National identity

[Uncle Al]

Sorry if this question comes out a little ham-fisted, but it is something I am interested in and I am still something of a neophyte.

As socialists, we believe that class interest trumps national interest, right? But doesn't reality seem to contradict this? Examples (no particular order, just as they occur to me):

1. Take the United States. The concept of patriotism and nation is sacrosanct here. One can criticise working conditions, fine, but one can NEVER criticise the nation. Socialism is seen as anti-American. A significant level of Republican electoral support comes from the working class, fired up by a quasi-religious belief in the superiority of America. Why should they care about the workers anywhere else, when - in their eyes - America is the greatest country on earth?

2. Take the Soviet experiment. For a short time, during and straight after the revolution, it seems to me that a genuine culture of internationalism prevailed - 'permanent revolution', the recognition that only through worldwide socialist revolution could the newly-formed Bolshevik state survive and flourish, a genuine compassion for the workers of the world. But the civil war reversed all that and re-released the traditional Russian ideologies: autocracy, Orthodoxy and Russian nationalism (or, in the Soviet sense, Party, Marxism-Leninism and Soviet nationalism). Stalin was the result, and 'socialism in one country'. The USSR degenerated into a state capitalist dictatorship of the ideological elite; the Proletariat once again resumed the position of down-trodden submissives. Today in Russia those who self-identify as Communists are generally anti-Semitic, racist homophobes. Workers of the world? Hardly - more like non-Jewish, pure-Slavic, heterosexual Stalinists.

3. Take the UK. The ultimate expression here of Proletarian radicalism seems to have always been nationalistic bigotry: the militant Stalinists of yesteryear at one extreme, the ever-present nationalism of the NF/BNP today.

So - what is to be done? Apologies if these questions are old, hackneyed and badly-formed.

[SocialRealist]

For the American part, we may be apart of different parties but that is not what matters. What matters if if we unite together in times of struggle and show, that Americans care for the world and the people. Even at times, our government can do the most heartless and careless things, we will attempt to make up for our nationality and show the world we are there.

Onto that, the Republican Party is not the only nationalist entity in our states, we have strong nationalism much like that, even in the Democratic Party.

Now why would they care? When they look and see a form of wrong, they most likely will feel the need to crush the wrong and they realize that this is their fellow worker and they must protect them and care for them.

[Yehuda Stern]

Your problem is that you confuse consciousness with class interests. In times when the working class is politically passive, its consciousness and the ideas it supports are those of the ruling class - among other things, nationalism. This is seriously undermined when bigger struggles take place (for example, the US in the 1930s).

[Sawtooth]

I've been thinking about this, specifically how in my reading I was always encountering nationalism as a negative thing... Nationalists are more likely to commit atrocities, it seems to me, for one, because they think of the world in terms of "members of my nation" and "others," where "others" are out to get them and deserve little respect.

At the same time, though, I realized that nationalism can be a potent force for fighting oppression, especially in the context of colonized countries (such as in Algeria or any number of other Middle Eastern states).

Then I got into splitting up the difference between a "nation" and "nationalism" and a "nation-state." A guy in my class who's a pretty hardcore anarchist (really heavily into the theory) started talking about this and I found it really interesting.

Essentially, his argument was this.

A nation is a group of people who have a shared cultural identity.

A state is an organization which exercises force over a specific geographic area.

A nation-state is an organization made up of people with a shared cultural identity that exercises force over a specific geographic area.

He was talking specifically about the Israel-Palestine conflict. He was saying that one of the main issues is that both Palestinians and Israelis want to make their own nation-state -- that is to say, the Israelis want a completely Israeli Israel and the Palestinians want a completely Palestinian Palestine -- but if they could live together in the same state but have separate nations, then that might be a way to overcome their conflict.

I'm still thinking about this, but it's interesting stuff. It's made me warm up to nationalism. Even though I'm a supporter of leftist ideologies, I think local culture is an important part of living. We can't just conquer the world for communism and impose a global "commie culture." We have to get the workers of the world to work together regardless of cultural differences.

