no nationalist. I simply feel that embracing (or at least not criticising) nationalism would be in our best interests at the moment. Ok?

Not ok!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

The Children of the Revolution

12th February 2004, 01:00

Like religious people who claim to be "communists", I think that "left" patriots are simply confused.

Haha, thanks for that! :lol:

Almost...but not quite. The "reason" that the political and national "units" should be one is to separate the "superior" from the "inferior".

As I said, there are many "interpretations" of nationalism. I don't think this one is valid, although you are right in suggesting that it has been used before. Nation states exist because of cultural differences and various Wars and things - can you really imagine Israel, Palestine, Iraq, the UK, Chad, Bangladesh, Tibet, China and Russia (to name but a few!) living under one roof? Of course not.

There are language differences; behavioural differences. I happen to think that german, spanish and itallian are beautiful languages, as are japanese and chinese. English is rather boring in comparisson. French is downright awful, and Russian sounds terrible.

Nations HAVE to exist. We aren't all the same, no. Nationalism does not suggest that one nation is superior, but that the particular nation in question ought to act in its own interests before those of others. As I said, this is against Communist principles. But it also works against "ultimate capitalism".

There are Christian-fascists in the U.S. (Pat Robertson & Co.) who oppose globalization from patriotic "motives"...but they are completely comfortable with the "free market" otherwise.

No. The ultimate "free market" imposes NO restrictions on trade whatsoever. The "ultimate capitalist utopia" does not contain nation states at all; no subsidies for local farmers, no protectionism, nothing. The antithesis of nationalism!

A breath-taking statement! The U.S. and the British have just occupied an oil-rich country in the Middle East in the name of "national security" (an obvious variant of nationalism/patriotism)...and that's not "significant"???

Again, I feel I must disagree. Remember, Bu$h initially tried to get EVERYONE "on-side". He appealed to the U.N. He went on a tour of the World gathering support. It was intended to be a World action. Of course, because some international leaders actually have some sense, it wasn't. But it remained an action taken by the "coalition of the willing", not solely the U.S.

Also, if we admit to ourselves that there was no threat, there is no sense in which nationalism is involved AT ALL. It isn't in our interests to spend billions on a War, send our troops off to fight in foreign lands. Even the BNP - earlier cited as the main protagonist of nationalist sentiment - were against the War.

Not ok!

Oh dear. Comrade RedStar has taken it upon himself to censor all opinions bar his own. Come on, this is a forum for discussion! I'm presenting a coherent argument, even if you don't agree with it; AND, it's from a lefists perspective! "Do" you "want" me "to" start "taking" the "piss" again "too"?? We're all on the same side here - aren't we??

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

12th February 2004, 01:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 09:31 PM

You are looking at nationalism through the wrong eyes. You consider nationalism to be "Nazism". The core thesis behind nationalism is the idea that the political and national units should be one.

Almost...but not quite. The "reason" that the political and national "units" should be one is to separate the "superior" from the "inferior".

Of course, that is rarely stated in plain words...except by outright Nazis.

But it's the basic underlying assumption: humans are divided into cultural, ethnic, linguistic, "racial", etc. groups which we call "nations"...and the one I'm a member of is one of the "superior" ones.

It's really family/clan/tribe affiliation swollen to monstrous proportions...and irrevocably opposed to the revolutionary ideal of international proletarian solidarity.

It's not some kind of "bizarre accident" that reactionary opinions of all sorts tend to gravitate around patriotism/nationalism...they are all "of a piece". They "go well together". They "match up" in nearly all ways.

I'm aware that here and there you will find a "liberal patriot"...someone who appears to hold many "progressive" opinions on many issues of the day and yet claims he does so because he "loves his country".

Like religious people who claim to be "communists", I think that "left" patriots are simply confused.

They rise in righteous condemnation of the current evils that "their government" is guilty of...but consciously or unconsciously ignore the pattern of evil found throughout "their country's" history.

They even go so far as to say that this or that current evil is a "monstrous violation" of "our country's traditions"...when, in fact, it's business as usual.

As I mentioned, it [patriotism/nationalism] restricts the free market and slows globalisation.

