National Identity.

[Mariam]

I've been having a debate with some other comrades who are kind of far left about national identity..
They insist that leftists must have a strong sense of belonging to thier countries if they were truly leftist quoting Lenin and i dont know who else.
Telling me that my country had the first leftist party in the GCC (like I don't know) and stating some facts that im clearly aware of, but am I wrong in catagorizing myself as antinationalist??
Or is it wrong to be antinationalist in general?
How does the left and other fellow leftists see this issue?
Thanks.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

I think socialists must first and foremost see themselves as internationalists. Our aim is the downfall of capitalism which affects the entire planet. Oppressed people's exist in all countries and decisions made which affect ordinary people in your contry are decisions made by your rulers in opposition to other rulers.

At the end of the day, the oppressed always lose out.

[Janus]

They insist that leftists must have a strong sense of belonging to thier countries if they were truly leftist quoting Lenin and i dont know who else.
False and I don't think Lenin said anything like that either.

Loyalty to nations drawn up through arbitrary lines only divides us to the bourgeois' glee.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:21 PM
I've been having a debate with some other comrades who are kind of far left about national identity..
They insist that leftists must have a strong sense of belonging to thier countries
That's not far left, thats not left atall. Far left calls for the complete abolition of all nations. Although I suppose it depends what you mean by 'far left'



Telling me that my country had the first leftist party in the GCC (like I don't know) and stating some facts that im clearly aware of, but am I wrong in catagorizing myself as antinationalist??

Depends if you are an anti-nationalist or not. I am. :)


Or is it wrong to be antinationalist in general?

No way, nationalism is bunk.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:21 PM
I've been having a debate with some other comrades who are kind of far left about national identity..
They insist that leftists must have a strong sense of belonging to thier countries if they were truly leftist quoting Lenin and i dont know who else.
Telling me that my country had the first leftist party in the GCC (like I don't know) and stating some facts that im clearly aware of, but am I wrong in catagorizing myself as antinationalist??
Or is it wrong to be antinationalist in general?
How does the left and other fellow leftists see this issue?
Thanks.
It's important to separate nationalist ideology and national liberation movements.

Nationalist ideology says, "my nation is the best" or "my nation first" or "unite all the classes in my nation against all other nations." It's bourgeois and should be struggled against. Communism is internationalist because the proletariat is an international class. It can only liberate itself by liberating all of humanity.

There are different types of nationalist ideology--the nationalism of the bourgeoisie in imperialist countries is different from the nationalism of the bourgeoisie in oppressed countries. The first is totally reactionary (Bush, Reagan) and the second is progressive to an extent (Lumumba, Nasser). The difference should be recognized. But communists, the vanguard of the proletariat, represent something much greater and much more radical than even the most progressive bourgeois nationalist.

National liberation movements are movements to break free from imperialist oppression. Communists support and even lead national liberation movements, but on the basis of internationalist not nationalist ideology.

Check out "Theses on the National and Colonial Questions" to see what Lenin really said.

[Mariam]

That's not far left, thats not left atall. Far left calls for the complete abolition of all nations. Although I suppose it depends what you mean by 'far left'

I guess i was supposed to use radical..they think they are the truly new generation of leftists!


Depends if you are an anti-nationalist or not. I am

The whole thing started because people are talking about the coming elections and i said that a lot may not vote this time and i'd be glad to tell others not to vote...
Ok..it's all because im not proud of my country and i believe that all who are feeling proud of thier nationalism are blind or blinded by this nationalism so they are not really seeing whats going on. ( I don't know if i made myself clear..hope so)


False and I don't think Lenin said anything like that either.


Check out "Theses on the National and Colonial Questions" to see what Lenin really said.

I'm still searching for the exact words..i guess that guy said something like to be a good internationalist you have to be a good nationalist first!! ;)

Thanks

[bolshevik butcher]

All Lenin advocated was self determination and the protection of oppressed peoples. These are values the left should adhere to. This however does not involve promoting natiaonlism.

[Ander]

Nationalism is a tricky issue in my opinion. I think it's ok to be proud of where you are from until it gets out of hand. And by out of hand I mean genocidal, nationalist piece of shit.

As a person of Basque heritage, I consider myself a bit nationalist because I support the idea of a Basque nation. Is that bad? I don't know, but I generally support most national liberation type movements such as Irish, Kurdish, Chechnyan, etc.

