The Question of Nationalism

[Clarksist]

To most people, Nationalism is a bad word. It seems racist, religious, or just otherwise exclusive. And for the most part - those people are right. However, many nationalist movements actually promote Marxist or at least Leftist beliefs. Wanting freedom from the foreign oppressors over their homeland.

So, is nationalism a good thing that unites people against oppression? Or a tool of oppressors themselves?

I would say its different for each situation. But, could there be something about nationalism I do not understand (I'm sure there is) that makes it overall more positive or negative?

And furthermore, is Nationalism something that the Left should utilize in order to carry out Leftism as a governmental policy?

[AfricanSocialCommunist]

Nationalism in some ways is good because it ultimently creates a unified group of people and for the fact, it becomes a stronger group of people but also, Nationalism is exclusiveness of any other national group, for example, if i am American, then I cant be Be british. There by a people who want to create a new class within nation.

[violencia.Proletariat]

it might help third world nations become independent, thats fine. but once they have the conditions to obtain communism it will be refuted as worthless and opressive.

[drain.you]

I personally do not agree with nationalism. Being proud of your country? What is that all about? You didn't choose it, hell, countries don't even exist, its just how humans divide land. Borders oppress.
If you want freedom from foreign oppressors then get independence, but its not a question of nationalism to me.
Nationalism promotes the idea that every nation deserves a state. Well no, we are all humans, we shouldn't divide due to 'race' what ever that is.
Nationalism can very easily become racist and Nazism is the perfect thing to show this.
I would say that nationalism is something that leftists should not associate themselves with. Nationalism is an old way of thinking and should be gotten rid of, along with gender roles, racism and many other things.
The new way of thinking should be to end racism, merge countries, allow freedom of travel and allow races and culture to mix freely.

[JC1]

Depend's. Some time's the national question has yet to be resolved and it's a democratic demand. When the national question has been taken care of, Nationalism becomes a reactionary detour.

[AfricanSocialCommunist]

Ernest Gellner wrote in his book about Islam and Marxism.... which I just read.


Another somewhat less surprising but not properly anticipated facet of this century was the strength of nationalism. However, for a long time the decline of nationalism was confidently predicted. The syllogism that entails the demise of nationalism has two features: firstly, Marxists and liberals share it, and secondly, it is absolutely cogent. The argument is very simple: Nationalism depends on ethnic, cultural, national differences which it turns into principles of political membership and loyalty. This is unquestionably true. Secondly, the conditions of the industrial world, with the tendency towards mobility, dissolution of local communities, instability, and standardization of communication, erode cultural, linguistic, and ethnic difference. Thus one can conclude that nationalism ultimately collapses in the modern world because the foundations upon which it is built are gradually eroded. Unfortunately, this conclusion does not correspond to the facts.

[Scars]

Nationalism only reinforces the false barriers created by the ruluing class (both past and present) that claim that people are 'different' because they are of different national origin. I am from New Zealand, however I am no different to any other human being and to engage in nationalist politics is to, essentially, say that I AM different. There is only one working class and that is what we must focus on and it must be our basis. To divide the working class into sub-sections based around the nation state (a bourgeois invention), or 'race', or 'culture' or 'ethnicity' is to weaken our overall strength and to foster divisions within the working class with will often lead to antagonism and infighting- the last thing that we need.

In short:

Nationalism- tool of the oppressors? Yes, it's an artifical manifestation of bourgeois structures to destroy unity within the working class- 'divide and conquer' so to say.

Nationalism- reactionary? Yes, without internationalism and TRUE working class unity (that is, a unity within the WHOLE working class, not the *insert country here* working class) we have no chance of bringing about a communist society.

Nationalism- should it be used by the left?- No, to do so is to reinforce bourgeois notions about people being 'different' from one another based solely on geographic location. In addition, historical greivances and hatreds (for instance Bosnak-Serb) will not be able to be resolved as long as both groups see themselves as 'different' from the other.

[Floyce White]

Clarksist: "...their..."

The word that says it all. "Mine" and "yours" and "theirs." Property relations. Oppression. Nationalism is a form of oppression.

[drain.you]

yeah Scars, I totally agree with what you said, perhaps better worded than my earlier post but not far from what I meant.

