Nationalism

[Ekaitz Do Dragão]

What are your opinions on ethnic nationalism? Do you all think that all peoples around the world have the right to govern themselves?

[#FF0000]

Nope. Ethnicity and nationalism are unnecessary/irrelevant and divisive.

[Weezer]

Do you all think that all peoples around the world have the right to govern themselves?

Yes.

What are your opinions on ethnic nationalism?

Reactionary and disgusting.

[anticap]

Do you all think that all peoples around the world have the right to govern themselves?

Inherent rights are mythology. Rights are a human convention arising out of social life. They are granted and revoked as conditions dictate.

The question is whether any group of people has granted anyone else the right to deny them the autonomy to govern themselves, and the answer is no.

People don't have the right to govern themselves because they don't need that right. Rather, those who would deny them their autonomy would need to petition them for the right to do so, and it is incomprehensible that such a right would be granted.

In a roundabout way I'm saying yes, but I'm a stickler for nonsensical rights-talk.

What are your opinions on ethnic nationalism?

Nationalism, to paraphrase Goldman, assumes that the world is divided up into plots surrounded by gates. More nonsense.

All peoples around the world should come together to handle their collective human affairs.

[Nolan]

What are your opinions on ethnic nationalism? Do you all think that all peoples around the world have the right to govern themselves?

Nationalism outside of anti-imperialism is not about self governance. Nationalism is about dividing humanity into subjective little categories and pretending we don't all have the same interests.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nationalism is hate week.

[AK]

Read NecroCommie's blog post on the subject, I found it to be quite useful.

[cska]

But it must be pointed out that the West often complains about anti-imperialism by calling it nationalism.

[RGacky3]

But it must be pointed out that the West often complains about anti-imperialism by calling it nationalism.

Thats true, theres a difference between saying "leave us alone" and actual nationalism.

[DaComm]

Nationalism is basically saying your group is superior to another, or in other words, there exists inferiors, or those who cannot match our ethnic standards. Total abstraction; simply a method used to divide the working class and promote hostility, something cannot co-exist with world-socialism or worker internationalism.

[Revolution starts with U]

Have you ever seen the video composite of Hannity where he's like "america is the best, greatest, freest, most benevolent, rose scented flautlenciest country on earth?"
That's nationalism. "Leave us Argentinians alone" is just a misguided placement of a term that didn't need to be there (argentinians).

[Hiero]

Nope. Ethnicity and nationalism are unnecessary/irrelevant and divisive.

Care to explain how ethnicity is irrelevant?

In what context is ethnicity irrelevant?

[#FF0000]

Care to explain how ethnicity is irrelevant?

In what context is ethnicity irrelevant?

Well obviously ethnicity is relevant in today's society because it dictates how one can expect to be treated, how laws apply to them...etc.

I think what I meant when I posted that was something along the lines of ethnicity shouldn't be relevant?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

A bit of semantics.

The things leftis calls progressive nationalism is more of something called 'regionalism', the idea of that people living in a particular area should be the once who to decide how they will live and organize it. Culture, ethnicity and so has no matter here.

Nationalism (in its true sence) is an idea of that some people belong to a particular area, wich they tend to mystify saying that the soil, air and water are much better here (blut und boden) and because of that we must deffend it frome "all others", real nationalism tends always to become racism.

[Ekaitz Do Dragão]

Thanks for the responses!

As many of can tell by looking at title, I am a nationalist. I love my country and I love my culutre. I believe that all people around the world has the right to govern themselves without foreign interference.

However, most people here equate nationalism with supremacy. Yes, ultra-nationalism has triggered wars throughout history, resulting in many atrocities and whatnot. Although, this is a very narrow view of nationalism. Some groups of people simply want to be left alone.

Internationalism, in my opinion, is just another form of imperialism because at one point or another, someone else around the world will make a decision that negatively affects you and/or me.

Keep in mind that I'm not against international cooperation or trade. I believe that keeping peoples seperate can lead to a more peaceful world.

[#FF0000]

I believe that keeping peoples seperate can lead to a more peaceful world.

I really don't understand why people think this. I can't think of a single example of when exclusion is a good thing for someone's development, or anything.

[Revolution starts with U]

If nationalism, why not regionalism, why not communitism, why not individualism. I mean, if seperating people has value, why don't you live in a cave? Why do you stop at the imaginary nation.

[Hiero]

Internationalism, in my opinion, is just another form of imperialism because at one point or another, someone else around the world will make a decision that negatively affects you and/or me.

Well that is what happens with nationalism anyway. Nationalism is a horizontal comradeship that looks over the inequalities between people within the perceived nation. That is between classes and even people who use nationalism to declare themselves as a different nation to the nation they feel oppressed by. Under nationalism someone else is still going to be making decisions that can negatively affect you.

Pakistani nationalism calls for the unity of "Pakistanis", but is challenged by Balochistan nationalism.

Socialist internationalism should be a proccesses of cooperation between people of varying cultures based on class collaboration of working people and collaboration of all oppressed working classes.

Sometimes the reality is is that some "nations" are already very mixxed and working together. The concept of nationalism can seek to change these relationships to adhere to an imagined community (a community that is imagined against the fragmented historical and material reality). Leaving people alone includes allowing people to interact freely as they have done before, not forcing imaginary boundaries between people.

Look at the partion of India and Pakistan. This proccess only strengthened class collaboration between opposing classes under the process of nation building, and disrupted the lives of Punjabi people that was completly unneccassary. In whose mind did this Pakistan and Indian nation exist? Clearly not in the Punjubi people's everyday relationships.

[AK]

Thanks for the responses!

As many of can tell by looking at title, I am a nationalist. I love my country and I love my culutre. I believe that all people around the world has the right to govern themselves without foreign interference.

I don't think anti-nationalists and internationalists exactly support "foreign interference" either. I very much doubt that when community A in Poland makes a decision, community B in Japan will somehow suffer because of it. The only "foreign interference" that exists today is capitalist imperialist meddling, not some inborn tendency of certain nations to interfere with others.

However, most people here equate nationalism with supremacy. Yes, ultra-nationalism has triggered wars throughout history, resulting in many atrocities and whatnot.

All wars have been waged for purely economic reasons. Nationalism simply allowed the ruling classes to drum up support for imperialist war. Nationalism - however dangerous I perceive it to be - has never been the cause of a war; it has only ever acted as a catalyst.

Although, this is a very narrow view of nationalism. Some groups of people simply want to be left alone.

It's the only view of nationalism. It is a divide-and-conquer strategy that has been used primarily by the capitalist class.

Internationalism, in my opinion, is just another form of imperialism because at one point or another, someone else around the world will make a decision that negatively affects you and/or me.

Internationalism means solidarity regardless of ethnicity. Imperialism is the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination. Maybe I could make a decision that adversely affects you, but I'm certainly not building an empire.

Keep in mind that I'm not against international cooperation or trade. I believe that keeping peoples seperate can lead to a more peaceful world.

Presumably you will then have to deport all the foreigners and stop immigrants from seeking asylum, which is far from a peaceful measure.

---------------

Also, I have requested that you be restricted: http://www.revleft.com/vb/restrict-e...31#post1875031

[L.A.P.]

It depends, most forms of Nationalism are of course racist and right-wing which in itself opposes everything I believe in. However, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense were Black Nationalists but just wanted rights for African-Americans not necessarily supremacy of Black people. Also, the 26th of July Movement was kind of Cuban Nationalist and they just wanted there country to be free from dictatorship and the United States' government and mafia to stop fucking with them.