communist nationalism

[19Rocketman82]

ive been reading through a few posts and this topics seems to be intertwined in a few different threads but id like to bring it more out in the open...i apologize if it has already been done to death but i am new to this board

i see marxism as international in character...it is a scientific method applicable to the whole of humanity...however it appears that some socialists-communists-whatever (i hate to use descriptive labels) appear to think that the doctrine and methods must be applied differently to different nations and peoples...to me this reeks of nationalism and i am an ardent antinationalist

humans are all perfectly equal and the underlying problems faced by the proletariat in all areas of the world are the same...so how do communism and nationalism fit together...it seems that mao was a champion of this sort of quasinationalist view

any thoughts?

[Q]

Communists are internationalists. However it makes sense to take into consideration what methods you use depending on the culture of the specific country you work in. The basics remain the same of course (grass root organisation, agitating to workers, etc), it's more in the specifics where there can be differences.

In short: There is no one big formula, you have to adapt your methods to the given situation.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

For Communists, nationalism plays into internationalism. Nationalism isn't a means on its own, its part of the struggle against the capitalist class. National Liberation struggle can only be one through socialism but at the same time socialism must be applied internationally to reach communism. That's why communists are at the forefront of anti-imperialist struggles in oppressed countries and why communists need to back nationalist forces in oppressed countries

[19Rocketman82]

i think i see your points...nationalism is like a rung on a ladder towards internationalism...however assuming the eventual global triumph of communist life how will this 'national' units be ordered

will they be relatively autonomous individual units that correspond more or less with what are considered modern nations but with communist principles and be linked together in a type of confederacy...will they be provinces of a larger centralized entity...or will there be no borders and distinctions of any kind with all govt operating at the local level

im sure that this topic has been debated to death...however i want to get some more perspectives on where we are going

just to let my feelings be known i am a fan of govt decentralization and local cooperative control...it just seems to be more workable for those in a given area with similar immediate concerns to make decisions based on their shared situation rather than a person or party from on high handing down edicts

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by 19Rocketman82
and the underlying problems faced by the proletariat in all areas of the world are the same.

In the sense that the proletariat of all areas are exploited under the system of wage labour - sure; but the economic, political and social conditions under which we toil varies internationally. There is no 'one size fits all' program that will lead to the liberation of all of the worlds proletariat simultaneously.

[Marion]

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 03, 2007 01:49 pm
There is no 'one size fits all' program that will lead to the liberation of all of the worlds proletariat simultaneously.
Bit of a straw man - I'm not really aware of any internationalists who believe that the proletariat of the world will all be liberated exactly simultaneously.

For me, the question of nationalism is about whether you think that it makes sense today for the working class to ally with the bourgeoisie in their country. In this sense, LH's notion that

Nationalism... [is] part of the struggle against the capitalist class
is contradictory (or, at least, needs further explanation) as nationalism almost inevitably means struggling alongside your national capitalist class rather than against it. I'd argue that the history of national liberation struggles during the last century shows the weakness of this approach but there are plenty of others who'll argue to the contrary.

As you say, though, this has been done to death elsewhere so perhaps you're best off using the search function.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Marion
Bit of a straw man - I'm not really aware of any internationalists who believe that the proletariat of the world will all be liberated exactly simultaneously.

Lol, bit of a straw man! The crux of my statement was not that liberation would occur simultaneously (i don't think that internationalists think this is the case; indeed you could remove that word from my post and i would still be communicating my entire point) but rather that there is no universal revolutionary program, because despite what 19Rocketman82 suggests the conditions faced by the global proletariat are not identical.

[KC]

For me, the question of nationalism is about whether you think that it makes sense today for the working class to ally with the bourgeoisie in their country. In this sense, LH's notion that


Nationalism... [is] part of the struggle against the capitalist class

is contradictory (or, at least, needs further explanation) as nationalism almost inevitably means struggling alongside your national capitalist class rather than against it.

I agree with you to an extent (however, to what extent I am not sure, as you haven't presented your views on the subject here in full). I think that Lenin addressed this question very well as early as 1897 in his The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats:


We have pointed to the inseparably close connection between socialist and democratic propaganda and agitation, to the complete parallelism of revolutionary activity in both spheres. Nevertheless, there is a big difference between these two types of activity and struggle. The difference is that in the economic struggle the proletariat stands absolutely alone against both the landed nobility and the bourgeoisie, except, perhaps, for the help it receives (and by no means always) from those elements of the petty bourgeoisie which gravitate towards the proletariat. In the democratic, political struggle, however, the Russian working class does not stand alone; at its side are all the political opposition elements, strata and classes, since they are hostile to absolutism and are fighting it in one form or another. Here side by side with the proletariat stand the opposition elements of the bourgeoisie, or of the educated classes, or of the petty bourgeoisie, or of the nationalities, religions and sects, etc., etc., persecuted by the autocratic government. The question naturally arises of what the attitude of the working class towards these elements should be. Further, should it not combine with them in the common struggle against the autocracy? After all, all Social-Democrats admit that the political revolution in Russia must precede the socialist revolution; should they not, therefore, combine with all the elements in the political opposition to fight the autocracy, setting socialism aside for the time being? Is not this essential in order to strengthen the fight against the autocracy?

Let us examine these two questions.

The attitude of the working class, as a fighter against the autocracy, towards all the other social classes and groups in the political opposition is very precisely determined by the basic principles of Social-Democracy expounded in the famous Communist Manifesto. The Social-Democrats support the progressive social classes against the reactionary classes, the bourgeoisie against the representatives of privileged landowning estate and the bureaucracy, the big bourgeoisie against the reactionary strivings of the petty bourgeoisie. This support does not presuppose, nor does it call for, any compromise with non-Social-Democratic programmes and principles—it is support given to an ally against a particular enemy. Moreover, the Social-Democrats render this support in order to expedite the fall of the common enemy, but expect nothing for themselves from these temporary allies, and concede nothing to them. The Social-Democrats support every revolutionary movement against the present social system, they support all oppressed nationalities, persecuted religions, downtrodden social estates, etc., in their fight for equal rights.