Not in the "west" it doesn't...though it may do so in the "third world".

There are Christian-fascists in the U.S. (Pat Robertson & Co.) who oppose globalization from patriotic "motives"...but they are completely comfortable with the "free market" otherwise.

Why shouldn't they be?

And I maintain that nationalism and imperialism are quite different - although they do, in certain circumstances, (British Empire Days) overlap. This is unfortunate... but will not happen to a significant extent nowadays.

A breath-taking statement! The U.S. and the British have just occupied an oil-rich country in the Middle East in the name of "national security" (an obvious variant of nationalism/patriotism)...and that's not "significant"???

Good grief!

Calm down, I'm no nationalist. I simply feel that embracing (or at least not criticising) nationalism would be in our best interests at the moment. Ok?

Not ok!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
I agree with Redstar's opinion on nationalism and religion 110%, (while I DO NOT agree on govt. structure).
Nations serve only to keep the working class divided and weak, and thus the working class has no use for them.

redstar2000

12th February 2004, 05:13

Oh dear. Comrade RedStar has taken it upon himself to censor all opinions bar his own. Come on, this is a forum for discussion! I'm presenting a coherent argument, even if you don't agree with it; AND, it's from a leftist perspective!

How have I "censored" you? Did you know that there is a "delete" icon next to each post on the board...perhaps only moderators can see it. I use it to delete duplicate posts in threads...but if I wanted to "censor" you, I could do so with a single mouse-click. If I really wanted to go to a lot of trouble--perhaps three or four hours worth--I could delete all of your posts. So could any moderator or administrator. That hasn't happened, has it?

May I suggest a moratorium on bullshit about "censorship" until it actually happens.

As to the "coherence" and "leftism" of your argument in defense of patriotism/nationalism...

Nation states exist because of cultural differences and various wars and things...

Yes, especially "things". I do not deny the existence of nation-states; I am questioning their utility from the point of view of the working class.

Do we need them? Why?

Not for linguistic reasons, that's for sure. Kids of a certain age can learn to speak two or even three languages fluently. This is known to be true.

Cultural reasons? What could they possibly be? When people are in a position to freely choose among all the artifacts of the world's cultures, won't they choose to keep all the "good stuff" and dump all the crap?

Granted that might take several centuries...but we've been moving in that direction for some time.

We've already completely lost the charming cultural artifact of human sacrifice to the gods. Don't you feel "deprived" for "missing" those "fascinating" ceremonies?

You don't? Neither do I.

Lots of other "cultural" crap won't be missed either.

There are language differences; behavioural differences. I happen to think that German, Spanish and Italian are beautiful languages, as are Japanese and Chinese. English is rather boring in comparison. French is downright awful, and Russian sounds terrible.

That's nice. In a few thousand years and possibly less, people will probably speak only one language and only specialists in ancient languages will be free to share your prejudices. I think Babylonian is really beautiful but Egyptian is boring and Aramaic really sucks.

Nations HAVE to exist. We aren't all the same, no. Nationalism does not suggest that one nation is superior, but that the particular nation in question ought to act in its own interests before those of others. As I said, this is against Communist principles.

So where's your "leftism" here?

The "ultimate capitalist utopia" does not contain nation states at all...

Perhaps it does not. In any event, I see little reason to speculate on the subject since the real capitalism that we deal with now has some very important roles for the nation-state...not least of which is dividing the international proletariat on the basis of lies and bullshit.

But it [the war against and occupation of Iraq] remained an action taken by the "coalition of the willing", not solely the U.S.

This is, at best, disingenuous. The U.S. supplied 90% or more of the troops, 90% or more of the money, 90% or more of the weaponry, etc., etc. To speak of its lackeys--even the U.K.--as having any real input into the decision-making process is absurd.

Also, if we admit to ourselves that there was no threat, there is no sense in which nationalism is involved AT ALL.

It does not matter if the "threat" was "real"...the public justification for the war was that of a threat to "national security"--clearly a variant of nationalism/patriotism.