Nationalism creates divides. Nationalism creates racism. Nationalism does not, in my opinion, aid the revolution or leftwing thinking.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I know I'm fucking a corpse here.
But if I were to start a new thread, I'll end with someone sending me a link to this.

Nationalism reinforces barriers that enforce trade, these barriers were put up by the ruling class. These barriers divide the working-class of the world from eachother.

Nationalism promotes self-determination for an oppressed country. But in the world of imperialism self-determination for a country doesn't exist, because even if you weren't to have foreign markets in your country you're less well off markets have to compete with the larger foreign markets and adopt their methods.

If your nationalist country really catches the eye of the imperialists, its only a matter of time till the imperialists take over. You are confined to borders, you cannot spread your base. Nationalists remmedy this by invading other countries which they claimed were in their domain at a point in time. They try to enforce their belief of whats their domain through methods that alienate the working-class; race, religion, customs.

Nationalism is pette-bourgoeis in character, once a national-revolution has been completed don't think for a moment that as a Socialist these leaders will adopt your stance. As workers we don't have a country, we aren't confined to a single area, and in these lands confined by borders we don't decide policies.

A workers republic is confined to an area at first, these barriers are wounds left by the upper-class that will heal once the revolution spreads. Because of the class-character of the republic we don't exclude anyone based on religion, race or customs: Our class is international. Our goal is for a life in a world free of oppression, instead of taking the shoes of the oppressor to walk in them. We are to destroy these shoes so that no one gets walked on.

[emokid08]

Death and Fascism are the fruits of nationalism. History speaks this truth to us, comrades.

Borders are just another way to divide the people, and make them more vulnerable to exploitation by pitting them against one another.

When the Revolution sweeps the world, it will erase the borders that imprison us and confine us.

Anyway, isn't nationalism a cornerstone/major tenet of Fascism? and don't nationalists hate Communists?

I thought so, I don't believe I'm wrong.

"seek truth from facts"
-Mao

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ernest Gellner
Thus one can conclude that nationalism ultimately collapses in the modern world because the foundations upon which it is built are gradually eroded. Unfortunately, this conclusion does not correspond to the facts.

Quite the contrary, it does correspond to the facts in the modern world.

Go back to 1914 in Europe when the first world war began. Observers then pointed out that the war was tremendously popular in every country. People volunteered in hordes for the armies. Patriotic demonstrations were spontaneous and wide-spread.

How do things look now in the "old" capitalist countries -- a.k.a. "the modern world"? The ruling classes still blow the trumpets and pound the drums and wave the flags...and how do most people respond to that?

Are they "thrilled and elated"? Do they stop whatever they're doing and rush to enlist? Are there huge popular demonstrations in favor of war?

Nope. Nationalism still enjoys a limited appeal in backward rural areas and among open political reactionaries. Otherwise, the "call to national glory" is met with a yawn...or a cynical rejoinder coupled with considerable efforts to avoid "serving one's country".

Nationalism is only really significant in pre-capitalist or semi-capitalist countries...or in countries that are just now entering the "modern world".

Like religion, it's dying.

In the "west", I think communists should do all they can to help nationalism into an early grave...also like religion! :lol:

It is, after all, a bourgeois superstition...no more worthy of respect than any other.

The nationalisms of various countries struggling to free themselves of the domination of the "old" capitalist countries are, historically speaking, progressive. But I don't think that's anything we need to "dwell on" or "encourage"...there are plenty of people in those countries to handle that chore. It's something they have to "go through" and they do not require any assistance from us to manage that.

Our job, as always, is to oppose our own ruling class...along with whatever nationalist bullshit it vomits up to "justify" its own imperial atrocities.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[321zero]

Nationalism, as political ideology is opposed to Marxism but nations is how capitalism organises itself and national oppression is very real for the peoples suffering it.

There are fewer and fewer unresolved 'national questions' - the biggie is the Arab nation - dismembered by the Ottomans and European powers, and kept that way by the imperatives of the petroleum economy.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 09:33 PM
The nationalisms of various countries struggling to free themselves of the domination of the "old" capitalist countries are, historically speaking, progressive. But I don't think that's anything we need to "dwell on" or "encourage"...there are plenty of people in those countries to handle that chore. It's something they have to "go through" and they do not require any assistance from us to manage that.
Could you elabourate on why you see nationalism as a necessary stage for new capitalist countries against the old?

