Nationalism, nay or yay?

[Dominicana_1965]

When Leftists think of nationalism they can't help but to immediately turn on a negative light switch which brings along Hitler & Mussolini. They claim it will build up what we tried to wither/abolish. I think that the mass opinion of nationalism is similar to the mass opinion of Communism, stereotypes.

It seems that nationalism is intrisincally "bad", that it rises one nation above the other & that it does, but I draw the question, if nationalism is "bad" then does that mean Proletarian revolution is negative? I would say no, you see nationalism can actually be a tool of the revolution, as it has done in the past. Is it possible that a Union of the World can represent 1 nation? Yes, yes it can. Lets say this Union's nationalism represents a egalitarian society , you are probably thinking what about racism? better music? Well if its egalitarian I don't see why deconstructing race & sexuality & other socially constructed differences can't be a part of the nationalism?

The Proletarian revolution keeps on living because we, the Proletariat still see & feel the ills of Capitalism, the Capitalists are nationalistic yes, but so are we. The revolution which we seek is a more egalitarian society, in which we talk about the great benefits each will have, greater than Capitalism's rapacious givings. We raise the flag that represents a Worldwide Union, in which we see 1 nation that is greater than the current parasitic state we have before us. With that said is nationalism still "good" or "bad" or neutral?

[Political_Chucky]

When Leftists think of nationalism they can't help but to immediately turn on a negative light switch which brings along Hitler & Mussolini. They claim it will build up what we tried to wither/abolish. I think that the mass opinion of nationalism is similar to the mass opinion of Communism, stereotypes.

The reason we see nationalism as a threat is because it seperates classes. Nationalism is pretty much loyalty towards your country. I don't get how you can't see how its a threat to communism period. Equality is one of our primary concerns. How are peopel equal when we are divided by race? How is it that us "minorities" are look at as criminals while "white" men are stereo-typed as a person who should own a house in the suburbs? What does a piece of dirt matter really anyways?


It seems that nationalism is intrisincally "bad", that it rises one nation above the other & that it does, but I draw the question, if nationalism is "bad" then does that mean Proletarian revolution is negative? I would say no, you see nationalism can actually be a tool of the revolution, as it has done in the past.

How is the proletarian revolution compared to nationalism? One is an action that is suppose to get rid of our oppressors, the other is a devotion to a type of culture, which is pretty much bullshit.


Is it possible that a Union of the World can represents 1 nation? Yes, yes it can. Lets say this Union nationalism represents a egalitarian society , you are probably thinking what about racism? better music? Well if its egalitarian I don't see the why deconstructing race & sexuality & other socially constructed differences be a part of the nationalism?

I don't understand...so your saying that the world should unite as one? As one nation? If I got this mistaken let me know. But I think thats basically what we want is it not? A world without racism, with out sexism, with out discrimination? That would be great, but nationalism doesn't support this.



The Proletarian revolution keeps on living because we, the Proletariat still see & feel the ills of Capitalism, the Capitalists are nationalistic yes, but so are we.

How are communists nationalistic?


The revolution which we seek is a more egalitarian society, in which we talk about the great benefits each will have, greater than Capitalism's rapacious givings. We raise the flag that represents a Worldwide Union, in which we see 1 nation that is greater than the current parasitic state we have before us. With that said is nationalism still "good" or "bad" or neutral?

What your saying is kind of an oxymoron. A nationalistic society that shows no discrimnation? I don't see anything wrong with being proud what your ancestry have been through, but to show any devotion to a country or race is simply wrong in my opinion. Correct me if I just went right over what you were saying or missed the point.

[Dominicana_1965]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:04 am

When Leftists think of nationalism they can't help but to immediately turn on a negative light switch which brings along Hitler & Mussolini. They claim it will build up what we tried to wither/abolish. I think that the mass opinion of nationalism is similar to the mass opinion of Communism, stereotypes.

The reason we see nationalism as a threat is because it seperates classes. Nationalism is pretty much loyalty towards your country. I don't get how you can't see how its a threat to communism period. Equality is one of our primary concerns. How are peopel equal when we are divided by race? How is it that us "minorities" are look at as criminals while "white" men are stereo-typed as a person who should own a house in the suburbs? What does a piece of dirt matter really anyways?


It seems that nationalism is intrisincally "bad", that it rises one nation above the other & that it does, but I draw the question, if nationalism is "bad" then does that mean Proletarian revolution is negative? I would say no, you see nationalism can actually be a tool of the revolution, as it has done in the past.

How is the proletarian revolution compared to nationalism? One is an action that is suppose to get rid of our oppressors, the other is a devotion to a type of culture, which is pretty much bullshit.


Is it possible that a Union of the World can represents 1 nation? Yes, yes it can. Lets say this Union nationalism represents a egalitarian society , you are probably thinking what about racism? better music? Well if its egalitarian I don't see the why deconstructing race & sexuality & other socially constructed differences be a part of the nationalism?

