Is nationalism compatible with Leftism?

[Maclean's Daughter]

Ok, so I get that racial/ religious divisions have (historically) been used to disrupt class solidarity, but is it wrong to consider it a positive force as well?

I'm speaking from my own experiences here more than anything else, but (at least in Scotland), the campaign against the Monarchy seems to be rooted pretty deeply in the Irish community and those who identify as being Irish Scots (Such as myself)

Also, while the SNP (the main party that proposes Scottish Independence) is fairly right wing, a lot of left-wing Activism in Scotland is based on the idea of an independent Scotland.

[Comrade Jacob]

Nationalism is a dangerous thing in general, but left-wing nationalism has been used to great success in Korea, Vietnam, China, USSR etc

[Zoop]

No it is not. Nationalism is inherently reactionary, and those who peddle nationalist ideas should be regarded as the enemy.

[#FF0000]

Whenever someone asks about nationalism and national revolutions, I usually think of this except from an interview with Ben Bella of Algeria's National Liberation Front:

http://libcom.org/library/ben-bella-on-national-liberation


Ben Bella on "national liberation"
Q: What are the main lessons you've learned from your experience?
A: These days I use a formula which summarize what I've come to: The single party is the single evil. Earlier I didn't have the tools for understanding this evil. The FLN had become a monster. The organization formed in the struggle for independence was not the same as the one ruling Algeria. The whole superstructure, the Party, the Parliament, et cetera, had become a hindrance.
It was during my 1962 tour of the country, after the decrees on self-management of land by peasants, that I realized this change. There was great energy among the peasants and the workers. We would have had to set aside the bureaucracy, form revolutionary committees and expand self-management to take advantage of this dynamism. The Parliament and all those structures - excuse me, but they're all bullshit.
Unfortunately, I chose the wrong camp. I hesitated in sweeping aside all that hindered these possibilities.


Q: I heard you say earlier that socialism existed nowhere in the world...
A: That's true. I'm not talking about what's in the blueprints. I'm talking about living socialism. You see what's happened since 1917. Do you see socialism? Still, I'm faithful to the ideals of socialism, to the struggle against the exploitation of man by man. But it should be understood that there's not just one form of exploitation. There is also exploitation by bureaucratic apparatus.


Q: This is a very negative view of the achievements of national revolutions...
A: They have all failed. As long as we have not broken the world capitalist order, we remain exploited by the mercantile relations of production. Even in the "socialist" world you find these types of relations. Inside COMECON (The Council for Mutual Economic Aid of the Soviet bloc countries), for example, or between the Soviet Union and the Algeria that I was President of.



Nationalism is a dangerous thing in general, but left-wing nationalism has been used to great success in Korea, Vietnam, China, USSR etc

Yes, those societies have been roaring successes, after all.

[Atsumari]

Ugh, to post or not to post

[#FF0000]

Ugh, to post or not to post

do it nerd i dare u

[noble brown]

No it is not. Nationalism is inherently reactionary, and those who peddle nationalist ideas should be regarded as the enemy.
As if. Do to you really want to ignore historical precedence? Have you not studied the movements from multiple past revolutions? Nationalism is never the goal. But it is often a wise strategical stepping stone.

[#FF0000]

As if. Do to you really want to ignore historical precedence? Have you not studied the movements from multiple past revolutions? Nationalism is never the goal. But it is often a wise strategical stepping stone.

When and where? Nationalism had its place as a progressive force at one time in history, but nationalism in the 20th century hasn't achieved anything save for integrating undeveloped/"backward" countries into global capital, despite lofty rhetoric and red banners.

[motion denied]

Shit on Kurz et al all you want but I think he got it right at least: the national-liberation movements of the last century were "late bourgeois modernisation" processes. As #FF0000 said, a better placement in the world market.

[noble brown]

When and where? Nationalism had its place as a progressive force at one time in history, but nationalism in the 20th century hasn't achieved anything save for integrating undeveloped/"backward" countries into global capital, despite lofty rhetoric and red banners.
And did I really say anything to the contrary? Eh, maybe it might have been inferred but if so it was just bad communication on my part.