[Dreckt]

I think that capitalists in Europe dig their own grave with the whole European Union-thing. I mean, sure, that is a globalization union, just look at the "constitution" they voted for/against some time ago, but the union is weakening each nation within Europe.

I hope that soon people in Europe will call themselves Europeans, because in the end, this union does favor the revolution in my eyes. When there are no more borders, then the people of Europe will fight for Europe, not for the European nations that are there.

Or so I figure...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO
Could you elaborate on why you see nationalism as a necessary stage for new capitalist countries against the old?

It seems to be just "part of the package". Recall the emotional appeal of "national unity" in Germany and Italy c.1860-1900. Or the rather strident injunctions to "build a great nation" and achieve "our place in the sun".

There's some of this sort of rhetoric coming out in China and India today.

One possible explanation may be psychological. When capitalism rises to power, it does severely weaken all the traditional forms of human "community". What's available to "replace" that? I can imagine young bourgeois ideologues seizing on the notion of the Volkgemeinshaft -- the "Folk Community" -- as a "reasonable substitute". The idea of "national unity" gives people "something to be a part of" in a period when all the things that people used to be a part of are losing their credibility.

It gives people "ground to stand on" in the rising winds of change that come with capitalism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Eleutherios]

My thoughts on nationalism/patriotism have already been eloquently summed up by two dead people:

"Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot consider themselves nobler, better, grander, more intelligent than those living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.

The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that from early infancy the mind of the child is provided with blood-curdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are clamoring for a greater army and navy, more battleships and ammunition." —Emma Goldman

"I was over in Australia and everyone's like 'Are you proud to be an American?' And I was like, 'Um, I don’t know, I didn’t have a lot to do with it. You know, my parents fucked there, that’s about all. You know, I was in the spirit realm at that time, going FUCK IN PARIS! FUCK IN PARIS! but they couldn’t hear me, because I didn’t have a mouth. I was a spirit without lungs or a mouth, or vocal cords. They fucked here. Okay, I’m proud.'" —Bill Hicks

"I hate patriotism. I can't stand it, man. Makes me fucking sick. It's a round world last time I checked, OK? You know what I mean? I hate patriotism. In fact, that's how we could stop patriotism, I think. Instead of putting stars and stripes on our flags, we should put pictures of our parents fucking. Gather people around that flag and see your dad hunched over your mom's big four-by-four butt. See if any boot rally mentality can circle round that little fucking image." —Bill Hicks again

[Ol' Dirty]

Nationalism is, in my opinion, a false concept, and a purely social one, unbacked by material factors, at that. The nation-state-country idea is made of only social building blocks; morals, ethics, beliefs, and ideas. Should these social factors ceased to be agreed upon by the general community, the material factors, such as strong militant fore, or large amounts of labor and resource surplus, would crumble, letting the "nation" die off. Without these social factors, the material factors are worthless. Social factors are meant to support material factors, not the other way around.

What I think needs to be done is this: we should create a society based upon material factors (lack of work or adequate pay), and supported by strong ethical codes (egalitarianism, freedom of thought, right action).

Then there is the problem of sectarianism/racism, e.g. The Nation of Islam, The Nazi Movement, The Black Panther Party (although they substantial material and moral reason for their beliefs.

Really, Nationalism is a weak idea.

Also, Scars is absolutely right. :)

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 06:35 PM
Then there is the problem of sectarianism/racism, e.g. The Nation of Islam, The Nazi Movement, The Black Panther Party (although they substantial material and moral reason for their beliefs.
The Black Panthers?!

Who in their right mind would lump the BPP together with the NOI and Nazis?

Anyway, I agree with redstar2000 on the issue of nationalism.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 06:35 PM
Then there is the problem of sectarianism/racism, e.g. The Nation of Islam, The Nazi Movement, The Black Panther Party (although they substantial material and moral reason for their beliefs.



The Black Panthers?! Who in their right mind would lump the BPP together with the NOI and Nazis?

Um... Me, I suppose? :D

Seriously, though, although I belive that the BPP was a great movement, they were a nationalsit one, just like the Nazi Party and the NOI.