I don't understand...so your saying that the world should unite as one? As one nation? If I got this mistaken let me know. But I think thats basically what we want is it not? A world without racism, with out sexism, with out discrimination? That would be great, but nationalism doesn't support this.



The Proletarian revolution keeps on living because we, the Proletariat still see & feel the ills of Capitalism, the Capitalists are nationalistic yes, but so are we.

How are communists nationalistic?


The revolution which we seek is a more egalitarian society, in which we talk about the great benefits each will have, greater than Capitalism's rapacious givings. We raise the flag that represents a Worldwide Union, in which we see 1 nation that is greater than the current parasitic state we have before us. With that said is nationalism still "good" or "bad" or neutral?

What your saying is kind of an oxymoron. A nationalistic society that shows no discrimnation? I don't see anything wrong with being proud what your ancestry have been through, but to show any devotion to a country or race is simply wrong in my opinion. Correct me if I just went right over what you were saying or missed the point.

The reason we see nationalism as a threat is because it seperates classes. Nationalism is pretty much loyalty towards your country. I don't get how you can't see how its a threat to communism period. Equality is one of our primary concerns. How are peopel equal when we are divided by race? How is it that us "minorities" are look at as criminals while "white" men are stereo-typed as a person who should own a house in the suburbs? What does a piece of dirt matter really anyways?

You don't get it, the deconstruction of race is a PART of the nationalism is what im trying to explain.


How is the proletarian revolution compared to nationalism? One is an action that is suppose to get rid of our oppressors, the other is a devotion to a type of culture, which is pretty much bullshit.

We believe that our society is better than the current (and i agree), the society we seek is 1 huge nation, and culture is far more than simply music & language.


I don't understand...so your saying that the world should unite as one? As one nation? If I got this mistaken let me know. But I think thats basically what we want is it not? A world without racism, with out sexism, with out discrimination? That would be great, but nationalism doesn't support this.
Yes, and thats what im saying, that IS WHAT WE WANT, a egalatarian worldwide NATION which we are proud of & boast about, the nationalism im talking about is far more complex than the homophobic & sexist social adherer we see, im trying to say that the deconstruction of these social constructs IS THE NATIONALISM.


What your saying is kind of an oxymoron. A nationalistic society that shows no discrimnation? I don't see anything wrong with being proud what your ancestry have been through, but to show any devotion to a country or race is simply wrong in my opinion. Correct me if I just went right over what you were saying or missed the point.
Its not about being proud of your ancestry comrade, what im trying to explain is that we too are proud of the world wide union we seek to create, and that is nationalistic in itself.

[Wiesty]

The only thing Nationalism can do that is good is boost the economy. Take a look at Germany just in the early 20th century. After Bismarck and Wilhelm I united Germany there were huge gains made, most notably the workers health/pension program that was set up, very socialistic especially for their time. While I do not agree with the racial/class struggles that Nationalism creates, it has its perks. I think if we were to have Nationalism where ALL within a country were united, instead of by race, that would be ideal.

[the-red-under-the-bed]

Nationalism is a big "nay".

1. Nationalism is the pride and belief in your nation. Bu the nation is just a geographical area with laws and a state apperatus (millitary, police ect) that support the bourgeoisie of that area. Nations are not areas of cultural, linguistic, or geographical significance, it is the extent of control of a particular bourgeois. Nationalism in the proletariat is a big "nay" because what does the proletariat have to be proud of in a nation? why should the proletariat support an idea that doesnt represnt their intrests?

2. Nationalism distracts the proletariat from their real place in the world. Nationalism distracts the proletariat from realising the international revolution. A worker in a poor inner urban city in america has more in common with fellow workers in europe or asia or australia than he does with the rich man on the other side of town, but nationalism denys this. Nationalism leads people to believe that everyone within the nation has something in common. there is a song here "i am, you are, we are australians". No, fuck that, im a proletariat, your bourgeois, we are not the same, i dont care where we happen to live. The reality is that the real differences in the world are economic factors, and we are split only into classes, not nations.

[More Fire for the People]

I'm not down for national separatism. That just leads to working class disintegration. You want to talk about anti-colonialism or self-appreciation through minority culture or some shit with a basis in the dehumanized subjects of bourgeois domination call me back but otherwise 'nationalism' is just a codeword for self-determination of the bourgeoisie.

Fuck, its not even that. After the Russian Revolution, the 'self-determined' people of Finland found themselves with German bayonets up their ass: at 'their', i.e. the bourgeoisie's, request.

Now I have a Creedence Clearwater Revival song to listen to...

[Dominicana_1965]

Yall still don't get my point

[the-red-under-the-bed]

i see your point.

