Nationalism or Socialism?

[bolshevik1917]

The so called 'Scottish socialist party' plan to have a meeting in my town in January to discuss their plans for an 'independant socialist Scotland'.

It's clear to see that this sectarian party have abandoned Marxism altogether. Since the formation of the SML (Scottish Militant Labour) after their breakaway from Militant Labour nationalism has grown at a worrying rate inside these so called 'socialist' groups.

Marxists must realize that the only way to 'free' a country is a worldwide socialist revolution. These 'socialist' nationalists for some reason want to split the Brittish trade unions in two, whilst setting up another state to take on - sheer madness!!

Im curious to see if any comrades have the same problem in their country, or if any comrades from the UK have strong opinions on this.

[Miguel]

I agree, isolation and marxism cant co-exist. Nationalism (in Europe) can only be destructive to socialism, as Marx wrote, it is a natural development when communism expands to a world wide state, where borders are no longer necessary and the term "nation" only means difference in culture. But i also beleve that it is in the developed countries where nationalism works against the true mening of marxism. In South America for example, what capitalist minds call nationalism (when they look at Cuba, for example) is really just the obvius right to work against the imperialsitic exploatation of the land that really belongs to the farmers. What drove people like Guevara, Castro and Cienfuegos to their revolutionary actions was the fact that outside nations (the USA) was and still are exploiting and consuming South America on the cost of the poor people, leaving a few (like Batista in Cuba) to encourege this global steeling and gain power on it, so what one could call nationalism is really just the struggle against imperialism and capitalism. But as you said, in nations like yours nationalism is just a side-effect of something not marxist at all, when the strenght of socialism lies in the community and not the isolation of nations.

[Pete]

What you are describing is definitly a national movement. But I believe when we are looking at the world wide revolution we should look not at national proletariants, but the international proletariant.

The first world holds the minority of the population, and is the global borgousie. The majority of the population, the poor third world, is the global proletariant. Since we are looking for a global revolution, national factors should not be looked at, but the international ones. We are in an industrialized world with an imperialistic and industrialized bourgoisie running the show as Marx predicted. From where we stand now, the third world will rise up against the first world, not the American or Canadian proletariant rising against the American or Canadian bourgoisie. This is how I see it should happen. Socialist parties in bourgoisie nations are good to educate us, but the real battles will be fought elsewhere, and imported to us after the war is won or lost in the third world.

[Borincano]

In Puerto Rico, it's the same thing. The main independence parties (Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño http://www.independencia.net and el Congreso Nacional Hostosiano http://www.redbetances.com ) want independence from the USA gov't and then democratic socialism implemented as an independent republic.

[Blasphemy]

i am not an anarchist, and i belive in the neccesity of governments. i think that nations should only exist for the sole purpose that it is easier this way to manage the affairs of a place. i belive that all nations should work together to help each other. there shouldn't be war between nations. there shouldn't be patriotism. nations will be a tool, used by the workers to manage their affairs.