Although it sucks, it's true.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 07:09 PM

The Black Panthers?! Who in their right mind would lump the BPP together with the NOI and Nazis?

Um... Me, I suppose? :D

Seriously, though, although I belive that the BPP was a great movement, they were a nationalsit one, just like the Nazi Party and the NOI.

Although it sucks, it's true.
The Black Panther Party was in no way a nationalist party that reflected the nationalism espoused by the NOI and the Nazi Party. There is a difference in that they never preached black supremacy, and they were heavily influenced by the thinking of Malcolm X and (revolutionary) Marxist philoshophy.

Yes, they can be described as "nationalist", but definitely not on the same lines and terms as the NOI or the Nazi Party.

In fact, I believe that the Black Panthers never even described themselves as Black Nationalists. Like Malcolm X, they would develop into being progressive internationalists.

Read The Black Panthers Speak.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 07:12 PM
Like Malcolm X, they would develop into being progressive internationalists.

Read The Black Panthers Speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X


The Black Panther Party was in no way a nationalist party that reflected the nationalism espoused by the NOI and the Nazi Party.

Yes, they did. They preeched for more poltical, economic and social power to people of black ethnicty, and, at tiimes, the superiority of the black race.Malcolm X was a proud member of the Nation of Islam during his life, and was, at the begining of his political career, a fierce black nationalist. The Nazi Part believed in the racial superiority of whites, while Malcolm X Preached black pride.

They're the same ideas at different ends of the chain.


In fact, I believe that the Black Panthers never even described themselves as Black Nationalists.

You're opinions aren't necasserily factual. Opinions don't matter; facts do. Some considered themselves nationalist, others didn't. As a wholle, the BPP preaced for the creation of a union of all blacks; a social nation.

[wet blanket]

Yes, they did. They preeched for more poltical, economic and social power to people of black ethnicty, and, at tiimes, the superiority of the black race.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong, jesus christ this is one of the dumbest things I've read on these forums outside of OI. The Black Panther Party were an organization based on ethnic liberation and working class struggle. They never wanted black people to have "more political economic and social power", they wanted liberation and equality. The black panther party also collaborated with and shared common interests with many predominately white organizations, such as the Weather Underground and the SDS. The organization had nothing to do with ethnic superiority.


Malcolm X was a proud member of the Nation of Islam during his life, and was, at the begining of his political career, a fierce black nationalist. The Nazi Part believed in the racial superiority of whites, while Malcolm X Preached black pride.

They're the same ideas at different ends of the chain.
Oh bull shit. The black panthers were an internationalist and working-class organization on the social front of black oppression, they were not black nationalists. While the teachings of Malcom X had a definite influence on the group's program, equating The nation of Islam to the Black Panther Party is just plain stupid.


You're opinions aren't necasserily factual. Opinions don't matter; facts do. Some considered themselves nationalist, others didn't. As a wholle, the BPP preaced for the creation of a union of all blacks; a social nation.
Maybe you ought to try and get your facts straight.
The Black Panther's agenda of community organization, struggle for ethnic liberation and equality, and violent resistance to oppression. This is not the same thing as black nationalism!

=====

As for the topic:
Nationalism will always be conservative and reactionary, it is also one of the largest problems we're facing today. Contrary to what the OP says, nationalism/patiotism is not a 'bad word' but rather disturbingly popular among the majority of people on earth. Even among the left we see too many people willing to swallow the nationalist shit that's fed to them by career politicians in the west and the third world populist parasites involved in the 'opposition politics' distraction.
It's a huge problem, and won't be leaving any time soon.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X
What exactly is that meant to prove?

Ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is by no means gospel truth, the article you linked simply proves my point that Malcolm X developed into a progressive internationalist, after he had performed the Hajj.

I am not a racist... In the past I permitted myself to be used... to make sweeping indictments of all white people, the entire white race and these generalizations have caused injuries to some whites who perhaps did not deserve to be hurt. Because of the spiritual enlightenment which I was blessed to receive as a result of my recent pilgrimage to the Holy city of Mecca, I no longer subscribe to sweeping indictments of any one race. I am now striving to live the life of a true... Muslim. I must repeat that I am not a racist nor do I subscribe to the tenants of racism. I can state in all sincerity that I wish nothing but freedom, justice and equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people.