And, I might add, an effective one. Even many who "opposed" the war began waffling after the shooting started, saying things like "well, of course I support OUR BRAVE BOYS, blah, blah, blah".

Spineless fuckers!

We're all on the same side here - aren't we??

No.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

El Brujo

12th February 2004, 05:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 01:15 AM
As I already said, patriotism/nationalism (I don't make a difference) can have emancipatory aspects in 3rd world countries, I do not deny that.
Good. So do you support nationalism of the oppressed, then?

Nevertheless is it a very bourgeois concept that I entirely reject, as every communist should do IMO. Us communists, especially in 1st world nations, should do everything to get class consciousness into the heads of the people, and national consciousness out of the heads, which have been brainwashed by the bourgesie to emotionally assiciate with their nation.

Thats your opinion, and I can respect it. But as I said, there are many interpretations of nationalism and patriotism. And my interpretation of "real" nationalism is the love of your nation and your desire to improve its state of affairs through socialist revolution. Then, of course, nationalism and patriotism don't even have to be political in the first place. For instance, do you support the German football team?

That is an inevitable conclusion out of Marx's writings for me, it would be diametricly against the interests of the exploited class to support and impel national ideas.

What about Iraqi national ideas? Irish? Palestinian? Hawaiian? Basque? Puerto Rican?

The exploited class has to realize not to fight for the intrerests of their nation, which just are some lines on a map (made by foreign, imperialist powers in the case of Argentinia BTW), but for the interests of their class, that is true internationalism, not your Maoist twaddling that "oppresed nationalism" is internationalism.

The exploited class must fight for the interests of their class, in their nation, must they not? How do you expect them to create a world-wide revolution if their struggling against their own system in the first place? As I said before, for capitalism to be successfully eliminated, imperialism must go first. Promoting national ideas, as Chairman Mao and Children of the Revolution pointed out, will work to eliminate globalized capitalism and allow for socialist revolutions in each nation as the "weaker" nations will be free of foreign influence and the bourgeoisie in "strong" nations will not have cheap third world labor to resort to to keep the working class at home happy. There is an immense difference between internationalism and trans-nationalism (which is what you seem to be promoting). Internationalism is thinking globally and acting locally, in other words, changing things at home with the intention of helping to change the world. Trans-nationalism is the brash lack of consideration for differences between nations for the interests of one group of people. That, my friend is not only impractical but it boarders on imperialism and very much the growing state of affairs today. The neo-cons want to eliminate the traditional cultures of lesser developed nations and McDonaldize the world for their own interests. It dosen't surprise me that Irving Kristol borrowed elements from Trotsky's writings.

BTW: Your comment about Argentina shows your utter lack of knowledge about Latin America. Nations down there are more than just "lines on the map" (exept maybe Argentina and Uruguay). Each nation has its unique culture, dialect and demography. You are reminding me of when Reagan made a similar offensive remark about South America.

And so is Che a true internationalist, who was born Argentinian, and still was willing to fight for the weak, exploited and oppresed of all nations likewise.

Che was a pan-Latin Americanist and very much a supporter of national revolutions. Indeed, he was both a true nationalist and a true internationalist. He believed in national self-determination and an alliance with foreigners against common enemies.

Communists movements shouldn't unneccissarily appeal to national sentiments, that would be blatant opputunism, as the ulimative goal of the communist society is the abolishment of the nation state.

The ultimate goal, yes. The immediate goal, NO. I don't really need to go into why the "straight to communism" approach is un-practical as Pol Pot already demonstrated that truism. Even if boarders are eliminated, there should be no problem with cultural sovereignty if imperialism dosen't exist. A true socialist must oppose all forms of imperialism, including cultural imperialism.

Vikingrock is far more than that, I deeply reject it as an anti-fascist because of it's role it plays to deliver young recruits to the neo-nazi scene, and that can be explained with the basic nature of the music and lyrics, Britney Spears and other pop shit doesn't do that, so I see an very important difference here.