THe thing is though, a world wide union of the the worlds oppressed peoples is not a nation. I understand what your trying to say,but your terminology is wrong.
It wouldnt be nationalism for people to be striving for a better equal and global society, it would be class conciousness.

[Rawthentic]

What about revolutionary nationalism. like that of the Black Panthers?

They were about working class unity, but they understood that certain oppressed groups, like Blacks in the US, had to settle their own accounts first.

[Political_Chucky]

Blank Panthers, Brown Berets, or any other culture inspired group were basically reformist groups. They indeed wanted to help the working class, but they weren't advocating revolution or anything in that sorts, besides maybe Mexican-American advocates who demand they get back Aztlan.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:10 pm
What about revolutionary nationalism. like that of the Black Panthers?

They were about working class unity, but they understood that certain oppressed groups, like Blacks in the US, had to settle their own accounts first.
The Black Panthers weren't fans of pork chop nationalism though they worked with Black nationalists. Huey eventually upheld a general disdain for all nationalism, even revolutionary nationalism, and instead upheld a line of inter-communalism but I don't know too much about that. I think Hampton would know more on the topic.

I don't think analyzing and attending to the very specific and very concrete manifestations of racism in American society or any society is nationalism. I wouldn't even say creating organizations based upon the sole issue of race in the context of class struggle [ or class in the context of race ] is nationalism.

Nationalism is a very backward view that liberation of the colonized, the racially subjugated, etc. members of the proletariat, lumpenproletariat, and peasantry can come in the form of a simple formula of 'national self determination of peoples'. The ambiguity 'peoples' always gives the bourgeoisie the advantage and the peasantry & lumpenproletariat always takes a chance at earning it big themselves.

This doesn't mean we should abandon wars of national liberation as part of the communist project but realize that real liberation is dependent on class struggle and class emancipation and that without class war the war for national liberation is anything but.

[Rawthentic]

The Black Panthers were scathingly against pork chop nationalism. They were revolutionary communists.


This doesn't mean we should abandon wars of national liberation as part of the communist project but realize that real liberation is dependent on class struggle and class emancipation and that without class war the war for national liberation is anything but.
I'm wondering, have you read on the BPP? This describes them pretty well.

[Vargha Poralli]

I am going to be a minority here.

IMO nationalism is a good thing. And my opinion is purely based on my own observation of the country I live in. We are seperated from each other by Language,Religion,Race and Culture but all the people whether a North Indian or South Indian, Tamil or a Malayali ,Hindu or a Muslim willl feel a sense of prode when it comes to Indian Nationalism. Though internal troubles did happen it does not spread and turn in to a big issue precisley because of thius

This type of Nationalism IMO is really good as Communists would have a easy work in uniting the workers of India. I can't imagine a sectarian hell hole like Yugoslavia would be a good thing for workers struggle in India where people are divided by more factors than the entire world is.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

national liberation led by the proletariat leads to the social revolution

[Sir_No_Sir]

National Liberation is good. Hell, dare I say great?
But once you getpast that...no..it's almost always bad.

[redcannon]

my biggest probelm with nationalism is that it entails the existence of nations...

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:52 pm
my biggest probelm with nationalism is that it entails the existence of nations...
What do you mean? Nations only exist through nationalism?

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by the-red-under-the-[email protected] 13, 2007 01:56 am
i see your point.

THe thing is though, a world wide union of the the worlds oppressed peoples is not a nation. I understand what your trying to say,but your terminology is wrong.
It wouldnt be nationalism for people to be striving for a better equal and global society, it would be class conciousness.
i think thats how i feel..

[Rage Against Right]

I've seen the overtly ugly side of nationalism when on Australia Day in Australia, thousands of youths paraded the Australian flag like a cape, all through Sydney Big Day Out (music festival) and many other places in Australia. Cronulla Race Riots are another example of nationalism being taken to the enth degree, the idea of abuse and constant harrasement to anyone who isnt white and fairheaded in AUstralia sickens me, and because of this my feelings on nationalism are against it.

Workers Have No Borders!

[LSD]

I think there's some confusion here as to just what nationalism actually is.

Nationalism is not allegience to country, it's allegiance to nation and while those two terms are sometimes used interchangably, they are most definitely not the same thing.

The question of whether or not there can ever be such a thing as a true "workers state" is a complex and multifaceted one, and I think you all know where I stand on it, but even if we were to accept for the sake of argument that such a country could be created, feeling proud of it or loyalty to it would not be nationalism ...it would be ideology.

If, in one's judgement, a country or region is a manifest example of their political beliefs, as, for instance, a "workers' state" would be to a Leninist or a Christian state would be to a Christian theocrat, then one cannot help but to support that region.

Indeed, pretty much by definition, if you believe in a proletarian "country" (however you define that to be) and such a "country" is created, you will support and feel loyalty to that "country".

But nation has nothing to do with it.