[anomaly]

I've always found nationalism a bit odd. I don't know why I should be 'proud' to be American. I had no choice in being born here, it was simply a matter of chance. If I can get the funds, then later in my life I'd like to leave this country. I am not proud at all, and I see no reason to preserve any 'nationalistic' feelings at all. The goal, after all, is to have no nation.

[Mariam]

I don't know why I should be 'proud' to be American. I had no choice in being born here, it was simply a matter of chance. If I can get the funds, then later in my life I'd like to leave this country. I am not proud at all, and I see no reason to preserve any 'nationalistic' feelings at all. The goal, after all, is to have no nation.

I understand that clearly because thats how I feel about being Bahraini..
But still people will say that you were born, have lived, and studed and what so ever in whatever country that is so you must give your country something in return at least loyalty or working for its institutions.

[Janus]

But still people will say that you were born, have lived, and studed and what so ever in whatever country that is so you must give your country something in return at least loyalty or working for its institutions.
Why? Nations are just arbitrary lines drawn up in the dirt. I for one feel more solidarity with someone of my class from another country rather than the bourgeois members here. They have done nothing for me so I owe the ruling class nothing.

[Mariam]

Why?

something like a metaphysic bound between you and whatever the country you are from. while other people would easly define thier country as the place the choose to live, work, make profits, and have a family in, without any concideration to thier home country.


I for one feel more solidarity with someone of my class from another country rather than the bourgeois members here

I'd say they same, because yes the ruling class offered my nothing and so are my fellow working-class people and the same applys on others of the same class regardless of thier nationalities.


i guess that guy said something like to be a good internationalist you have to be a good nationalist first!!

BTW, is internationalism contradicting nationalism..im just trying to understand from where on earth did they found such a quote from Lenin's...

[CheRev]

The only people that seem happy with a highly nationalistic population are the ruling classes (especially fascists when in power) as they can use it to invoke fear in the citizens and pretty much get away with whatever draconian laws they want...

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:21 PM
I've been having a debate with some other comrades who are kind of far left about national identity..
They insist that leftists must have a strong sense of belonging to thier countries if they were truly leftist quoting Lenin and i dont know who else.
That is patently false. The vast majority of leftists, certainly those on the far left, disdain nationalism. The ultimate goal of communism is to create a stateless, classless society. As such, communists should logically be opposed to the arbitrary artificial barriers which divide us.

Telling me that my country had the first leftist party in the GCC (like I don't know) and stating some facts that im clearly aware of, but am I wrong in catagorizing myself as antinationalist??
Or is it wrong to be antinationalist in general?
How does the left and other fellow leftists see this issue?
Thanks.
The boundaries of the world's countries have been determined by the successes and failures of kings, generals, land-owners and priests over the past centuries. They have tried hard to equate "people" with "nation-state" so as to rally people's nostalgic love of their own cultures behind the aims of the nation-states. But there is no reason to be proud of one's nation-state, and such irrational pride can only be destructive to our cause, seeing as how one of our main goals is the abolition of borders between the world's peoples. There really isn't a whole lot separating the Americans around me from the Canadians who live 20 miles north of me. Why should it matter at all to me that I happened to have been born a little further south than them? We ought to put this childish nationalism behind us and cooperate to make the future better for everybody; it is absoulely essential if we want to succeed.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by sennomulo+Jul 12 2006, 07:40 PM--> (sennomulo @ Jul 12 2006, 07:40 PM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 01:21 PM
I've been having a debate with some other comrades who are kind of far left about national identity..
They insist that leftists must have a strong sense of belonging to thier countries if they were truly leftist quoting Lenin and i dont know who else.
That is patently false. The vast majority of leftists, certainly those on the far left, disdain nationalism. The ultimate goal of communism is to create a stateless, classless society. As such, communists should logically be opposed to the arbitrary artificial barriers which divide us. [/b]
It's much more complex than that. Even though communists are opposed to nationalism, national barriers are not arbitrary or artificial. The division between oppressor and oppressed nations is real. It's enforced by economic and political relationships, and ultimately by state power.

When people in oppressed nations express nationalist feelings, they aren't necessarily being fooled by their ruling class. They're protesting against REAL oppression.

Communists struggle against nationalist leaders and ideas in these nations by being better fighters against national oppression than the nationalists themselves. Saying "all national barriers are artificial, so let's just forget them," means leaving the people under the leadership of bourgeois nationalists.

Here's a good excerpt from Engels on Irish national identity. Read the preface for the context of his statement.