Again, many other forms of music and scenes have directly or indirectly "delivered your recruits to the neo-nazi scene." Iy you are going to take that attitude towards viking rock, why don't you also take it against punk and oi! Skrewdriver's biggest influence was the Sex Pistols, you know? And RAC is basically oi! with racist lyrics. You have the same scenario in the metal scene as well: a fascist scene developed based on the misinterpretation of the images of bands like Slayer, Motorhead, Manowar, Pantera, etc. Do you reject them "as an anti-fascist"? Generalizing a whole genere based on what happened with a few idiots who misinterpreted what they were about is not only ridiculous but it is an insult to bands and people into that genere that don't share that ideology. Why do you reject a small and almost irrelevant scene because it indirectly created a fascist following when there is stuff like NSBM and RAC (both "viking" and non-"viking"), actively promoting and participating in fascist activities?

FAB

12th February 2004, 11:30

A nationalist country in the West will reject the ultimate free-market, will reject exploitation abroad (because it means less jobs at home) and will, importantly, reject globalisation and corporate culture. This is in our - and the workers - interests.

That is national socialism. That is exectly what the neo-Nazis today say.

oh, oh, the left has a "little" nationalism problem. :unsure:

The Children of the Revolution

12th February 2004, 12:17

Good post El Brujo.

A true socialist must oppose all forms of imperialism, including cultural imperialism.

Nicely summed up.

How have I "censored" you? Did you know that there is a "delete" icon next to each post on the board...perhaps only moderators can see it. I use it to delete duplicate posts in threads...but if I wanted to "censor" you, I could do so with a single mouse-click.

Well fair enough - I just got rather peeved at the "Not Ok!" directed at my thoughts and opinions, that's all.

Not for linguistic reasons, that's for sure. Kids of a certain age can learn to speak two or even three languages fluently. This is known to be true.

I would have loved to learn another language fluently. You're right: it is easiest to learn at a younger age. But there are thousands of languages in Africa alone, how do you propose to reduce this to one across the world? By force? People won't give up their culture so easily!

There's that word again; culture. Which DOES exist, SHOULD be individual, and CANNOT be consigned to "the dustbin of history" so easily. Culture encompasses so much, I can't believe you'd dismiss it so lightly. Buildings for example - have you ever seen Salisbury Cathedral? It's beautiful. The tallest in Europe, and it was built centuries ago. Mono-culturalism would have the Western world covered in skyscrapers (foul creations) and Mcdonalds'. Which I would oppose.

... only specialists in ancient languages will be free to share your prejudices.

I wish you'd change your choice of words, too. These are not predudices, they are opinions. I said English sounded boring, did I not? I'm not trying to elevate Germans, Itallians, Spanish, Japanese or Chinese culture above anyones - I merely remarked that I appreciated their DIFFERENT languages. Diversity is wonderful.

I see little reason to speculate on the subject since the real capitalism that we deal with now has some very important roles for the nation-state...

Maybe. But Marx himself suggested that each countries Proletariat should first settle the score with it's own bourgeoisie - before going "international". And this requires a certain amount of isolationism, of self interest... of nationalism? This is impossible, you say, business is global now, exploitation has moved abroad! Globalisation is braking down the barriers between nations every day, and - <ohshit>

Nationalism CAN be used to resist the onslaught of capitalism.

The U.S. supplied 90% or more of the troops, 90% or more of the money, 90% or more of the weaponry, etc., etc.

I'm not denying this. They are, after all, the Worlds military and economic superpower. But they TRIED DESPERATELY to get others involved, to recieve international support or legitimation. Saddam was a world threat, not solely an Anglo-American one!

the public justification for the war was that of a threat to "national security"--clearly a variant of nationalism/patriotism.

Only because no-one would join our "brave boys" at the front! If Germany had supported us, of course Saddam would have been a threat to them too! I'm surprised you cannot see this.

What is your response to the FACT that the BNP were opposed to the War from the outset??

well, of course I support OUR BRAVE BOYS, blah, blah, blah

Didn't you? I didn't support the cause they were fighting for, no... I was ENTIRELY against the War from day #1... But I had no desire to see thousands of soldiers massacred!! British, American, OR Iraqi!!

Peace and Love, man!

"We're all on the same side here - aren't we??"