Nations are sociocultural entities, entirely seperate from political structure. One does not support one's nation because that nation displays political tendencies one agrees with, but because one holds that ethnosocial identity, with all that goes with it, to be of importance in and of itself.

To a communist, however, the only identity that matters is class identity. There's nothing wrong with enjoying features of the nation in which you happen to live, but the moment that you hold those features to be of political import, you've put nation above class and, as such, fractured the international workers' solidarity upon which our movement is based.

[Pirate Utopian]

I think it depends.
You have reactionary nationalism and revolutionary nationalism.
Ofcourse nationalists like Hitler or Papa Doc wont be too popular, but what about Lumumba or Frantz Fanon?

Calling for indepdence is defined nationalist, but I have no problem with certain countries calling for indepdence for example, Puerto Rico, if they want indepdence, that may be a nationalist thing, but I'll support it.

If a country gets occupied by foreign imperialists, those who resist against it usually do it because they dont want their nation to live under occupation.
Would you oppose that?, it's nationalism.

P.S. the BPP were black nationalists, with porkchop nationalism they ment cultural nationalism, not all nationalism, read: http://www.hippy.com/php/article.php?sid=76

[luxemburg89]

well marx argued that the working class should settle things in their own 'country' first, and then it will all branch out and join together - thus destroying nationalism - hopefully. We are internationalist not nationalist, i think anyone with any sympathy for nationalism here should read wilfred owen's Dulce Et Decorum Est. Nationalism, and its child patriotism, have a great danger to lead to fascism and racism.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Rage Against [email protected] 13, 2007 06:37 pm
I've seen the overtly ugly side of nationalism when on Australia Day in Australia, thousands of youths paraded the Australian flag like a cape, all through Sydney Big Day Out (music festival) and many other places in Australia. Cronulla Race Riots are another example of nationalism being taken to the enth degree, the idea of abuse and constant harrasement to anyone who isnt white and fairheaded in AUstralia sickens me, and because of this my feelings on nationalism are against it.

Workers Have No Borders!
This is completly different to the nationalism of say Vietnam during their war of liberation or the Black Panther Party.

White people in Australia are national oppressors. The race riots at Cronulla were a vulgar display of ethnicity, or ethnic oppression which is White Australia. They were basically saying "This is Australia". Anglo nationalism has been growing in Australia, it is a reaction to imperialism in the Middle East. The imperialist governments have created an environment of fear to futher their imperialist agendas in the Middle East. The scenes at Cronulla and the general rise in patriotism/nationalism is a reaction to these fears, generall the fear that White people are going to be enslaved.

Nationalism is always relative to class and ethnicity/nation situation. In the other situation, in the USA the Black Panthers can be considered nationalists. However they did not act in this pig manner, because they were oppressed themselves. Their aim was the arming, protecting and liberation of Black communities and the Black nation.

Always analysis the situation and look at both sides before taking a position.

[redcannon]

Originally posted by Hiero+May 12, 2007 10:17 pm--> (Hiero @ May 12, 2007 10:17 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 04:52 pm
my biggest probelm with nationalism is that it entails the existence of nations...
What do you mean? Nations only exist through nationalism? [/b]
I'm not saying that, I'm only saying that you can't have an ideology with no medium. Nationzalism without nations would be like upper class in a classless society.

Perhaps 'entails" wasn't the word I was looking for. I think "implies" is better

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am completely set against nationalism in all forms. I do, however, support national self-determination.

[Janus]

Is it possible that a Union of the World can represent 1 nation?
Yes, but it would be quite misleading to call that nationalism. Nationalism is specifically based on identification with the ethnic cultural background of a specific nation. The global state of which you speak of would transcend these cultural bounds and be based around a societal committment to an ideology rather than any ethnic manifestations.

The concept of nationalism itself has been discussed many times on this board so I would encourage you to look up those debates too.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:08 am
I am completely set against nationalism in all forms. I do, however, support national self-determination.
Would you like to clarify this 'nation' term you are using because I'm pretty sure the American 'nation' is dominated politically by the bourgeoisie and their lackeys. The slogan of 'national self determination' as opposed to revolutionary anti-colonialism which entails the dismantling the power of both the colonialist bourgeoisie and their colonial lackeys.

Nationalism & the slogan of abstract 'national' self-determination is a trojan horse for counter-revolution.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To put it in terms simple enough for you to understand; I am against stupid flag-waving bullshit, but I am perfectly fine with a country defending itself against imperialist aggression; but you don't have to whip up nationalism in order to do it.

Is that simple enough for you, or will I have to use shorter words?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:15 pm
To put it in terms simple enough for you to understand; I am against stupid flag-waving bullshit, but I am perfectly fine with a country defending itself against imperialist aggression; but you don't have to whip up nationalism in order to do it.