[duffers]

But you're confusing culture with national identity, which is construct of the state, and in turn, perpetuates the lie that the the two cannot exist without each other.

In reality, culture would be progressed beyond imagination in a classless society, free of social repression, and immersed in international inspiration, fitting as this is how culture has come to be; from centuries of 'foreign' influence.

Culture as a kaleidoscopic development of humanity will never cease. The state and its national identity must.

[chegitz guevara]

Actually, Sawtooth is pretty accurate. There are multi-national states (Canada) and multi-state nations (Arabs). Nationhood is a feeling, a sense of commonality with others based on shared history, language, territory, etc. Not all of these have to be present. For example, many Jews considered themselves a nation, even though they had no shared territory (at least not until 1948). The Swiss consider themselves one people, even though they speak four different languages. Naturalized Americans don't share our history, but they are accepted as American, think of themselves as American, etc.

Nationalism was invented, not by the state, but by the bourgeoisie. Once the divine right of kings was abolished, the bourgeoisie needed a means of claiming legitimacy and the loyalty of the ruled. This was carried out by convincing people that they were all one people. Many things we think of as staples of national identity are actually rather young, and not necessarily of that nation's origin.

[redguard2009]

Is nationalism really a bourgeois construct?

Nationalism and ultra-patriotism has existed since before the bourgeois revolutions of the modern world, though it took on a slightly different form, that nationalization being irrational pride not only in ones nation or culture but also in the leaders of those nations of cultures. Kingdoms and Empires have used nationalistic sentiments in order to gain public support.

Invariably it is still a tool of control used by the various ruling classes, to convince and unite those they control.

My question is, being a tool of control, is it one that the freed masses can utilize? Among some, the quasi-patriotic murmers of Communist China against foreign imperialism, namely that of the United States, played a role in the development of revolutionary character (though China always sought to ally itself with other oppressed peoples and its efforts at mobilizing sentiments of nationality and patriotism were always aimed at potential imperialist aggressors).

[Sawtooth]

Is nationalism really a bourgeois construct?

In a word, yes.


Nationalism and ultra-patriotism has existed since before the bourgeois revolutions of the modern world, though it took on a slightly different form, that nationalization being irrational pride not only in ones nation or culture but also in the leaders of those nations of cultures. Kingdoms and Empires have used nationalistic sentiments in order to gain public support.

Just as when the bourgeouisie began to break down the Divine Right of Kings (as chegitz guevara mentioned) they needed something to replace that legitimacy. The leading theory was no longer "We need someone mandated by god to lead us," it was now "Humans are intelligent enough to lead themselves." (interestingly, it's this kind of thinking that is very deeply held in neoclassical economics. It's interesting to me because neoclassical economics is the economic belief that "if we just let the market do some shit it will turn out to be the best for everybody." It strikes me as superstition and not in line with "Humans are intelligent enough to lead themselves." If we're intelligent enough to lead our societies, shouldn't we be intelligent enough to lead our economies?)


Invariably it is still a tool of control used by the various ruling classes, to convince and unite those they control.

My question is, being a tool of control, is it one that the freed masses can utilize?

I think it's less an issue of whether or not the revolution chooses to utilize nationalism. Nationalism exists and the revolution is going to have to deal with it.

But my answer would be yes. The nation, while a tool of control, doesn't have to be. It could also be a tool of egalitarian community building (see: black nationalists in the sixties and seventies in the USA), and generally a positive thing. Colonized peoples all over the world have used nationalism to fuel their independence struggles (the most salient examples might be Algeria and Vietnam; but every colonized group uses it to some extent) and many, such as Native Americans in the US, still do. But there is always the "bad" parts of nationalism -- that is, hatred of people outside of your nation, which often manifests itself as racism. Still, I think that is a result of the control inherent in the nation-state. Egalitarian communities would help level heads to prevail, I think.

[Pogue]

I've been thinking about this, specifically how in my reading I was always encountering nationalism as a negative thing... Nationalists are more likely to commit atrocities, it seems to me, for one, because they think of the world in terms of "members of my nation" and "others," where "others" are out to get them and deserve little respect.