No.

Ah. Nice to know. But MY REVOLUTION'S BETTER THAN YOURS!!

DEPAVER

12th February 2004, 12:26

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.

redstar2000

12th February 2004, 18:56

But there are thousands of languages in Africa alone, how do you propose to reduce this to one across the world? By force? People won't give up their culture so easily!

By force? Why do you always think of these matters in terms of a guy with a gun? Too much Leninism?

The reason people are usually motivated to learn another language is because it "opens a bigger world" to them. Someone that is fluent in one of the 50,000 or so "minor languages" has a very "narrow" world of knowledge available to them...many of those languages don't even have a written form.

Realistically, there are only 4-6 "contenders" for a world language...and the ultimate "winner" may be a combination of two or several of them. English and Spanish are two of them--and along the U.S.-Mexican border, they are visibly merging into "Spanglish". Chinese and Arabic are two other possibilities for world languages. What else?

There was a time, you know, when "English" was so different from one shire to another in England that communication was barely possible at all. With international communication growing at incredible rates with every passing year, how long can it be until people everywhere speak at least one "world language"? Who "wants" to be "left out"...besides a handful of old reactionaries?

There's that word again; culture. Which DOES exist, SHOULD be individual, and CANNOT be consigned to "the dustbin of history" so easily.

Happens all the time. We pick the stuff we like and dump the rest. We've been doing it for 150,000 years; why should we stop?

Is there anything special, in and of themselves, about cultural artifacts? They were all made by humans to serve human purposes. When something has lost its purpose and is no longer seen as useful, why keep it?

To be sure, we'll have "virtual museums" in which you can actually see and even participate in the best re-constructions of past cultures (that we think are interesting or significant) that we can create.

You'll even "walk through" the Salisbury Cathedral and watch a service--though the real cathedral will probably be in a landfill someplace...perhaps protecting a harbor town against rising sea-waters.

Then, with a few keystrokes, you'll be virtually present at a reconstruction of an actual human sacrifice to the Sun God in old Mexico...sounds really interesting, right?

In other words, if you want to have a look at obsolete cultures and their artifacts, that will be virtually possible. But the "real thing" will have been discarded as no longer useful.

Mono-culturalism would have the Western world covered in skyscrapers (foul creations) and McDonald's'. Which I would oppose.

Skyscrapers are built by capitalist entities because they are profitable, given the assumptions of capitalist business. Whether any will be built after the revolution depends on their utility.

The concept of a place where busy people can eat quickly is not a bad one in itself; the key improvement is to begin serving actual food there. As I'm sure you know, the packaging tastes just as good as the "food" there does now...and may possibly be more nutritious. And safer to eat.

Diversity is wonderful.

Maybe and maybe not. A diversity of "good things" is wonderful. A diversity of "bad things" is pretty bad. A diversity of "good things" and "bad things" is marginally acceptable provided no one is ever compelled to pick any of the "bad things".

Diversity as an abstract concept is neither "good" nor "bad".

It doesn't even have much meaning at all.

But Marx himself suggested that each country's proletariat should first settle the score with its own bourgeoisie - before going "international".

I think that was a practical measure forced on them by circumstances. But he and Engels did initially expect proletarian revolution in four particular countries all more or less at the same time (England, France, Germany, and the United States). They changed their "forecasts" from time to time through the course of their lives...and it's not as if we are "bound" by the limitations of their forecasting abilities.

But they always emphasized the international character of the struggle for communism. "The working class has no country", they wrote, "Workers of all countries, unite!"

I think they were "tolerant" of patriotism/nationalism in "backward" countries like Italy or Poland--it was a "phase" those places "had" to go through.

But I don't think you would ever have found them down at their "local" joining in a rousing chorus of "God Save the Queen".

Nationalism CAN be used to resist the onslaught of capitalism.

To which I can only respond: go try it for yourself!

It's the same response I always offer when people propose strategies that I think have been shown to be folly (like participating in bourgeois elections, etc.).

Go and learn from personal experience what you are unable to learn from history.

What is your response to the FACT that the BNP were opposed to the War from the outset??