Is that simple enough for you, or will I have to use shorter words?
What I ask of you is not ‘shorter words’ but more specific ones. I get that your not down for smug smegheaded patriotism but I don’t think you realize the importance of clarify what constitutes a ‘nation’ in the term self-determination of nations. For instance, the Islamic theocrats and ex-lackeys of the Saddam regime and the CIA are a part of the Iraqi nation but they constitute a force of social reaction and their resistance weakens the position of the Iraqi working class. As communists we should not stand up for abstract national self-determination but anti-neo-colonialism and proletarian revolution. Otherwise we’re simply swapping one bourgeoisie for another without any visible gain in the workers movement.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fair enough, but I wouldn't classify such resistance as nationalist in any manner - since they are also resisting their native ruling class.

[Spike]

Wars of national liberation are the struggles of the peoples of dependent and colonial countries against the colonialists for the establishment of a state's independence or its preservation against attempts to restore a colonial regime--for example, the war of the Algerian people against French colonialists of 1954-62, the struggle of the Egyptians against the Anglo-French Israeli aggression in 1956, and the struggle of the South Vietnamese people against American aggressors beginning in 1964. Under contemporary conditions, the national liberation struggle for the achievement of national independence is closely intertwined with the social struggle for the democratic reconstruction of public life.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Food for thought, this is from an article I wrote on ethnic and religious segmentation in the late Ottoman Empire (about 1828-1922):

"Ethnicity is defined commonly as a distinct group with a sense of common historical culture, shared activities, and lifestyles as well as a perceived common origin (perhaps a geographic location or region) and can be characterized both from within the specific group itself as well as from without. The development of nation states throughout the latter half of the preceding millennium and the contemporary issues surrounding the organization of ethnic groups to mobilize against existing states suggests that ethnic factors are necessary in any analysis of social transformations. According to Karl Marx ethnic identity is a social construct that will be gradually weathered away in favor of economic class-based identifications. Marx maintained that capitalism would eliminate all ethnic communal identifications that obstructed the formation of class-consciousness.
Anthony Smith argues that nationalism in the late eighteenth century Europe was tied to an ethnic revival of sorts that led to an ideological movement for identity and autonomy, that instead of class replacing ethnicity these divisions were merely transferred into economic divisions. The unequal distribution of power across the European continent resulted in a cultural division of labor; with dominate cultural groups controlling the state and its resources to the exclusion of subordinate groups."

I guess the point here is that nationalism and the concept of nations are essentially social constructions (see Benedict Andersons book Imagined Communities) and often the creation of Top-Down political actors (like kings or prophets for example) to more effectively manage their affairs, often to simply raise larger and larger armies (Napoleon), and sometimes in response to increasing demands of liberalization from peasants or the bourgeoisie (see German Unification).

The idea that Nationalism is wholly a social construction does not mean however that all peoples and cultures are indistinguishable, Nationalism often seeks to highlight differences as being unique and exceptional and while this does not necessarily imply their superiority, this is often the case. National identity, as was stated above, is both dependant on factors assigned to themselves and in response to outside factors that seek to define them.

Also some nations are more constructed then others.... I would say that the Basque Nation or the Tamil Nation is far less constructed then say.... the Greek Nation or the Turkish Nation.... Even the “Jewish Nation” (actually I have a lot of opinions on the “Jewish Nation” but I will save them for another posting)

By the way... any one have any idea if there is a size limit for submissions to the e-zine ... didn't really consider an essay on the Ottoman Empire to be of interest to the left wing until now ... its a little long though ...

As far as nationalism being useful to revolutionaries, I would answer with a resounding YES! Speaking pragmatically and historically people are always more likely to defend and support their homelands then they are to support people outside of their social, ethnic, or religious groups. This is not to say that nationalism is right or moral or even logical but throughout history the most effective method in getting people to war is to claim the homeland is under attack, demonize those who are different, and foster individual responsibility for the survival of the nation upon the citizens. (See Iraq)

-R

[NorthStarRepublicML]

sorry bout that ... here are sources from the article excerpt above

Olson, Robert W. Die Welt des Islams, New Ser., Vol. 17, Issue 1/4. (1976 - 1977), pp. 72.

Quataert, Donald. The Ottoman Empire, 17001922 (New Approaches to European History) Cambridge University Press (July 31, 2000) p.37

[dez]

You don't get it, the deconstruction of race is a PART of the nationalism is what im trying to explain.

No, deconstruction of race is a PART of SCIENCE, since we DON'T have genetic differences enough to be classified on races.

If someone wants to be a pain in the ass and change scientifical standards of classification of species, that someone would have to go to every geographical barrier (river, mountain, desert, etc) and classify a new race.