At the same time, though, I realized that nationalism can be a potent force for fighting oppression, especially in the context of colonized countries (such as in Algeria or any number of other Middle Eastern states).

Then I got into splitting up the difference between a "nation" and "nationalism" and a "nation-state." A guy in my class who's a pretty hardcore anarchist (really heavily into the theory) started talking about this and I found it really interesting.

Essentially, his argument was this.

A nation is a group of people who have a shared cultural identity.

A state is an organization which exercises force over a specific geographic area.

A nation-state is an organization made up of people with a shared cultural identity that exercises force over a specific geographic area.

He was talking specifically about the Israel-Palestine conflict. He was saying that one of the main issues is that both Palestinians and Israelis want to make their own nation-state -- that is to say, the Israelis want a completely Israeli Israel and the Palestinians want a completely Palestinian Palestine -- but if they could live together in the same state but have separate nations, then that might be a way to overcome their conflict.

I'm still thinking about this, but it's interesting stuff. It's made me warm up to nationalism. Even though I'm a supporter of leftist ideologies, I think local culture is an important part of living. We can't just conquer the world for communism and impose a global "commie culture." We have to get the workers of the world to work together regardless of cultural differences.

Its a lie to say Palestinians want only Palestinians in Palestine. From talking to people in the Free Palestine movement and reading texts, there is no evidence suggesting a desire for a nation of only Palestinians. Such racism does not exist. They merely don't want to be occupied by an oppresive force (the Israeli state) who steal their land and impose cruel conditions upon them.

[Melbourne Lefty]

Its a lie to say Palestinians want only Palestinians in Palestine. From talking to people in the Free Palestine movement and reading texts, there is no evidence suggesting a desire for a nation of only Palestinians. Such racism does not exist. They merely don't want to be occupied by an oppresive force (the Israeli state) who steal their land and impose cruel conditions upon them.


Thats traditional Palestinian nationalism. I think Fatah would fit that profile today of only wanting equal rights.

Hamas I am not so sure about.

[redguard2009]

Both the Chinese and Cuban revolutions, and to a degree the revolutionary movements in Nepal, and especially in revolutionary and progressive movements in Africa, and the Philippines, nationalism, or perhaps national defense, has played and continues to play a large role. In China, the struggle against Japanese imperialism and later US imperialism played a large role during the revolutionary war and during socialist development after the fighting ceased. In Cuba, freeing Cuba and its people from the yoke of US imperialism played a major role. In Nepal, though largely against domestic issues (monarchy, totalitarianism, inequality), there are also sentiments of national defense against foreign interests, namely from Britain, the US, and India. In the Philippines, particularly during the militaristic regime of Marcos (an American puppet), national defense against US imperialism played a major role. And throughout Africa, countless progressive and revolutionary movements (as well as right-wing movements) sought to rid their countries of colonialism and post-colonialist control.

There are also less fortunate examples of such national defense, though ultimately these go beyond mere notions of defense and delve into offensive ideologies. The Nazi Party is the largest example; they used Germany's "suffering" at the hands of the League of Nations and Jews to catapult to national acclaim. Likewise, modern Israel bridged that "philosophical gap". Touted as being a Jewish homeland, their sense of self-defense turned into one of external offensive as they carved up Palestine.

[Ramachandra]

I think uncle als original question was - Is national identity powerful than the class identity?And he brought out some examples supporting the above argument.
marxism emphasis on the importance and the powerfulness of class identity and if national identity is powerful than the class identity it will therefore will become a serious argument against the marxist discourse.
Still (in this thread) I didn't see a powerful counter argument which provides an answer to uncle Al's question.

[redguard2009]

I feel it depends on the level of overall class consciousness and education in any given nation at any given time.

Europe, for example, which has one of the largest populations of class-conscious workers, by and large has done away with national identity to a very large degree; infact, the sense of national identity is largely confined to those who identify as hardcore nationalists (though there are exceptions, particularly in Ireland). But overall, the level of co-operation between English, French, Spanish, German and other nations' workers is very high.