[Atsumari]

Okay, I am too exhausted and overworked to write up an essay and go into a 5 page discussion on this topic because I know it will spark that kind of thing so here is a video on how not to be a self-absorbed prick in political discourse and action as so many people are in politics.
8eMtMeZejTw

[Rafiq]

Nationalism is incapable of any revolutionary role in the 21st century solely because of globalization - which has already offered the unique possibility of trans-national political coordination among revolutionaries. The point of the Communists in their support of national liberation before globalization was not the exaltation of the nation in spite of global financial capital, rather, but as a means by which national development can occur insofar as its internal class struggle can exist in synchronicity with the oppressor nations, so that the relationship of domination by the oppressor nation would not be able to polarize the wider class struggle on national lines (i.e. Like the bribing of the first world working class, and so on). This obstacle has largely been done away with - despite neocolonailism and the destructive role of the IMF, World bank, etc. - the world now exists in a single capitalist totality.

The reaction to globalization in the past two decades has been among the most vile, the most powerful and the most substantial reactions in the whole history of capitalism - perhaps second only to the decay of the ancien regime in Europe.

Most especially disgusting is the sympathy offered by western leftists toward this reaction, as shown by the video above. Even from an anti-Israeli standpoint, it is just as idiotic to display sympathy toward hezbollah as it is toward Hamas - because both were largely conceived by Israel itself, with the former's conception being indirect, and the latter being direct. Hezbollahs inception was a direct result of the blunderous Israeli occupation, which was initially received either well, or with indifference by the local shia population. Their rise to power directly coincided with the collapse and destruction of the Lebanese Left, and the existence of a viable alternative for these people. Rather than meeting these scum as rivals, Leftists are eager to cheer on Lebanon's own Golden Dawn without even a second thought? But apparently, the logic doesn't extend beyond a perverse idea of an "organic" representation of the natives resisting Israeli oppression.

[The Modern Prometheus]

No it is not. Nationalism is inherently reactionary, and those who peddle nationalist ideas should be regarded as the enemy.

How is the right of a group of people to self determination inherently reactionary? Shouldn't people be able to liberate themselves from a Imperialist regime and why should "true Communists" not support them? Most National Liberation movements from the 26th of July Movement to the Viet Cong to the INLA as a few examples where formed as Left wing Nationalist groups who had Socialism as their goal. That is not Nationalism in the Bourgeois sense as the members of the parties are from the working class and see a Communist society as the long term goal. Although any form of Nationalism is a poor thing to build a society on indeed people must first get rid of the things that are dividing the working class which is one thing the wars of Liberation are supposed to accomplish. The less identity politics to get in the way the better.


Most especially disgusting is the sympathy offered by western leftists toward this reaction, as shown by the video above. Even from an anti-Israeli standpoint, it is just as idiotic to display sympathy toward hezbollah as it is toward Hamas - because both were largely conceived by Israel itself, with the former's conception being indirect, and the latter being direct. Hezbollahs inception was a direct result of the blunderous Israeli occupation, which was initially received either well, or with indifference by the local shia population. Their rise to power directly coincided with the collapse and destruction of the Lebanese Left, and the existence of a viable alternative for these people. Rather than meeting these scum as rivals, Leftists are eager to cheer on Lebanon's own Golden Dawn without even a second thought? But apparently, the logic doesn't extend beyond a perverse idea of an "organic" representation of the natives resisting Israeli oppression.

What actual Communists support Hezbollah or Hamas? Neither are Socialist never mind leftist and their brand of Nationalism is hardly left wing. I support the PLO or i did when they where a coherent force in Palestine but they are Left wing Nationalist not Islamic like Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas only came into power in Gaza because people where fed up with the lack of leadership shown by the PLO and Fatah in particular.

[Blake's Baby]

What has 'the right of a group of peoples to self-determination' to do with communism? How is the working class allying itself with a group of bourgeoisies who speak the same language, going to help the world working class defeat the bourgeoisie?

Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains! You have a world to win!

[Fourth Internationalist]

What has 'the right of a group of peoples to self-determination' to do with communism? How is the working class allying itself with a group of bourgeoisies who speak the same language, going to help the world working class defeat the bourgeoisie?

Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains! You have a world to win!

The point of the right to self-determination, at least for genuine Leninists, isn't to ally with the native bourgeoisie. In fact, it is to do the opposite and expose them as a part of the overall imperialist system. To achieve the democratic right of self-determination and to achieve national liberation (liberation from imperialism), socialist revolution is required. While I can accept some people disagree with this point of view, I would hardly argue it amounts to class collaboration (and, unfortunately, what many "leftists" and "Leninists" do does amount to this, but they do not understand the national question from the Leninist point of view, and I think this is what many left communists think of when they think of the Leninist standpoint).

[The Modern Prometheus]

What has 'the right of a group of peoples to self-determination' to do with communism? How is the working class allying itself with a group of bourgeoisies who speak the same language, going to help the world working class defeat the bourgeoisie?

Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains! You have a world to win!

Well Lenin wrote about the right to self determination and got flack for it from everybody from Rosa Luxemburg to Stalin. So it has alot to do with Communism if you read Lenin at all.

[Sewer Socialist]

Well Lenin wrote about the right to self determination and got flack for it from everybody from Rosa Luxemburg to Stalin. So it has alot to do with Communism if you read Lenin at all.

This isn't a very strong explanation - it is a part of the communist movement because Lenin said it was? Why did Lenin say so? Why is he right?

Is it truly a part of communism because Lenin is right, or is Lenin right because it truly is a part of communism? If you think the former, you can not be reasoned with, nor can you convince anyone who doesn't already agree with everything Lenin wrote. If you think the latter, you neglected to say why.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Well Lenin wrote about the right to self determination and got flack for it from everybody from Rosa Luxemburg to Stalin. So it has alot to do with Communism if you read Lenin at all.

He's not saying that it isn't a question that has been present in the communist movement. What he is saying is that, from his perspective, supporting national liberation and defending the right to self-determination does nothing to advance communism (this is the left communist standpoint).

[cyu]

If the question is "Is inequality compatible with equality?" then the answer is no.

If the question is "Is equality compatible with equality?" then the answer is yes.

If the question is "Is inequality compatible with inequality?" then the answer is yes.

If nationalism means "my" people are better than everyone else, then inequality is not compatible with equality. If nationalism means outsiders do not deserve more power than ourselves (for example, when fighting neo-colonialism), then that may be compatible with equality.

[The Modern Prometheus]

This isn't a very strong explanation - it is a part of the communist movement because Lenin said it was? Why did Lenin say so? Why is he right?

Is it truly a part of communism because Lenin is right, or is Lenin right because it truly is a part of communism? If you think the former, you can not be reasoned with, nor can you convince anyone who doesn't already agree with everything Lenin wrote. If you think the latter, you neglected to say why.

I certainly don't think Lenin was right on everything nor is he infallible. Lenin was right because i think National Liberation is a integral part of Communism due to the fact that i don't think anyone should rule over another group of people and make them less equal which is what these groups where fighting against.


If nationalism means "my" people are better than everyone else, then inequality is not compatible with equality. If nationalism means outsiders do not deserve more power than ourselves (for example, when fighting neo-colonialism), then that may be compatible with equality.

You put it in a far better context then i did that's for sure. I don't think of left wing nationalism as "my people being better then everyone else" but rather that noone should be treated as less equal then anyone else.

[Blake's Baby]

Nationalism has two 'directions' that one can think of as being positive and negative or internal and external.

Positive/internal: 'our 'nation' should be united' - this means that the working class of 'our' nation should unite with the bourgeoisie of 'our' nation.

Negative/external: 'our 'nation' should oppose people of another/all other nation(s)' - including opposing the working class of thsoe nations.

Which, in your opinion, of these options is conducive to working class unity and organisation?

As to 'Lenin said it, it must be true' - fuck that, Luxemburgist here.