[Sacrificed]

Absolutely nay. The modern nation-state was the vehicle for a revolutionary period already long dead and buried in the ground. What worked for the bourgeois during their time of struggle is by no means necessary for the proletariat; the vehicles of the bourgeois revolution, once established, can only serve the purposes of their creators. Though I would like to see a non-homogenizing alternative to the concept of a global socialist one-nation society. Another turn-off of mine to Marxism traditionally known as such.

Nationalism can be occasionally useful to leftist movements (such as the Russian call for defense of their 'Motherland' against Nazi incursion in their propaganda), particularly in nations with strong histories of nationalism in place that have not been co-opted by authoritarian/totalitarian/fascist movements, but to be consistent a revolutionary movement must discard it when it has worn out its welcome. The state is a hierarchically-organized collective, which is just what we must be rid of.


Anthony Smith argues that nationalism in the late eighteenth century Europe was tied to an ethnic revival of sorts that led to an ideological movement for identity and autonomy, that instead of class replacing ethnicity these divisions were merely transferred into economic divisions. The unequal distribution of power across the European continent resulted in a cultural division of labor; with dominate cultural groups controlling the state and its resources to the exclusion of subordinate groups."

An interesting contrast to Foucault, who considers the idea of class struggle to be a sort of mutation of strains of ethnocentrism already established in Europe by the time of the first bourgeois Revolutions.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

An interesting contrast to Foucault, who considers the idea of class struggle to be a sort of mutation of strains of ethnocentrism already established in Europe by the time of the first bourgeois Revolutions.

i would say that in certain areas both could be considered correct, places like the German Lands and England certainly having diffrent conceptions of class and ethnicity and vastly diffrent pre-existing social hierarchies, as well as diffrent rates of industrialization.

i guess i would have to do some research on it, but it doesn't seem as through the two blatantly contradict one another....

-R

[Sacrificed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:10 pm

An interesting contrast to Foucault, who considers the idea of class struggle to be a sort of mutation of strains of ethnocentrism already established in Europe by the time of the first bourgeois Revolutions.

i would say that in certain areas both could be considered correct, places like the German Lands and England certainly having diffrent conceptions of class and ethnicity and vastly diffrent pre-existing social hierarchies, as well as diffrent rates of industrialization.

i guess i would have to do some research on it, but it doesn't seem as through the two blatantly contradict one another....

-R
Oh, no doubt. By 'ethnocentrism before the bourgeois revolutions', I do not mean common racism as practiced by neo-Nazis and other assorted reactionary dregs today, but instead an outdated sort of nationalism based on bloodlines that also gave rise to the pedigree system established by the European nobility. It's not exactly 'ethnocentrism', but it's the closest English word I can think of to describe the 'biological struggle' believed in at that time.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

an outdated sort of nationalism based on bloodlines that also gave rise to the pedigree system established by the European nobility.

right, events like the development of the Holenzoleran (spelling) bloodline of Prussia or the Palantine or Saxony .... and by association the Holy Roman Empire, with their system of Electors and King of the Germans ....

although i'm not sure that i would call this nationalism per se because one of the tenats of nationalism is the idea (which may or not be the case) that the authority of the state is derived from the people not from the divine right of the nobles ....

i know that several states of germany previous to 1871 had both manarchs and assemblies of the emerging bourgoise although in reality most of these bodies were powerless to oppose the will of the nobles.

might be better descriped as pre-nationalism ...

-R

[Sickle of Justice]

Nay. nationalism is (unless im mistaken) the promotion of ones own nation above others. this is utter bullshit. a good 99 percent of american nationalists, the dicks who run around talking about freedom and legislating against flag burning, would be nationalists in any state. nationalsim is the promotion of something that is random, same as racism, sexism, homophobia... etc. it also spawns an inability to fight your own government, because of a "well, they're (insert nationality here), so they must be arbitrarily good.

The fact that we need to HAVE nations at all is a problem. Nations are very different from any other form of state in that, at least in modern day, they are the only ones that are assumed to go to war with each other on occasion. Canadian from New Bruswick and an american from Maine probably have a lot in common, but the american will feel closer to some guy in florida than to the canadian, because of an invisible line. AN INVISIBLE LINE!!! classes are far more important than nations, but are overshadowed by patriotic dogma. you nation has little meaning. only people who have fled one nation for another, or helped found a nation, have a reason to love that nation.

[temp918273]

Nationalism is something the socialist movement has been struggling with for a long time. I think world war one is all the evidence we need to see that it must be done away with in our movement.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

nationalism is (unless im mistaken) the promotion of ones own nation above others.

you are mistaken, or at least overtly simplifying one aspect that is commonly associated with nationalism. while nationalists put their own nation as a priority but this does not necessarily mean that they raise themselves in superiority above other nations, some nationalist organizations, such as the ETA and Tamil Tigers, do not have explicitly defined ethnic or racial superiority.


american nationalists, the dicks who run around talking about freedom and legislating against flag burning

the concept of an american nation is problematic as the united states does not specifically fit the criteria of a Nation-State as being the cultural expression of a particular nation .... and as the united states is a multi-cultural, muti-ethnic, and multi-lingual. Although the definition of american "patriotism" as being nationalist does suggest that some people have a sense of an american national identity .... although definition of the who is included in such a nation would be difficult.