My suspicion is that the BNP was "opposed" to the war because they weren't running it.

That's "cynical" of me, isn't it?

Didn't you? ["support our brave boys"] I didn't support the cause they were fighting for, no... I was ENTIRELY against the War from day #1... But I had no desire to see thousands of soldiers massacred!! British, American, OR Iraqi!!

No. I was rather hoping, in fact, for a catastrophic military defeat for U.S. and U.K. troops, involving tens of thousands of "coalition" casualties. A defeat so massive that Blair (like Anthony Eden) would have been forced to resign; and Bush would have been impeached and removed from office within a few weeks.

Well, that's "hope" for you. Realistically, I take comfort from the fact that occupation forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan continue to bleed...and perhaps the day will come when they will bleed a lot more.

But then, I'm really not much of a "patriot" or "nationalist" at all, am I?

But MY REVOLUTION'S BETTER THAN YOURS!!

Arguable. <_<

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Saint-Just

12th February 2004, 19:07

Realistically, there are only 4-6 "contenders" for a world language...and the ultimate "winner" may be a combination of two or several of them. English and Spanish are two of them--and along the U.S.-Mexican border, they are visibly merging into "Spanglish". Chinese and Arabic are two other possibilities for world languages. What else?

In Britain there is a man who is teaching his children Chinese because he thinks that it will be the most important language soon because of the potential of the Chinese economy. I think that the Chinese will learn English though. English is the language of technology and business and it will be hard to change, already many Chinese are trying to learn English.

Edelweiss

12th February 2004, 20:26

I guess argumenst are pretty much exchanged here, I don't wanna make this another endless, reduntant deabte, where it's just about who has the last word.

Just a few things:
CIFTR, you say you can want to make nationalism a "tool" against capitalism. That is a very foolish venture IMO. To use a metaphore: You can't destroy a machine with a few drops of oil. Means: In capialism, and especially in imperialist 1st world nations, the nation state and it's government is always a tool of the bourgeoisie to push trough their intrerests on the exploited class. It would be foolish to think you can turn the bourgeois state ever world into some means to stop capitalism and the globalisation. You can't seperate the state and capitalism!
You make the dangerous mistake to support your own imperialist nation, against the bigger imperialist nation, the USA. Again I ask you the question, do you seriously think that this is harming capialism at all? No, capitalism doesn't work like that, you can't stop or even smash capitalism just by stopping one of their competetive imperialist players. by supporting your own imerialist nation you are working perfectly within the capitalist system, you serve your own ruling class, instead of the exploited class, so you are a reactionary.

El Brujo, you make some examples of fights for "national self-determination". It seems you support the foolish and backward idea that every ethnic group needs it's own (bourgeois) nation state. I do oppose that idea, why the fuck do the Hawaiians needs it's own nation sate??? By blindly supporting "national self-determination" you are making yourself a supporter of the local bourgesie, the Iraqi resistance for example is full of bourgeois and reactionary forces, I can't see little progressive forces at all, still you support them vehemently and uncritically, all in the name of national self-determination (don't get me wrong, they have the very right to resist, but still I don't generally support the Iraqi resistance, just in the name of "national self-determination). All kind of useless wars, and much blood have been spoiled for the idea of nationalism, so, as redstar already said, learn from history, and get rid of national ideas. We all have seen in Yugolavia what the foolish idea of national self-determination for every singly ethnic group is ending, haven't we? You are obviesly waging national self-determination before the intrerests of the exploited class, and that is deeply reactionary.
And BTW: Che was NOT a nationalist! he, unlike you, saw the intrests of the exploited class before the importance of national self-determination, he didn't care at all for which national exploited class he was fighting for, he advocated an alliance of ALL oppressed people of all nations against their oppresors. A nationalist sees the good of it's own nation above the good of other nations, Che was not like that!

The Children of the Revolution

13th February 2004, 02:08

I guess argumenst are pretty much exchanged here, I don't wanna make this another endless, reduntant deabte, where it's just about who has the last word.

Ok, fine, i'll shut up. In a minute.

I'll just reply to YOUR post if I may...