Support for all elements of the political opposition will be expressed in the propaganda of the Social-Democrats by the fact that, in showing that the autocracy is hostile to the workers’ cause, they will also point to its hostility towards various other social groups; they will point to the solidarity of the working class with these groups on a particular issue, in a particular task, etc. In agitation, this support will be expressed by the Social-Democrats’ taking advantage of every manifestation of the police tyranny of the autocracy to point out to the workers how this tyranny affects all Russian citizens in general, and the representatives of the exceptionally oppressed social estates, nationalities, religions, sects, etc., in particular; and how that tyranny affects the working class especially. Finally, in practice, this support is expressed in the readiness of the Russian Social-Democrats to enter into alliances with revolutionaries of other trends for the purpose of achieving certain particular aims, and this readiness has been shown in practice on more than one occasion.

This brings us to the second question. While pointing to the solidarity of one or other of the various opposition groups with the workers, the Social-Democrats will always single out the workers from the rest, they will always point out that this solidarity is temporary and conditional, they will always emphasise the independent class identity of the proletariat, who tomorrow may find themselves in opposition to their allies of today. We shall be told that “such action will weaken all the fighters for political liberty at the present time.” We shall reply that such action will strengthen all the fighters for political liberty. Only those fighters are strong who rely on the consciously recognised real interests of certain classes, and any attempt to obscure these class interests, which already play a predominant role in contemporary society, will only weaken the fighters. That is the first point. The second point is that, in the fight against the autocracy, the working class must single itself out, for it is the only thoroughly consistent and unreserved enemy of the autocracy, only between the working class and the autocracy is no compromise possible, only in the working class can democracy find a champion who makes no reservations, is not irresolute and does not look back. The hostility of all other classes, groups and strata of the population towards the autocracy is not unqualified; their democracy always looks back. The bourgeoisie cannot but realise that industrial and social development is being retarded by the autocracy, but it fears the complete democratisation of the political and social system and can at any moment enter into alliance with the autocracy against the proletariat. The petty bourgeoisie is two-faced by its very nature, and while it gravitates, on the one hand, towards the proletariat and democracy, on the other, it gravitates towards the reactionary classes, tries to hold up the march of history, is apt to be seduced by the experiments and blandishments of the autocracy (for example, the “people’s policy”[8] of Alexander III), is capable of concluding an alliance with the ruling classes against the proletariat for the sake of strengthening its own small-proprietor position. Educated people, and the “intelligentsia” generally, cannot but revolt against the savage police tyranny of the autocracy, which hunts down thought and knowledge; but the material interests of this intelligentsia bind it to the autocracy and to the bourgeoisie, compel it to be inconsistent, to compromise, to sell its oppositional and revolutionary ardour for an official salary, or a share of profits or dividends. As for the democratic elements among the oppressed nationalities and the persecuted religions, everybody knows and sees that the class antagonisms within these categories of the population are much deeper-going and stronger than the solidarity binding all classes within any one category against the autocracy and in favour of democratic institutions. The proletariat alone can be—and because of its class position must be—a consistently democratic, determined enemy of absolutism, incapable of making any concessions or compromises. The proletariat alone can be the vanguard fighter for political liberty and for democratic institutions. Firstly, this is because political tyranny bears most heavily upon the proletariat whose position gives it no opportunity to secure a modification of that tyranny—it has no access to the higher authorities, not even to the officials, and it has no influence on public opinion. Secondly, the proletariat alone is capable of bringing about the complete democratisation of the political and social system, since this would place the system in the hands of the workers. That is why the merging of the democratic activities of the working class with the democratic aspirations of other classes and groups would weaken the democratic movement, would weaken the political struggle, would make it less determined, less consistent, more likely to compromise On the other hand, if the working class stands out as the vanguard fighter for democratic institutions, this will strength the democratic movement, will strengthen the struggle for political liberty, because the working class will spur on all the other democratic and political opposition elements, will push the liberals towards the political radicals, will push the radicals towards an irrevocable rupture with the whole of the political and social structure of present society. We said above that all socialists in Russia should become Social-Democrats. We now add: all true and consistent democrats in Russia should become Social-Democrats.
-Lenin, V.I. The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1897/dec/31b.htm)

In this sense, it is very important to note that the question is one that is answered completely only on a case-by-case basis, and is heavily dependent upon the situation in a given country at a given time. I would go in further detail, but right now I don't have the time. I would also recommend M. Hekmat's The Myth of the National and Progressive Bourgeoisie (http://hekmat.public-archive.net/en/0110en.html), which supports Lenin's statements and further expounds upon them.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:44 pm
Doctrine and methods must be applied differently to different nations and peoples...to me this reeks of nationalism and i am an ardent antinationalist

humans are all perfectly equal and the underlying problems faced by the proletariat in all areas of the world are the same...so how do communism and nationalism fit together...it seems that mao was a champion of this sort of quasinationalist view
It's not nationalism. It's an understanding that communist theory and revolution must always be grounded in material reality. The objective/material conditions in different parts of the world are different. For instance, Mao believed that a communist revolution in China could not rely on the proletariat totally as Marx had thought because China was underdeveloped and didn't have a large, industrial, urban working class. Instead, the peasentry would need to be involved. This is not nationalism. It is the recognition of the differences in the objective conditions in different parts of the world.