Nations are very different from any other form of state

no, NATIONS ARE NOT STATES .... i have noticed that many people here do not have a legitimate understanding of the diffrences between Nations and States. A Nation is not a state, indeed there are Nations that are stateless (see Kurds, Roma), the concept of nationalism involves a national group seizing state power for the benefit of the nation.

a nation itself is a complicated topic, ealier in the thread i said:


Ethnicity is defined commonly as a distinct group with a sense of common historical culture, shared activities, and lifestyles as well as a perceived common origin (perhaps a geographic location or region) and can be characterized both from within the specific group itself as well as from without.

now many persons agree that the foundation of national identity is the based upon ethnicity (above) and ethnicity is often used interchangably with the term Nation.


they are the only ones that are assumed to go to war with each other on occasion.

(assuming you are refering to Nation-States) throught history and recently increasingly, as i'm sure you have noticed (see iraq, somali, yugoslavia, lebanon), wars are being fought by non-state actors.


AN INVISIBLE LINE!!!

non-state groups and low intensity warfare has increasingly blurred borders in many parts of the world ... technically the government of Sierra Leone is in charge of the country, but in actually they control little more then the capital city Freetown. many other nations in africa are experiencing an erosion of borders as well, as increasingly africans are becoming disenfranchised with state power (the official language is english) and identifying more closely with ethnic or tribal ties (nationalism) because of the vast number of national groups in africa (18 ethnic groups in Sierra Leone alone) and because of the arbritary borders drawn by the colonials did not reflect the national make-up of the regions.


I think world war one is all the evidence we need to see that it must be done away with in our movement.

anything specific about nationalism in WWI that you were thinking of?

-R

[temp918273]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:40 pm

I think world war one is all the evidence we need to see that it must be done away with in our movement.

anything specific about nationalism in WWI that you were thinking of?

-R
The various socialist parties in europe, instead of launching revolutions to seize state and productive power(which would have had massive popular support especially in Germany), decided to side with the imperialist ruling classes' war. National chauvinism, as opposed to acting in the interest of the proletariat, was the reasoning behind it all.
The appeal to nationalism was why people were drawn into supporting one of the most senseless and catastrophic wars in history.

Communists need to constantly view society in terms of class and never lose sight of what our goal is. The appeal to nationalism, especially during times of war, is almost always reactionary/

[NorthStarRepublicML]

The appeal to nationalism was why people were drawn into supporting one of the most senseless and catastrophic wars in history.

it should also be noted that Russian nationalism was utilized to sucessfully defend the Soviet Union from German domination during WWII thus preserving the Soviet State and destroying Nazi fascists.

also have you ever read Franz Fanon? if so would you agree with his concepts of national identity?

-R

[temp918273]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:22 pm

The appeal to nationalism was why people were drawn into supporting one of the most senseless and catastrophic wars in history.

it should also be noted that Russian nationalism was utilized to sucessfully defend the Soviet Union from German domination during WWII thus preserving the Soviet State and destroying Nazi fascists.

also have you ever read Franz Fanon? if so would you agree with his concepts of national identity?

-R
World War two is an entirely different case(although the direct result of the appeal to nationalism during WW1).

Russia was in a lose-lose situation in WW2, Nazi domination or a Stalinist state.

I've read some Fanon and to a degree I can support revolutionary nationalism, but it can easily take a turn for the reactionary if the movement doesn't recognize the class-nature of society and adapt an internationalist perspective after an initial phase of 'decolonization'.

[Tower of Bebel]

I found out that there were two types of nationalism in history. One type is the one used by the bourgeoisie, the other is used by the people, but is mostly defined as a type of socialism.

When the revolutions of 1830 broke out there were two countries on which it had a great effect: France and Belgium. In July the peoples in Belgium sang the Marseillaise just like the people of France did during the French Revolution. At the boarders of France and the United Kingdom of the Netherlands Belgian and French people met each other and sung that same song too. Both had a strong feeling of nationalism. But not bourgeois nationalism because both French and Belgian workers felt they had one enemy: the bourgeoisie. However, they had no feelings with neither Dutch nor German, Italian or Spanish workers.

We know well waht bourgeois nationalism is. It's the type of nationalism that sets up workers from one nation against the workers of the other. The type of nationalism felt by the workers of France and belgium was different in that they felt as two people, but they had a common enemy: the bourgeoisie, and they didn't care about borders like the bourgeoisie would have done.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

I found out that there were two types of nationalism in history. One type is the one used by the bourgeoisie, the other is used by the people, but is mostly defined as a type of socialism.

sources?