If members of a conquering nation called upon the nation they had conquered and continued to hold down to forget their specific nationality and position, to “sink national differences” and so forth, that was not Internationalism, it was nothing else but preaching to them submission to the yoke, and attempting to justify and to perpetuate the dominion of the conqueror under the cloak of Internationalism. It was sanctioning the belief, only too common among the English working men, that they were superior beings compared to the Irish, and as much an aristocracy as the mean whites of the Slave States considered themselves to be with regard to the Negroes.

In a case like that of the Irish, true Internationalism must necessarily be based upon a distinctly national organisation; the Irish, as well as other oppressed nationalities, could enter the Association only as equals with the members of the conquering nation, and under protest against the conquest. The Irish sections, therefore, not only were justified, but even under the necessity to state in the preamble to their rules that their first and most pressing duty, as Irishmen, was to establish their own national independence.

http://www.marxists.org/history/internatio...ish-section.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1872/irish-section.htm)

[Mariam]

The division between oppressor and oppressed nations is real. It's enforced by economic and political relationships, and ultimately by state power.

I would agree with this because if it wasn't fot the oppressor national barriers would have been artificial...i guess these barriers were drown te make the division of the oppressed land easier.


When people in oppressed nations express nationalist feelings, they aren't necessarily being fooled by their ruling class. They're protesting against REAL oppression.

And that would take us back to the national liberation movements? ;)


true Internationalism must necessarily be based upon a distinctly national organisation; the Irish, as well as other oppressed nationalities, could enter the Association only as equals with the members of the conquering nation, and under protest against the conquest.

So isn't it like gaining their national rights before being internationaly equal?
Which also brings to my mind the cuban revolution for example wasn't it motivated by a nationail motive and later adopted communism??

[Comrade Marcel]

Mao explains this very well, and quotations from the red book make it easy to get a quick grasp:

http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/QCM66.html#s18

[Mariam]

Mao explains this very well, and quotations from the red book make it easy to get a quick grasp:

Thanks Marcel that was really good:
"This is our internationalism, the internationalism with which we oppose both narrow nationalism and narrow patriotism"

[Red Polak]

Which bits of Lenin were they quoting? I don't recall ever reading him write anything of the sort.


my opinion on nationalism - yeah, nations are lines drawn on a map, they've been fought over and millions have been killed for them. In a true communist society, nations should not, and will not, exist because they serve only to divide us arbitrarially and actually act as a means by which the ruling classes can have even more control over us.



as to my moniker, Red Polak, I'm a polak in the stereotypical vodka-drinking, fur hat-wearing way, rather than in the blindly following the government and being willing to die merely for a piece of land way. ;)

[bezdomni]

There is a difference between nationalism and national liberation.

Supporting national liberation is inherent in any anti-imperialist/radical leftist ideology. If you don't support the self-emancipation of oppressed countries or nationalities, then you really aren't much of an internationalist or an anti-imperialist.

[Mariam]

Which bits of Lenin were they quoting? I don't recall ever reading him write anything of the sort.

I dont know! :huh:


Supporting national liberation is inherent in any anti-imperialist/radical leftist ideology. If you don't support the self-emancipation of oppressed countries or nationalities, then you really aren't much of an internationalist or an anti-imperialist.

Don't get me wrong I never said that im against national liberation movement, but i guess im being a bit inconsistence i mean I'll support any national liberation movement in my country even if Im not proud of my nationality!

[apathy maybe]

Firstly, I bet that they were Stalinist, and that means they aren't my comrade (I even accept some Leninists as comrades, but not Stalinists).

Secondly, states have no legitimate reason for existing. Whatever crap they tell you, I don't consent, I didn't consent and I won't consent to being ruled. I wasn't asked my opinions on the laws, neither were my opinions taken into account.

States are simply a hierarchical organisation that should be abolished.

Nations are slightly different. The concept of a group of people who share a common culture (and often a common language or languages) and are usually of a similar ethnicity as a nation is fine. But it doesn't mean that they have to all exist in one state, nor even in a country.

There is no good reason for countries to exist, borders are arbitrary and have no good reason to exist.

So to be proud of your country is just stupid. Especially if you are a leftist who wants to bring about an end to such stupidity and want an international system.

[Ol' Dirty]

Fuck nations. They help no-one but the bourgoise elite

[Mariam]

Now that bastard is saying that he didn't quote Lenin because he is well educated about Lenin! :angry: