Marxist and Liberalist approaches to NATIONALISM

[communist_kyle]

How would you compare the Marxist and Liberal approaches to Nationalsim?
Does Marxism view Nationalism as unneccessary?

[Vargha Poralli]

Does Marxism view Nationalism as unneccessary?

I don't know whether you are refreing to Nationalism or National self determination.

Marxism is generally opposed to nationalism in all ways. Marx called for workers of the world to unite not workers of some nation states.

As far as National self determination there are two streams one which is Adopted and advocated by Bolsheviks and the one which is advocated by Rosa Luxemburg. IMO marxists are divided on this issue a lot.
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination - V.I.Lenin (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm)

The National Question - Rosa Luxemburg (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm)

[manic expression]

Marxism views nationalism as something that gets in the way of class consciousness. Workers, regardless of their nationality, all have common interests; nationalism impedes the realization of this fact, pitting the working classes of one nation against the working classes of another, while capitalists benefit from this conflict.

There are many "liberalisms". American liberalism is basically Barack Obama, John Kerry and all them (if you've ever seen the West Wing, that's basically a depiction of a very liberal administration). Classical liberalism is John Locke and the Whigs of Britain, which is considerably different.

Anyway, to answer your question, American liberals tend to favor nationalism. They have a delusional, vague and fantastical notion of what "America" is, and they think that all bad aspects (or all the things they don't like) are simply a deviation from this imaginary vision of "America". The more liberal portions of the Democratic Party are patriotic PRIMARILY toward their delusional vision of America; the politicians of the Democratic Party are downright nationalistic in every sense of the word.

[Rawthentic]

National determination is the right for all oppressed people around the world to control their communities in which they live, free from imperialism and capitalism. Such movements include Vietnam, Cuba, and Ireland.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:22 pm
National determination is the right for all oppressed people around the world to control their communities in which they live, free from imperialism and capitalism. Such movements include Vietnam, Cuba, and Ireland.
It's impossible for one "nation" to live "free from capitalism and imperialism".

[Rawthentic]

Where did I say "one nation"? Please take a closer look before making such assumptions. These movements are part of the international struggle for liberation.

[Guerrilla22]

If we're talking about classic liberalism, they aren't really nationalist. Their core belief is that national interest can be furthered and national security obatained through international cooperation and involvement through multi national organizations. Its the school of thought that brought us the UN and neo-liberalism.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:53 am
Where did I say "one nation"? Please take a closer look before making such assumptions. These movements are part of the international struggle for liberation.
You said that, for instance, Cubans are asserting their "right" to live, in your words, "free from capitalism and imperialism".

No such "right" can exist - certainly in regards to capitalism, since Capital doesn't respect artificial boundaries. A state could remove itself from the global imperialist cesspool with great difficulty. One could say Cuban and Venezuela have achieved this (to an extent) but neither lives independently from capitalism. The Venezuelan economy relies almost entirely, for example, on oil exported to the "world market".

[Leo]

If we're talking about classic liberalism, they aren't really nationalist.

Well, classical classical liberalism is actually very nationalist: remember, the idea rose along with nationalism. Also non-classical liberalism is very nationalist. The bottom line is that liberalism is very nationalist.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by YKTMX+March 02, 2007 06:19 am--> (YKTMX @ March 02, 2007 06:19 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 12:53 am
Where did I say "one nation"? Please take a closer look before making such assumptions. These movements are part of the international struggle for liberation.
You said that, for instance, Cubans are asserting their "right" to live, in your words, "free from capitalism and imperialism".

No such "right" can exist - certainly in regards to capitalism, since Capital doesn't respect artificial boundaries. A state could remove itself from the global imperialist cesspool with great difficulty. One could say Cuban and Venezuela have achieved this (to an extent) but neither lives independently from capitalism. The Venezuelan economy relies almost entirely, for example, on oil exported to the "world market". [/b]
I agree that Cuba does not live apart from capitalism due to the reasons you stated, as well as any one nation at a time. maybe I didn't explain myself very well. The movements that I stated, Cuba, Vietnam, and Ireland, are revolutionary nationalist movements for self-determination, but require the support of the nations of the world. I do see that they cannot live free from imperialism and capitalism.

[Guerrilla22]

Liberal thought is largely based on globalism, specifically classical liberalism, where is where the idea of neo-liberalism came from. The relevant difference between the two is that liberalism brought forth modern capitalism, which is why we must reject it.