-R

[Dr Mindbender]

Nationalism is always reactionary - full stop.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Nationalism is always reactionary - full stop.


http://www.eelam.com/

http://www.mundurat.net/ehk/index_cas.html

both the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Basque National Movement have socialist principles, they seek to create socialist nations through seperatism.

-R

[temp918273]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 08:07 pm

Nationalism is always reactionary - full stop.


http://www.eelam.com/

http://www.mundurat.net/ehk/index_cas.html

both the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Basque National Movement have socialist principles, they seek to create socialist nations through seperatism.

-R
They're seeking to create national-socialism, and the tamil tigers are not a group any serious leftist should be supporting.

I wouldn't even consider them very socialist either, this is a military group seeking power not the creation of a worker's state.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

oh, i forgot the PKK (kurdish workers party)

http://web.archive.org/web/20060428072029/www.pkk.org/ku/

-R

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:14 am

You don't get it, the deconstruction of race is a PART of the nationalism is what im trying to explain.

No, deconstruction of race is a PART of SCIENCE, since we DON'T have genetic differences enough to be classified on races.

If someone wants to be a pain in the ass and change scientifical standards of classification of species, that someone would have to go to every geographical barrier (river, mountain, desert, etc) and classify a new race.
I'm actually willing to debate that. Take the Inuit people of Alaska and Northern Siberia. They're not *radically* different, but they have evolved *slightly* differently, than say...the Cherokee(my people, actually). The difference?

They have a thin layer of fat just under their skin, all across their body. Why? It's frikken cold in Siberia.

Or, just look at Asians, and compare them to Europeans. On average, a European will be taller, and just generally *larger*. Now, granted, most asians live off of a diet of mostly-rice, which stunts growth, but you cannot deny their eye features. Squinted eyes, for they lived mostly in the mountains(squinted eyes keep the wind out, and increase long-distance vision).

Granted, it's not much, but there is *enough* for us to be considered different. And difference is good. But that doesn't mean we can't "intermingle"...though it's not really intermingling, is it? Nah, we're all the same species, and the changes aren't enough to really be cared about(unless of course, you're living in Siberia. Then that little layer of fat means the world to you).

But, to return to the original topic...

Nationalism isn't really that bad of thing, when it is...you know, in a healthy dose. You should be proud of where you came from, wherever it might be. Just not to the point of "I'm gonna kill me'a jew".

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Nationalism isn't really that bad of thing, when it is...you know, in a healthy dose. You should be proud of where you came from, wherever it might be. Just not to the point of "I'm gonna kill me'a jew".

agreed, nationalism is not inheriently "evil" or "immoral" or counter revolutionary it's a tool. i'm glad you brought up the Cherokee Nation, i had almost brought it up myself previously, but the same goes for all native american nations.

I'm sure that some people here (myself not included, a diffrent topic) support the Zapatistas and other "indigenous" movements, somehow these movements are accepted without addressing the national question by way of semantics, seemingly calling it an "indigenous" movement instead of a national movment.

now i'm not saying that this has been expressed by anyone here, but would anyone like to argue the diffrences between "indigenous" movements and nationalist movements?

why would someone support "indigenous" movements if they oppose nationalism?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

i got in a arguement today promoting a RCP event with other party supporters in harlem with these two black nationalists. I am white and the other people there were white, hispanic, asian, and black but this guy came to me and said that we should only organize in white neighborhoods and that we are a racist organization for organizing in a primarily black neighborhood. I told him we organize in all different types of neighborhoods but he said only white. I ask why, and pointed that the revolution involves the exploitation and oppression (some more than others) of all peoples. He then said nope only white people and that we think that black people can organize themselves. I said that we do, and that we know that the black and hispanic peoples are oppressed but it is he who is narrow because he doesn't recognize that its all different people who are exploited and we need to organize all of them for revolution. Any how, I lost a shit load of respect for black nationalists and black nationalism today largely because this guy went so far as to rip down a poster of ours.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

I lost a shit load of respect for black nationalists and black nationalism today

sounds like you just ran into a person that doesn't understand class stuggle, thats unfortunate .....

but its also important to remember that this one asshole (the black nationalist you describe) does not speak for all black nationalists or all nationalists, just like you yourself do not speak for every RCP member or every Marxist-Leninisit-Maoist ....

often it is the case that nationalists see the act of self liberation to be of greater importance then participation in internationalism but alienating people who would be thier allies is not productive and is in my experience is not the norm.

[Eleftherios]

I think as Marxists we should hold a primarily internationalist stance and it is stupid of that Black nationalist to tell you that whites and blacks can't organize together..
However, I do think that some nationalisms can be progressive, especially the ones advocating national liberation and the pan-nationalisms such as Pan-Africanism and Pan-Americanism.