Hyper Nationalism: The Pros and Cons

[PigmerikanMao]

In my observations, I have come to the independent conclusion that there are two forms of nationalism. There is the oppressor nationalist characteristics carried by the first world armies, especially those of the US, who go so bold as to decide that they are responsible for the policing of the world- as well there is the resistant nationalist mindset carried by many peoples throughout the oppressed third world. Where one form of nationalism, carried usually by the populous of a stronger, imperialist natured country, can be bad, another can be good. The nationalism held by the labour aristocracy of the first world leads them to further justify exploitations of the world majority- obviously bad, though nationalism held by the oppressed helps them rally support for resistance against the aforementioned imperialists, which can obviously be a good thing.

My question to you is, should resistant nationalism be considered as a tool for world revolution, or in the spirit of internationalism, is all nationalism reactionary?

[luxemburg89]

Hmmm well I'm an internationalist - so I hate all Nationalism. Nationalisation as a precurser to better things I can support but I find Nationalism and Patriotism disgusting.

[Tower of Bebel]

I like the second type of nationalism. It's the kind of nationalism felt in France during the Revolution. It really is people's nationalism, not bourgeois nationalism. Yet nationalism is the wrong feeling.

[Bilan]

Nationalism (in the case of the "second type" you mentioned) can only be something that is temporarily good, if good at all. Indeed, it can unite people's of a nation to resist - such as the Zapatista's in Chiapas. There are still issues with it though. Nationalism leads to xenophobia and racism, and in most cases, is used by the State in power to exploit the peoples.
There are various cases of this throughout history.

[Publius]

There is only one form of nationalism and it's always opposed to internationalism, which must be our goal as human beings.

So I oppose any form of nationalism as short sighted and quite simply incorrect.

[apathy maybe]

I agree with both Tierra y Libertad and Publius here.

All nationalism is the same, irrational, short-sighted and "simply incorrect".


However, at the same time, there is the possibility that some nationalism might help to build a revolutionary movement. But in the end, if a "revolution" is a nationalist one, then there is only one result, the imposition of a new ruling class upon the "citizen" of that "nation".

I would argue that I have history on my side as well, case in point, Vietnam. 'Nother, Cuba. Both were nationalist movements before they were "socialist" movements, and both are still states with government today.

[Ultra-Violence]

you bring a valid point but that was then no? we got the internet and all this technology so imagine thier was a world wide workers movement? no just country by counrty

[Palmares]

I think nationalism, whatever the form, is problematic, if not simply inherently reactionary.

Simply put, if we want to not simply go half way with a revolution, we want to transform the consciousness of the people trying to liberate themselves. If it were that such people were like this and just happened to be doing it in one nation, perhaps it is then not nationalism? But if the consciousness is truly liberated, then its relation to that outside of that nation would be contagious.

Though nationalism is not synonymous with the state, I see no distinct inclusiveness, but rather exclusiveness (perhaps not the best terms to be using here).

[Tower of Bebel]

I think that the distinction between 2 types can be useful.
Type 1, nationalism that will make people support their national bourgeoisie, is just wrong. One of the best example is nationalism felt in the US which makes people leave the country to die in Iraq.
Type 2, nationalism as a feeling of one people -mostly being oppressed- can be good to get the masses active. However, if this force cannot be transformed in class struggle for instance, then it will also become nationalism as in type 1.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:57 am
Type 2, nationalism as a feeling of one people -mostly being oppressed- can be good to get the masses active. However, if this force cannot be transformed in class struggle for instance, then it will also become nationalism as in type 1.
I would draw caution to the possible outcome of socialism in one. A nationalist class struggle as it were.

Unless the class struggle has the consciousness of being internationalist, I hardly see it being useful.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:51 pm


It would be very helpful if you would define the terms that have an asterix next to them:


In my observations, I have come to the independent conclusion that there are two forms of nationalism*. There is the oppressor* nationalist characteristics carried by the first world* armies, especially those of the US, who go so bold as to decide that they are responsible for the policing* of the world- as well there is the resistant nationalist mindset carried by many peoples throughout the oppressed third world. Where one form of nationalism, carried usually by the populous of a stronger*, imperialist* natured country, can be bad*, another can be good*. The nationalism held by the labour aristocracy* of the first world leads them to further justify exploitations* of the world majority- obviously bad, though nationalism held by the oppressed helps them rally support for resistance against the aforementioned imperialists, which can obviously be a good thing.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:52 pm
It would be very helpful if you would define the terms that have an asterix next to them:


In my observations, I have come to the independent conclusion that there are two forms of nationalism*. There is the oppressor* nationalist characteristics carried by the first world* armies, especially those of the US, who go so bold as to decide that they are responsible for the policing* of the world- as well there is the resistant nationalist mindset carried by many peoples throughout the oppressed third world. Where one form of nationalism, carried usually by the populous of a stronger*, imperialist* natured country, can be bad*, another can be good*. The nationalism held by the labour aristocracy* of the first world leads them to further justify exploitations* of the world majority- obviously bad, though nationalism held by the oppressed helps them rally support for resistance against the aforementioned imperialists, which can obviously be a good thing.
Sure thing...

Nationalism: This can be many things, which is why I tried to use two basic definitions, nationalism can be either (as defined by dictionary.com) "aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination," or "devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism."

Oppressor: A nation, group, or individual who exploits the resources or abilities of others for their own, or another's well being.

The First World: A group of exploiter or oppressor nations commonly grouped together for their wealth, scientific, and military prowess.

Policing: The act of controlling a group or individual based of the laws, ethics, or policies of the group in control.

Stronger: A state of holding more power than another.

Imperialist: See Oppressor, the act of being of.

Bad: In a communist perspective, the state of being non-beneficial, or even repressive of the people.

Good: See bad, the opposite of.

Labour Aristocracy: In some communist theory, the working class of the exploiter nations which benefit from the oppression and exploitation of the workers of the oppressed nations.

Exploitation: The utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes.[/B]