Log in

View Full Version : Fighting Nationalism



Paradox
19th January 2005, 22:06
Ok, Castro and the other Cuban revolutionaries fought to liberate Cuba, and so Cuban pride played a role in that struggle as does nationalism in all/most struggles. And the phrase "patria o muerte" is often used to defend the Cuban revolution. But as Socialists/Communists we are to be INTERNATIONALISTS, as Che wanted, and died as. National pride played a role in the failures of both the Congolese and Bolivian campaigns, and national pride is part of the Iraqi resistance fighting to kick out the amerikan invaders. This being the case, how do we deal with nationalism? How do we reach out to people who wave the flag, and are in many instances, blindly patriotic? Can we present our case to these people without seeming "too radical" or "offensive?" Though I've only had a couple of run-ins with people on this issue, I expect it to happen more often, so I'm curious as to how to deal with this issue. Maybe I should just wait for NovelGentry's book! :lol:

redstar2000
19th January 2005, 23:12
Originally posted by Paradox
This being the case, how do we deal with nationalism? How do we reach out to people who wave the flag, and are in many instances, blindly patriotic? Can we present our case to these people without seeming "too radical" or "offensive?"

Nationalism, along with religion, are the two most completely irrational "world-views". Attacking either of them "in person" is very likely to result in a brawl.

Make sure you substantially outnumber the enemy before opening your mouth!

The alternative option -- "using nationalism" for our purposes -- is unlikely to be helpful. The American Communist Party tried it in the 1940s -- "Communism is 20th century Americanism". They did enjoy a transient popularity as a consequence...but it was easy for the government to "out flank" them with the appeal that "communism is treason".

Nationalism had a "progressive aspect" back in the 18th and 19th century...though even then there were "hints" of what was to come (imperialism, anti-semitism, etc.). In colonized countries today, nationalism has that same "two-edged sword" quality -- useful in mobilizing opposition to foreign imperialism but always trembling on the edge of racism and even imperialism itself.

Frankly, I don't think there is any way of "reaching out" to American patriots...at least at this time. Until the empire suffers a series of major and traumatic defeats, I think their "faith in the American way" will remain undisturbed by events. Anything we say to them of a critical nature will be met by hysterical hostility.

And even defeat will not necessarily be productive; every patriot believes in some form of the "stab in the back" mythology...or is ready to believe it should circumstances make it even vaguely plausible. There are still quite a few American veterans of Vietnam who think the "students" and the "media" stabbed them in the back.

I think the most practical course in the present period is to simply "write off" the super-patriots as hopelessly reactionary and most likely to form the mass base of a fascist movement. If we can win over the very large number of people who are indifferent to "god and country"...we'll be doing very well indeed.

:redstar2000:

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

RevolverNo9
21st January 2005, 13:34
Exactly I agree with you both. I have a big problem with the pervasive sectarian front of Irish republicanism. What is possibly revolutionary about dividing the working classes?

In any case nationalism does not lead to the creation of progressive state. The Republic of Ireland, despite being born out of an anti-imperialist struggle, has a more capitalistic situation than Britain! Not to mention the yoke of Catholic thocracy that lay so heavy on the land - irreconciably caught up with the nationalist movement.

As nationalism is based on irrational sentiments driven by questions of self-identity and definition, it can only end in the reactionary.

Famepollution
22nd January 2005, 03:46
How does a communist deal with a 'patriot'? easy with a bullet. :D


but seriously I dont think we can convince the uber patriot that they are wrong. Well atleast not now maybe with upcoming emiseration of the working class we can convince some Rights to join the left.
.

apathy maybe
22nd January 2005, 10:43
Appeal to a common humanity. Point out how unfair it is that just because they were born in one country that they get the benefits of living in that country. Ask them why their country is great, point out that other countries have these things as well. Point out flaws in their country (high murder, obesity). Point out the flaws in the entire concept of nationalism (leads to things like what happened in Germany during the 30s).

If they are racist as well, ask them if they have ever met anyone from whichever race they are degenerating. Talk about the science behind race (the fact that it is a sociological proposition). Ask them which race a person who is half breed belongs to, quarter breed, what if each grandparent was a different race, which race is the person. Point out flaws in their race. Highlight the good parts of other races. (If all else fails, use a bullet.)

Hate Is Art
23rd January 2005, 20:40
It is important to show there idea's as stupid and ridiculously hypocritical, we might not be able to change their minds but we can influence others. Hopefully, like Religion, it will slowly die out as it becomes clear it is useless.

Conghaileach
24th January 2005, 01:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 02:34 PM
Exactly I agree with you both. I have a big problem with the pervasive sectarian front of Irish republicanism.
Great. Another imperialist hiding behind "internationalism".