CIFTR, you say you can want to make nationalism a "tool" against capitalism. That is a very foolish venture IMO. To use a metaphore: You can't destroy a machine with a few drops of oil.

I want to make this absolutely clear: I don't see nationalism as a means to destroy capitalism. Rather, it is a method of RESISTING the onslaught of the corporate machine, of mass exploitation. This is clearly in the interests of the Proletariat AT THE CURRENT TIME. When the Western World is "ripe" for revolution, THEN we can dispense with the nationalism and begin constructing socialism.

Again I ask you the question, do you seriously think that this is harming capialism at all?

YES, yes I do. It is one less market (of 56 million people) that will succumb to the all-powerful forces of globalisation and INTERNATIONAL capital. Yes, the workers at "home" will be exploited. They have been for centuries. But this situation would undoubtedly worsen under the "ultimate capitalist" system I keep referring to.

Ok, I've said enough. I'll be quiet now.

Saint-Just

13th February 2004, 13:16

It is one less market (of 56 million people)

This is pedantic, but in the national and international interest, Britain has a population exceeding 60 million.

Edelweiss

13th February 2004, 15:37

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 13 2004, 05:08 AM

I guess argumenst are pretty much exchanged here, I don't wanna make this another endless, reduntant deabte, where it's just about who has the last word.

Ok, fine, i'll shut up. In a minute.

I'll just reply to YOUR post if I may...

CIFTR, you say you can want to make nationalism a "tool" against capitalism. That is a very foolish venture IMO. To use a metaphore: You can't destroy a machine with a few drops of oil.

I want to make this absolutely clear: I don't see nationalism as a means to destroy capitalism. Rather, it is a method of RESISTING the onslaught of the corporate machine, of mass exploitation. This is clearly in the interests of the Proletariat AT THE CURRENT TIME. When the Western World is "ripe" for revolution, THEN we can dispense with the nationalism and begin constructing socialism.

Again I ask you the question, do you seriously think that this is harming capialism at all?

YES, yes I do. It is one less market (of 56 million people) that will succumb to the all-powerful forces of globalisation and INTERNATIONAL capital. Yes, the workers at "home" will be exploited. They have been for centuries. But this situation would undoubtedly worsen under the "ultimate capitalist" system I keep referring to.

Ok, I've said enough. I'll be quiet now.
I was actually gonna qit the debate, but I have a few final notes. You say

It is one less market (of 56 million people) that will succumb to the all-powerful forces of globalisation and INTERNATIONAL capital.

How you want to accomplish that without any form of revolution and without a consistent communist government? Not even socialist nations like Cuba can withdraw completely from the world market! I think it's very far from reality that there is any force in Britain or elsewhere in Europe who is willing to withdraw it's nation completely from the world market, that's an total illusion. I could imagine, and even that is very optimistic and it probaply won't happen, that there will be some sort of proggressive socialist government which is willing to push trough laws that are regulating the globalisation to make it more "fair", laws like the Tobin tax (http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/) . I can understand socialist who are supporting such (reformist) initiatives. However, to say that nationalism can help in any way to stop the globalisation is more than foolish, it helps noone but the reaction and the far right. It won't help to gain anything good, but it's just working against the progrressive elements of the globalisation, like the merger of cultures and nations. In a way Che-Lives is a product of the globalisation, leftists of so many countries and cultures are discussing and often also making friendships. The globalisation gives us the chance to also globalize resistance, a very BIG chance that we had never before in history.

Edelweiss

13th February 2004, 16:46

I forgot to add that: the reason why fascists like the BNP where against the Iraq war is quiet obvious: amti-semitism. Saddam Hussein was anti-semite to the core, and for the fascists something like a "warrior against world Jewery". Anti-semitism is uniting all fascists worldwide, much more than racism does. Sometimes it's really the last indicator to seperate radical Left and right-wing. Furthermore, the BNP was most likely against the war, because for them it was am American war, not a war in the national British intrerest. last but not least, they probaply love the fascist-like way how Saddam ran his country. In Germany it where fascists who held (luckily very small) marches with "Free Saddam" banners when he was captured.