Then take a country like the USA. Although developmentally it is at the same level, in terms of class consciousness it is far inferior (my opinion). Nationalist and patriotic tendencies are still deeply ingrained within the population, particularly amongst those who identify as right-wingers, as well as among many "liberals" who've largely adopted this patriotic stance because of the far-rightists.

Canada has a much less severe level of national identify. This is mainly a product of social norms, but also partly a rammification of our liberal politics; Canadian patriotism exists, mainly among the far-right, but has never been a huge issue, in part due to the fact that most Canadians are well aware that Canada as a whole really has no autonomous self-identity, being comprised mainly of immigrants and a mixing pot of many different nationalities, cultures, languages, etc. This, I believe, coincides with a higher level of overall class consciousness than the US (though not dramatically).

In short, I believe the strength of identity politics stems from a rather arbitrary sense of the overall capability of a particular working class and whether the bonds of community and co-operation on class basis outweighs the bonds of nationality. In shorter short: It depends on the nationality in question.

[black magick hustla]

national identity has no place in communist politics and any "communist party" that talks about defense of a country or the greatness of the motherland is not communist. They might be reformist, the people leading them nice guys, but an understanding of class politics goes beyond national politics. In the 30s, it was the left wing of fascism, like Ledesda and his JONS that talked about "proletarian nations", not communists.

[Woland]

Take the Soviet experiment. For a short time, during and straight after the revolution, it seems to me that a genuine culture of internationalism prevailed - 'permanent revolution', the recognition that only through worldwide socialist revolution could the newly-formed Bolshevik state survive and flourish, a genuine compassion for the workers of the world. But the civil war reversed all that and re-released the traditional Russian ideologies: autocracy, Orthodoxy and Russian nationalism (or, in the Soviet sense, Party, Marxism-Leninism and Soviet nationalism). Stalin was the result, and 'socialism in one country'. The USSR degenerated into a state capitalist dictatorship of the ideological elite; the Proletariat once again resumed the position of down-trodden submissives. Today in Russia those who self-identify as Communists are generally anti-Semitic, racist homophobes. Workers of the world? Hardly - more like non-Jewish, pure-Slavic, heterosexual Stalinists.

I think that this is entirely misguided. Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Russian nationalism were the things defeated in the revolution, then, together with its followers, largely destroyed or atleast made worthless in the civil war, in a victory for, not some coming out of nowhere, (very absurd) ''new'' ''soviet'' nationalism and comparing ''Marxism-Leninism'' to religion doesnt do it respect either. And really, ''Soviet'', people of all cultures, religions and ethnic groups of the former -Russian- Empire, became a -Union- of republics of such people in equality. Lenin was an internationalist long before Trotsky even came up with the ''Permanent Revolution'' theory. You simply skip too much history in here.

As much of a revolutionary zeal that happened in these times, the revolution did not happen everywhere. The first internationalist socialist country was isolated, both by itself and the hostile capitalist countries around it, but it definitely did not lose its values. Internationalism is one of the basic values of Marxism and cannot, and was not, ignored, in such a way as you describe it, and it kept it it's whole existence, there cannot be any doubt about it. ''Socialism in one country'' is not a simple isolationist approach either, nor is it a case of now unexisting national identity, as it describes supporting revolutions around the world while trying to survive and move forward with socialism. Something like 'Juche' for example- this is definitely based on national identity. Soviet Union is way too multicultural to be even slightly nationalist, and internationalism was strongly promoted.

Whatever you view on the Soviet Union might be, there was hardly any racism in the Soviet Union, something I am very much proud of, because this just shows it, so very very well, how conditions affect human behaviour. Its not ''human nature'' to be more for national identity. It is one of the biggest changes from the Soviet Untion, from being a country with over 200 ethnic groups living in equality, new Gorbachev's capitalism led it to split up into different countries, usually led by nationalists- Yeltsin, Niyazov, and so on. Today, Russia is a very very racist country, my word on it. You'd never see anything like it. The rise of Neo-Nazis, 'National-Bolsheviks' and just general behaviour of the people shows it very well. The people's condition ultimately decides this, and I've seen it all.