What is possibly revolutionary about dividing the working classes?
How about giving them hope for the future? As Marx hoped an Irish revolution would provide for the English proletariat.

Would you prefer that the entire world's working class be "united" under the yoke of a superimperialist power?



In any case nationalism does not lead to the creation of progressive state. The Republic of Ireland, despite being born out of an anti-imperialist struggle, has a more capitalistic situation than Britain! Not to mention the yoke of Catholic thocracy that lay so heavy on the land - irreconciably caught up with the nationalist movement.
The Catholic Church came to Ireland as tool of colonialism and imperialism, just like it did in Africa and South America. The only reason it got tied up with the nationalist movement was that the Protestant Ascendancy, through the Penal Laws and others such injustices, made the Catholic Church more appealing to the oppressed Irish. The Church used this to make itself seem as though it related to the people.

Nonetheless, many in the national liberation movement opposed this sectarianism (remembering of course that religious differences has been and remains a tool of British imperialism and the native bourgeoisie to divide the workers). The original Irish Republicans were mostly Protestant, and hoped to unite "Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter" in a revolution of the people of no property.

The 1916 leader Pádraic Pearse said that "The narrowing of nationalism to the members of one creed is the most hateful thing that has occurred in Ireland since the days of the Pope's Brass Band" and many Irish Marxists such as James Connolly spent much of their time standing up to the Church's attacks on socialism.

Irish Republicanism was never about sectarianism. It was about ending the oppression of a small country by a lager imperialistic one. It was never about "Brits Out" or "Prods Out" or whatever nonsense you may claim, but about justice, social and economic, and democracy. And that was 200 years ago. Many Irish republicans today realise that socialism is an integral part of their ideology.


And Republicanism has never been nationalist, it has always been of an internationalist character - going right back to 1798 and continuing through until today.

October Revolution
25th January 2005, 10:25
If a person is 100% patriotic and believes in all that nationalism crap its very hard to sway them because as i'm sure you all know when you believe in something strongly then it's hard to be told your wrong. Especially when they believe it is to do with their identity and belonging to a group.
Even though it could be done but to change someones views such as nationalism would take along time and to do it indervidually would be madness, on mass would be the best way to change someones views.

NoiseUnited
25th January 2005, 15:50
The basic foundation of Nationalism is to liberate yourself from foreign exploitation. This makes no sense for an American to be a Nationalist, considering it's history and it's current exploitive policies. Though those willing to liberate themselves become open to new forms of government. You should be selective in what Nationalist groups you back. Many have different goals or may employ actions you oppose. I'm indifferent to IRA for the reasons of schism. Though I find it very strange for UK to control 'part' of an island next to them. Why should the US have controled the Panama Canal? Why should China be in Tibet? Why aren't the Kurds getting the land entitled to them? The ETA seems to feel discriminated against in Spain. Some of these people trying to liberate themselves from an outsider ruler may have causes that are seemingly good. Though issues as these are never simple and have many dimensions, I would choose very carefully. Don't be suckered by a cool mural, find information from sources of every viewpoint.

RevolverNo9
25th January 2005, 18:39
Great. Another imperialist hiding behind "internationalism".


Imperialist? That's just rhetoric.


Would you prefer that the entire world's working class be "united" under the yoke of a superimperialist power?


Er, did I say that? First of all you're asuming I'm opposed to Irish republicanism. That is not true. But in today's world what's really the difference between the ruling ideologies of bourgeois Britain and bourgeois republican Ireland? The struggle for socialism should be wrought in both states on non-sectarian lines for the cause of socialism. This is why I really respect The Socialist Party (CWI) in Ireland.


The only reason it got tied up with the nationalist movement was that the Protestant Ascendancy, through the Penal Laws and others such injustices, made the Catholic Church more appealing to the oppressed Irish. The Church used this to make itself seem as though it related to the people

Exactly. That's why I don't believe that the progressive struggle should be based on nationalistic grounds. It's impossible for the movement to divorce itself from sentiments.


Nonetheless, many in the national liberation movement opposed this sectarianism (remembering of course that religious differences has been and remains a tool of British imperialism and the native bourgeoisie to divide the workers).

And the movements seem all too happy to play up to the roles created for them (in a true example of Situationist analysis!). The Loyalists are of course far more latent. And then let's remember that the UDF (is that the original orginisation?) was created to 'defend' people from the IRA.


The original Irish Republicans were mostly Protestant, and hoped to unite "Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter" in a revolution of the people of no property.

Indeed I agree. But antagonism has built up so greatly and roles have been so entrenched by sectarianism that this now is rare.


The 1916 leader Pádraic Pearse said that "The narrowing of nationalism to the members of one creed is the most hateful thing that has occurred in Ireland since the days of the Pope's Brass Band" and many Irish Marxists such as James Connolly spent much of their time standing up to the Church's attacks on socialism.


Fine words from a noble struggle. I think Connoly and co would be very much disheartened by all that's done in his name.


And that was 200 years ago.

Exactly.

My belief is that the sectarian, violant and nationalistic nature of certain and obvious fronts pitted the working classes against each other and alienated so many important and intelligent elements of Irish and of course British society. Save Red Action and the like, the people of England have been totally repelled. And terrorism does not achieve anything in such cases, except rile hatred.

And of course it's unhealthy for internal reasons as well. Are not the vast majority of the IRSM's martyrs dead at the hands of provos? Not to mention the mob control of urban areas. The punishment killings... to their own (as they see it) people...



IRELAND 1972

Next to the fresh grave of my beloved grandmother
The grave of my first love murdered by my brother.

-Paul Durcan

Conghaileach
25th January 2005, 23:09
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:39 PM
Er, did I say that? First of all you're asuming I'm opposed to Irish republicanism. That is not true.
You'll have to exuse me. I must have misinterpreted your comments about "the pervasive sectarian front of Irish republicanism".



But in today's world what's really the difference between the ruling ideologies of bourgeois Britain and bourgeois republican Ireland?
What exactly is "bourgeois republican Ireland"? Irish republicanism developed before a native Irish bourgeoisie came into existence, and from the United Irishmen on republicanism has always been very much based in the "men of no proprerty", as the term was used then to desrcibe what is essentially the working class today. Perhaps I'm biased in coming from a working class area, but all of the republicans I've met have been very much working class and very much of a socialist character.



The struggle for socialism should be wrought in both states on non-sectarian lines for the cause of socialism. This is why I really respect The Socialist Party (CWI) in Ireland.
The Socialist Party does nothing but seek petty reforms of the system that they claim credit for whenever a mass campaign develops. There's nothing revolutionary or socialist about them. They're (mostly) a bunch of middle-class tits who look down upon the working class, regardless of creed, and consider themselves their "saviour". The SWP are the exact same here. And the honest truth is that neither of them are doing a thing to unite the divided working class.

The only group to come close to that has been the IRSP, who have been engaging in 'cross-community forums' and the like as a means of presenting themselves and their politics to the Protestasnt working class.





The only reason it got tied up with the nationalist movement was that the Protestant Ascendancy, through the Penal Laws and others such injustices, made the Catholic Church more appealing to the oppressed Irish. The Church used this to make itself seem as though it related to the people

Exactly. That's why I don't believe that the progressive struggle should be based on nationalistic grounds. It's impossible for the movement to divorce itself from sentiments.
Nonsense, republicanism is and always has been an anti-sectarian ideology. Again, perhaps I'm biased, but most Republicans I know are atheist. And even many who are still religious recognise that the Church has always been in the pocket of British imperialism, always ready to decry republicans. Perhaps you should read about the Red Scare in Ireland in the early 1930s.



And the movements seem all too happy to play up to the roles created for them (in a true example of Situationist analysis!). The Loyalists are of course far more latent. And then let's remember that the UDF (is that the original orginisation?) was created to 'defend' people from the IRA.
There's the UVF, UDA, LVF and their various splinter groups.




The original Irish Republicans were mostly Protestant, and hoped to unite "Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter" in a revolution of the people of no property.

Indeed I agree. But antagonism has built up so greatly and roles have been so entrenched by sectarianism that this now is rare.
In some cases that would be true. But there have always been Protestant republicans, and it remains so today. Most republicans don't care what creed their comrades are - it's not like they do a census or anything.



Fine words from a noble struggle. I think Connoly and co would be very much disheartened by all that's done in his name.
I agree with you completely.



My belief is that the sectarian, violant and nationalistic nature of certain and obvious fronts pitted the working classes against each other and alienated so many important and intelligent elements of Irish and of course British society.
The 'Northern Ireland' state was created to foster sectarian division in the working class. That sectarian division will never be broken with any degree of success as long as British imperialism remains.



And of course it's unhealthy for internal reasons as well. Are not the vast majority of the IRSM's martyrs dead at the hands of provos?
Not the Provos, but the Stickies (Official IRA). When the IRSM broke away from the ORM because of the organisation's dictatorial Stalinist nature, the OIRA went on the offensive against the new movement and it was almost wiped out before it got off the ground. At the time, the OIRA had called a ceasefire in relation to the British army, yet they went about attacking republican socialists.



The punishment killings... to their own (as they see it) people...
Though that problem does unfortunately remain, it's being dealt with now. Community groups such as Community Restorative Justice are trying to find new ways to deal with anti-social problems.

October Revolution
26th January 2005, 23:34
Shooting them seems the most effective way then we could erase the whole idea of nationalism like it never existed. :lol:

novemba
27th January 2005, 00:11
Fighting Nationalsim is a paradox that i've been thinking about for long while now. I've come to the realization that the whole concept is a vicious cycle. This is what i figure...nationalism is a certain pride thats just human nature, put two people on a island and each one is going to have its "own" area or something that cherishes as his, its just human nature. Examples of this can be seen in gang warfare or any professional sports, and even dogs like to piss on there territory. Like i said before it's human nature and the only thing i can think to do to stop this pride is to eliminate all that are different ie race, gender, etc etc which is COMPLETELY FACIST AND COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY and would eventually lead to the demise of the human race. The only reasonable option is to have nationalism at a humongous level for example patriotism towards being a human, or even better a earthling. Im not sure if this would work, but thats all i could come up with...help!

October Revolution
27th January 2005, 18:29
Well heres an idea why don't we make the whole world communist and abolish all states then there would be no land of ones own and no countries to have natinal pride for.
This may be highly impractical and will almost certainly never happen on a global scale be here's hoping.

Dyst
27th January 2005, 20:16
Hey! ...What about... we kill all different races, and leave only one. We take away all countries and make one rule the earth. We kill all males (that would include killing myself) and leave all women. This would definately destroy discrimination!!!

Ah, vitty.

Seriously though, capitalists seems to use the "hide it away" method, and it is working damn well. If we forget about all nazism (and somehow got everybody else to do so, too) has done in the past, and never talk about such horrible things again I am sure "troubled teenagers" will find something else to do with their life.

novemba
27th January 2005, 23:21
History repeats itself. Education abolishes Ignorance and leads to enlightenment.

October Revolution
28th January 2005, 13:33
I don't agree i think if we forget what the NAzis were and what they stood for then history will repeat itself and another group similar to them with all the wrong ideas will be formed. Ofcouse a group like this could not come into power for atleast several hundred years till everyone but afew have forgotten about it.

People should be educated and told that behaviour like that of the Nazis is wrong and casues no good.

Right_is_right
1st February 2005, 19:22
In general, who do you favour or care for more? People who are part of your family/kin or some outsider? Naturally it would be your family/kin. This is the root of where nationalism and I doubt that it can be changed. Nationalism will continually resurface, even within a communist utopia.
And please...spare me the genetic modification lectures...

Right_is_right
1st February 2005, 19:48
Correction: This is the root of nationalism*

amusing foibles
1st February 2005, 20:24
There is a vast difference between one's family/friends/"kin" and nationalism...

Due to the size of most countries, it is obviously impossible to be friends/family/blood sisters with everyone in it. That means the majority of people in the country you are so ferverently loyal to as a nationalist are, in fact, "some outsider." The only difference between an American outsider and a Canadian outsider is a fancy imaginary line.

If nation-states are abolished, the artificial differences between outsiders will also be abolished, as they are almost completly created by the nation states themselves.

Right_is_right
1st February 2005, 21:40
I went to this chinese store and the owner thought i was a chinese person and gave me discounts but later found out that i wasn't when i told her. The next time i went there she attempted to rip me off. It was very subtle but I recognized that it was intentional due to the difference in her attitude. Of course I corrected her and forgave her mistake because to me, that is understandable, she gave me a discount for no reason at all and she wanted to make up for it. Now, why would she give chinese people a discount in the first place? The reason she gave me a discount because I once had her unconditional favour when she thought i was chinese and wanted the me to have extra money to spend elsewhere to get ahead. That way the chinese as a whole could get ahead of the rest. That to me is nationalism. If i was the owner's relative, I might have got it at break-even prices and if the owner was my parent, I might have gotten it for free, because my relatives and parents would also want me to get ahead, invest the money elsewhere. If i am wrong then whats your theory on why that chinese lady favoured me when she mistakenly took me for a chinese person?

amusing foibles
1st February 2005, 22:06
If i am wrong then whats your theory on why that chinese lady favoured me when she mistakenly took me for a chinese person?

Because she's a nationalist. Saying that nationalism isn't inevitable isn’t denying that it exists now- that would be incredibly stupid.

If "China" didn't exist, then "Chinese people" wouldn't need to "get ahead" of everyone else because everyone would be in the same pot.