The same can be said of the Black Panther Party, who were very much influenced by El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, especially in terms of self-defence.


Yes, they did. They preeched for more poltical, economic and social power to people of black ethnicty, and, at tiimes, the superiority of the black race.

I was right in my assumption that you haven't really read much (if at all) about the Black Panthers, let alone Malcolm X.

Your statement is, quite frankly, a load of bull.

The Black Panthers never preached "the superiority of the black race". Hewey Newton said that Black Power is giving power to people who have not had power to determine their destiny. There is nothing racist about that.

Newton and Bobby Seale even stated, in the Ten-Point Programme:

Not everybody ripping off the black community is white, A lot of them are black. We're not anti-white, we're anti-wrong. Let's do a little revision on number three and just say that WE WANT AN END TO THE ROBBERY BY THE CAPITALISTS OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY.

Indeed, why is it that the Black Panthers declared " All Power to the People", instead of "Black Power"?

The Black Panther Party were also welcoming of alliances with white activists, such as the SDS. The Black Panthers realised that all revolutionaries that wanted to change US society should unite no matter what race they happened to belong to. This position differed from those taken by many Black organizations of the late 1960s


Malcolm X was a proud member of the Nation of Islam during his life, and was, at the begining of his political career, a fierce black nationalist.

And, like I have already stated, he changed into a progressive, anti-racist internationalist.


You're opinions aren't necasserily factual. Opinions don't matter; facts do.

And as of yet, you have provided nothing to validate your ignorant claims.


Some considered themselves nationalist, others didn't. As a wholle, the BPP preaced for the creation of a union of all blacks; a social nation.

The Black Panthers fought to protect the oppressed Black community, whilst also fighting the capitalist system as a whole and in the long run. Hewey Newton said that We have two evils to fight, capitalism and racism. We must destroy both racism and capitalism.

Now, please, read a book.

[RebelOutcast]

Unfortunately some stupid white pride crap has turned up around my area, me and additives are going to do something about that sometime.

[jakeanomy]

I definately feel that, as with most "isms", there are shades of grey. Being proud of one's own culture is nothing to be ashamed of, so long as it doesn't lead to unnecessary antagonism, escalation, or even bloodshed.

[ChemicalBrother]

Nationalism will undo itself, even Marx states that "working men have no countries"


Look at the process of Globalization and the effects it has had on nationalism. The rise of the EU, NAFTA and CAFTA signal to me a world in which nationalism will become more like "regionalism".

[Disciple of Prometheus]

I think Nationalism is important regardless of political standpoint, because it gives the people something to be proud about, however when I say Nationalism, I don't mean to the point of fanaticism, but I feel the people should have something common that they can be proud, and patriotic about. Like for instance I'm a proud German, but yet I don't feel that I contributing to any oppressive ruling class, or Bourgeoisie ideologies at all, because I am patriotic. I think it is to what extent that your are Nationalistic.

[321zero]

"Working men have no country"
"Workers of the world, unite!"
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"

Being <insert nationality here> is nothing to be proud of.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by Disciple of [email protected] 27 2006, 01:19 AM
I think Nationalism is important regardless of political standpoint, because it gives the people something to be proud about, however when I say Nationalism, I don&#39;t mean to the point of fanaticism, but I feel the people should have something common that they can be proud, and patriotic about. Like for instance I&#39;m a proud German, but yet I don&#39;t feel that I contributing to any oppressive ruling class, or Bourgeoisie ideologies at all, because I am patriotic. I think it is to what extent that your are Nationalistic.
You have no reason whatsoever to be proud of being German. It&#39;s an irrational and reactionary cult

[KC]

Heritage is completely different than nationality.

[dislatino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 07:45 PM
Heritage is completely different than nationality.
Agree, i was waiting for this to being introduced to the convo, heritage is different to nationality, one can be proud of ones country through a bloodline without accepting the "ideology" of nationalism and patriotism.

[pandora]

That&#39;s great can&#39;t wait to go over to Europe and tell ya all to wipe my American heiney :D

No seriously folks, I do have pride in one thing about America we&#39;re a land of mutts. Thank goodness for that little bit of grace.

People who try to keep their heritage have a hard time, but so do those who try to carry on racism from their original country. I am humored remembering Serbs trying to make racist comments against Albanians in the U.S. and being laughed at or worse, by some of their other racist comments.

That&#39;s not too say that the U.S. is not an extremely racist country, but it did once lead the way for variety of ethnic heritage and idea of embracing a new idenity of citizen, even if the melting pot destroyed some of that diversity, it also caused races to mix that might have never of known one another in the old world.

Our planet has been deeply changed by this, I do not see ethnic, racial, or national pride as an altogether positive thing. However, it may be useful in upsetting the WTO.

[dislatino]

it also caused races to mix that might have never of known one another in the old world.

It is very true, but in saying that i don&#39;t neccesarily agree with how the "mixture" came into play in the world, for example i am by blood a south-american, Colmbian o be exact, but was born in London, England, yet through reading up on history i am not very happy how the indigenous peoples of south america were "raped into sorrow" by spanish conquistadors. This has caused much pain and suffering which still carrys on affecting people today, but without this, "mestizos" would have never been born.

[Conghaileach]

I think that it&#39;s fair to say that there are two types of nationalism, progressive nationalism and reactionary nationalism. Progressive nationalism is one which is not at odds with internationalism, and is usually found in countries struggling for national self-determination. I believe it was Engels who said that “the Irish and Poles are most internationalist when they are nationalist”. It can also be seen in countries like Cuba and Venezuela, where they have a healthy sense of nationalism and are also internationalist.

I suppose I&#39;m looking at it from my own position, but I am an Irish language activist, which is likely counsidered culturally nationalist, but that in no way interferes with my internationalism. In fact, it gives me more respect for other people around the world who are struggling to preserve all that they are against the expanding forces of Anglo-American cultural imperialism.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 28 2006, 07:29 PM
You have no reason whatsoever to be proud of being German. It&#39;s an irrational and reactionary cult
I don&#39;t think there is a "state," I think that conception of the "state," is a ghost, ie. something illusory and false. However I am a proud German because, of my ancestors, our common language, our heritage, our historical ups and our downs, and how we are today, that is what makes me German, our people is Germany. I am no Nationalist, I am just proud of my people, and how we have traversed through the darkest parts of history, to become the people that we are today. When I speak of Germany, I speak of the people.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by Disciple of Prometheus+Mar 28 2006, 11:27 PM--> (Disciple of Prometheus &#064; Mar 28 2006, 11:27 PM)
wet [email protected] 28 2006, 07:29 PM
You have no reason whatsoever to be proud of being German. It&#39;s an irrational and reactionary cult
I don&#39;t think there is a "state," I think that conception of the "state," is a ghost, ie. something illusory and false. However I am a proud German because, of my ancestors, our common language, our heritage, our historical ups and our downs, and how we are today, that is what makes me German, our people is Germany. I am no Nationalist, I am just proud of my people, and how we have traversed through the darkest parts of history, to become the people that we are today. When I speak of Germany, I speak of the people. [/b]
You&#39;re the first nationalist I&#39;ve ever seen in denial. :lol:

You&#39;re honestly proud of a the history and language of a somewhat genetically similar population within arbitrary geographical area? To put it rather bluntly, that&#39;s really stupid.

Why are you proud german people as opposed to being proud of mankind as a whole?

[Disciple of Prometheus]

You&#39;re the first nationalist I&#39;ve ever seen in denial. :lol:

You&#39;re honestly proud of a the history and language of a somewhat genetically similar population within arbitrary geographical area? To put it rather bluntly, that&#39;s really stupid.

Why are you proud german people as opposed to being proud of mankind as a whole?

Who said I wasn&#39;t proud of mankind? Furthermore why is it stupidity to be proud of my people, why is it wrong to be proud? I am proud of my people, and our species as a whole. I never said I was proud of the German people solely now did I? No, if the impression I made was that I was excluding the rest of humanity, then I apologize, because that wasn&#39;t my intention. Also I am not a Nationalist, or a Nationalist in denial because I don&#39;t believe (as I said), in a "state," or "nation," which is obviously the main focal point of Nationalism.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Disciple of [email protected] 29 2006, 11:59 PM

You&#39;re the first nationalist I&#39;ve ever seen in denial. :lol:

You&#39;re honestly proud of a the history and language of a somewhat genetically similar population within arbitrary geographical area? To put it rather bluntly, that&#39;s really stupid.