El Brujo

13th February 2004, 20:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:26 AM
El Brujo, you make some examples of fights for "national self-determination".
All of the aforementioned, though some causes are being fought more respectably than others. Ultimately, all battles against imperialism are also battles for national self-determination as imperialism consists of the invasive dominance of one nation over another (something which all socialists must virulently oppose).

It seems you support the foolish and backward idea that every ethnic group needs it's own (bourgeois) nation state. I do oppose that idea, why the fuck do the Hawaiians needs it's own nation sate??? By blindly supporting "national self-determination" you are making yourself a supporter of the local bourgesie, the Iraqi resistance for example is full of bourgeois and reactionary forces, I can't see little progressive forces at all, still you support them vehemently and uncritically, all in the name of national self-determination (don't get me wrong, they have the very right to resist, but still I don't generally support the Iraqi resistance, just in the name of "national self-determination).

How do I "blindly" support the fight for national self-determination? I support all progressive elements fighting for it (notice how I don't support the Taliban, the Khomeini's or ETA), most of which are. I consider Ba'athism as well as most of the Iraqi resistance progressive, particularly the Patriotic Front and the Ba'ath loyalists.* I wouldn't be supporting the local bourgeoisie by supporting national self-determination because, as I said before, it is globalization which is keeping them afloat in the first place: The bourgeoisie in western countries resorts to expansionism and third world cheap labor to keep the proletariat at home happy and the bourgeoisie in under-developed countries is supported financially and millitarily by the west, keeping them protected against their people despite its unpopularity and bullying oppression. If imperialism were destroyedm, all bourgeoisie would be disempowered for reasons I have mentioned in the previous post.

All kind of useless wars, and much blood have been spoiled for the idea of nationalism, so, as redstar already said, learn from history, and get rid of national ideas.

Useless wars have not been the result of true nationalism but of national chauvinism and trans-national expansionism. I have already gone through what I consider to be true nationalism and how it has been beneficial. "Learn from history" please.

We all have seen in Yugolavia what the foolish idea of national self-determination for every singly ethnic group is ending, haven't we? You are obviesly waging national self-determination before the intrerests of the exploited class, and that is deeply reactionary.

I am "waging" both national self-determination as well as the plight for the working class. I simply see national self-determination as a tool for class struggle. The ethnic nationalism in Eastern Europe is bourgeoisie and anti-communist, so I do not support it. Nothing is perfect. Anarchism has never accomplished anything exept weighing down the Spanish republic against fascism and creating a brief chaoitc dominion in Spain that was plagued with violence. Do you see me actively opposing anarchism and slagging you and redstar off for your foolish fairytale? No, because as is the case with nationalism, it has the potential to be of some help.

And BTW: Che was NOT a nationalist!

He was a pan-Latin Americanist, which is a form of nationalism. Like pan-Arabism and pan-Africanism.

he didn't care at all for which national exploited class he was fighting for, he advocated an alliance of ALL oppressed people of all nations against their oppresors.

Aside from his actions in the Congo, name one instance when he was not fighting against yankee imperialism in Latin America. The struggle in Argentina was closest to his heart because he wanted it, as well as all Latin American countries, freed from imperialism. He supported other third world nationalist revolutions as well (the Congo being one of them) but not as actively.

A nationalist sees the good of it's own nation above the good of other nations, Che was not like that!

A national chauvinist sees the good of its own nation above the good of other nations. A true nationalist sees the good of its own nation along with the good of all other nations, much like Che did.

* Saddam is most-certainly not "anti-semitic to the core." Stop buying into neo-conservative, ADL propaghanda. Saddam was an anti-zionist. Not all anti-zionists are "anti-semites" obviously but all "anti-semites" are anti-Zionists. That is why Nazis opposed the war (and the neo-con's are having a field day pointing this out to discredit the struggle to end white supremacy in the Middle East). There was a Jewish minority under Saddam that was not persecuted at all, I even heard it from an account of a Jewish Iraqi who fled Iraq for other reasons and was interviewed in National Public Radio, a "center-right" station.