Russian communists are not anti-semitic racists. But it is clear that this new nationalism comes from both worsening of people's lives and just the general nature of capitalism as a hate-inspiring political system, and that this nationalism comes in different forms. One form, the one currently supported by Putin and New Russia party is, more or less, ''destructive'' nationalism. Ethnic Russian ''Russia for Russians'' parades, rise of those fucking cossacks (whom I abhor), new racist attacks and more appeal to ''pride'' and so on, this is destructive. The path which I think the communists take is more ''constructive'' 'nationalism' (so to say...) since, as I know- Russian people lost a lot of things to be proud about and currently, a political party without an appeal to nationalism is almost unthinkable there. This form of 'nationalism' is to work on improving their country, to respect yourself and so on, something which the KPRF makes clear. Even though a lot of Russians can be racist, they don't care about it that much, really.

My last thing would be, people don't care about national identity, since it is truly not important. They didnt care once, they won't care again, just as these socialist conditions are there, equality and internationalism and a -safe- life. It's nothing essential and it never was, so it ''withers away'' when such conditions are present.

[BobKKKindle$]

Socialists are opposed to nationalism in the sense that all nationalist ideologies represent the class interests of an existing or aspirant bourgeoisie, and ultimately a global socialist revolution depends on the ability of the proletariat to recognize that nationalism as well as other bourgeois notions such as racism and sexism are used to create divisions within the working class and turn workers against each other, in order to bind a section of the working class to a corresponding section of the bourgeoisie, and thereby obscure the fundamental importance of class antagonisms. However, despite this, and as you point out, nationalism has historically been an important motivating factor behind anti-imperialist struggles and radical uprisings directed against economic elites in the pay of the imperialist powers. In other words, just because we disagree with nationalism, it doesn't mean we can ignore it, and neglect its political importance. In this respect, during the imperialist epoch, the nationalism of an oppressed nation is progressive, but socialists should not lose sight of our duty to remain politically independent from all factions of the bourgeoisie, and our ultimate goal is to transcend the limits of nationalism by promoting an internationalist class-based vision.

The Marxist analysis of nationalism also seeks to explain its growth, and the material conditions which give rise to it. Nationalism is a political phenomenon specific to capitalism because the increase in commerce and labour migrations which accompanied the early stages of capitalism allowed languages and cultural practices to spread over a large geographical area, binding communities which had previously lived separately together, and the technological advances which occurred during this period, most importantly the development of the printing press, allowed people to learn about events occurring outside of their own immediate circumstances, such as war victories, or domestic political events, further accelerating the emergence of a sense of nationhood - membership of a common national community. Moreover, the bourgeoisie recognized the economic value of a nation, as the ability to sell goods throughout an entire country without being obstructed by trade barriers would enhance their ability to accumulate surplus value and develop the productive forces.

More of this interesting analysis can be found here: Chris Harman, The Return of the National Question (http://www.marxists.de/theory/harman/natquest.htm)


Hamas I am not so sure about. Then you need to do some more reading. Hamas is not an anti-semitic movement, and does not seek to achieve a Palestine which includes only Palestinians, or only Muslims. In fact, the Hamas charter is explicitly pluralist and tolerant in its approach to other faiths:



F. Followers of Other Religions: The Islamic Resistance Movement Is A Humanistic Movement:
Article Thirty-One:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.
Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other.

[manic expression]

For what it's worth, in the Manifesto, Marx writes of class struggle taking on a national character, and I think history has shown this to be correct.

On the larger question, my take is that "nationalism", in and of itself, is a very broad term that can easily group together movements that have nothing to do with each other. Many proponents of black nationalism in the US, for example, do not even remotely suggest the superiority of African Americans; their "nationalism" is simply an expression of the dignity and humanity of blacks. Is this necessarily reactionary? Not at all. It's an incredible mistake to label something "nationalist" and leave it at that, because there are many forms of nationalism, some positive and some negative, some progressive and some chauvinistic.