Why are you proud german people as opposed to being proud of mankind as a whole?

Who said I wasn&#39;t proud of mankind? Furthermore why is it stupidity to be proud of my people, why is it wrong to be proud? I am proud of my people, and our species as a whole. I never said I was proud of the German people solely now did I? No, if the impression I made was that I was excluding the rest of humanity, then I apologize, because that wasn&#39;t my intention. Also I am not a Nationalist, or a Nationalist in denial because I don&#39;t believe (as I said), in a "state," or "nation," which is obviously the main focal point of Nationalism.
Haha.

How are they your people?

Why do you refer them as yours?.

Because the specialists of the nationalist-spectacle feeds you bullshit about artificial borders, separation and cultural identification??

Why is it logical to be proud of a heritage you didn&#39;t choose nor had influence in it?

The whole separation of "your people" and "mankind" proves that you indeed swallow the feces of the state and its whole mechanism of atomization.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:22 AM
Haha.

How are they your people?

Why do you refer them as yours?.

Because the specialists of the nationalist-spectacle feeds you bullshit about artificial borders, separation and cultural identification??

Why is it logical to be proud of a heritage you didn&#39;t choose nor had influence in it?

The whole separation of "your people" and "mankind" proves that you indeed swallow the feces of the state and its whole mechanism of atomization.
When I said "your/my," I don&#39;t mean like I own them, I mean that I am apart of the people the make Germany, Germany. How else could I refer to them without offending someone here? Because it is apparent no matter what I say on this subject, it comes of as "stupid," and something to laughed at because it is made to look like I support "boundaries," when I don&#39;t, and because it is easy to do so because I have an opposing opinion. There can be no denying that there is different cultures, to which the formed on their own, as the region matured; denying would say that Chinese culture, is like English culture, when there is very many differences. Did I choose to be German? No, but why should I deny that I speak German, and have the same physical characteristics of the Germanic people? Why should I not be proud of who I am? However should we be against each other because of these differences? No. Should we also relinquish our culture to fit the needs of your view point? I say no again, the differences is what makes Internationlism great, but maybe I should call it something else instead? How about I am proud of the people and my family that reside in the northern European region known formerly as Germany, would that suffice better? Or should I use longitude and latitude, would that be better instead? ;)

[rouchambeau]

I&#39;m cool with it as a tactic, or if that&#39;s the only way for a working class to focus on liberation. However, if it didn&#39;t turn towards internationalism I would be skeptical.

[kingbee]

The rise of the EU, NAFTA and CAFTA signal to me a world in which nationalism will become more like "regionalism".

But surely the EU, etc have given rise to more devolved government, and therefore feeding nationalism? In recent years Wales, Catalonia, Scotland etc have been given more devolved powers.


"Working men have no country"
"Workers of the world, unite&#33;"
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"

Being <insert nationality here> is nothing to be proud of.

Very well. But saying a few quotable sayings doesn&#39;t really say much.

I don&#39;t believe that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Unfortunately, it isn&#39;t as good a soundbyte.

[STI]

The ideology of nationalism - that people with a common culture, language, history, and (most of the time) geographical location have some bond that transcends class lines - is, in itself, inhibitive toward the end of proletarian revolution.

The effects, though, of some instanes wherein nationalism was the dominant ideology, can be progressive. A nationalist uprising in a dominated nation against an imperialist dominator would be progressive for several reasons. First, it invalidates the reality of imperialist domination as an &#39;excuse&#39; for "how shitty things are". It also serves to weaken the weight of nationalist ideology in the imperialist nation (where the presence and effects of nationalism are reactionary). Most importantly, though, is that it allows the domestic bourgeoisie of the once-dominated nation to rise to prominance, leading to the development of an industrialized economy and a sophisticated infrastructure - which require an advanced proletariat, who are incidentally better-suited to carry out proletarian revolution&#33; Keep in mind that this happens over several generations.

So what should Leftists say about nationalism?

I think we should oppose the ideology nationalism all the time. We should, with that in mind, be supportive of actions and events which are progressive (national liberation, for one)... even if nationalism happens to be the dominant ideology surrounding those actions.

So, critical support for national liberation movements, criticism for nationalism.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:06 PM
The ideology of nationalism - that people with a common culture, language, history, and (most of the time) geographical location have some bond that transcends class lines - is, in itself, inhibitive toward the end of proletarian revolution.
I disagree. What is a nation but a group of people with a shared history, culture, language, etc. It doesn&#39;t make the captialist any less of a bastard because he or she shares the same nationality/race/sex/gender/religion as you.

Anyone who would support a capitalist for being "one of us" is a fool.

[kingbee]

So, critical support for national liberation movements, criticism for nationalism.

I couldn&#39;t agree more.

[Salvador Allende]

As with all things, the character of it must be looked at. When we look at nationalism, we must see if it is bourgeois-nationalism or if it is proletarian-nationalism. That is, does it take a reactionary or a progressive character? If it takes a progressive character and is in the service of the proletariat, then it is good. We find this type of Nationalism (found in the Revolutions of China, Vietnam and Korea) is good while the type of chauvanistic Nationalism found in the West and in the Social-Imperialist USSR, is bad. Even bourgeois nationalism should be supported critically when it opposes Imperialism and takes a momentary character of progress.

[Decolonize The Left]

Firstly let me say that I have not read this entire thread, only selected posts as I moved along. Now allow me to voice my opinion on nationalism.

Nationalism (being the devotion to the interest of one&#39;s culture or nation) is neither good or bad, as those terms are relative and subjective and therefore vary from situation to situation. Rather, it is misguided energy. What is one&#39;s culture? It is a totality of symbols, beliefs, institutions, etc.. which link a group of people. A nation is a group of people which share a common language, culture, etc... In other words, nationalism is the devotion to the preservation of the bond between people within a given area. This doesn&#39;t sound too bad on the surface, and some of our comrades here have expressed their support of certain types of nationalism. I attribute their support to the above stated idea and its enticing sound.

Yet the question has yet to be raised (as far as I&#39;ve read, correct me if I&#39;m wrong) as to what exactly is the bond between people in a given area? Or more specifically, what is it that nationalism is trying to preserve?
When we find the answer (and it obviously will vary according to culture/nation), then we can see whether or not it is "good" or "bad". Yet I have yet to support my claim that it is misguided energy. I wish to touch on this briefly.

I believe that nationalism is misguided energy because it gives no time for reflection on the above mentioned questions. It demands immediate blind faith and devotion to an abstract concept which is ill-defined and possibly used for alternate purposes than those in the minds of the supporters. Such leeway is dangerous, and as we well know, has been used for vicious reasons in the past. It is for these reasons that I think nationalism is misguided energy, as one could be using that energy towards a search for the truth, or towards change which can be seen to be one thing or the other - not some abstract entity.

-- August

[Body Count]

Originally posted by dislatino+Mar 28 2006, 08:47 PM--> (dislatino @ Mar 28 2006, 08:47 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 07:45 PM
Heritage is completely different than nationality.
Agree, i was waiting for this to being introduced to the convo, heritage is different to nationality, one can be proud of ones country through a bloodline without accepting the "ideology" of nationalism and patriotism. [/b]
"Bloodline" ???

:lol:

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Marx said that you shouldnt celebrate the borders put up by bourgeois. So, being nationalist is contradictory to everything Marx was saying.

If I am off-base here, someone, please correct me.

[1984]

Remember, the modern concept of nation is a bourgueois one... countries as they exist today are a consequence of the overthrowing of the feudal lords and the estabilishment of national states in Europe at the end of the middle ages. A centralized, absolutist monarchy state could only be archieved with the financial help of the bourgueoise.

Today, nationalism is reactionary. And a very efficient brain-washing and control technique. Period.

<_<

[Macchendra]

"We are patriots to the world, and traitors to every nation. We stand united with every living creature. We do not boast our superiority because we live in this or that country, or in this or that province. We reject the divisions of territory. Our allegiance to the whole world has made us enemies and traitors to all divisions of it."

...

"Authoritarianism is the bastard child of territorialism. When animals learned to value each other, their violence, which had been focused on keeping others out of their territory, became refocused on dominance of those in their territory. To this very day territory is used as a justification for authoritarianism. They can impose their will upon you with violence because you are in their territory. The irony of this evil is that the territory itself is often obtained by the physical ability to impose their will with violence."

-The Army of the Frog