What is your stance on Nationalism?

[Bala Perdida]

I personally think nationalism is just a manifest used by powers to justify their atrocities most of the time. There are exceptions, like in the case of Palestine, but uprisings should occur to recognize people's right to live. Where they live and how they choose to express themselves is not important.

In short, I am opposed to nationalism, but I will support the people of oppressed territories as they fight to defend themselves from more vicious and dominating nationalists.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

deep sigh

Why?

[Blake's Baby]

Because it's a demonstration of the point that we're trying to make about nationalism. The whole point of the 'Great Patrotic War' is that it ties the Russian working class to the state and their own bourgeoisie (and on the other side, the 'Crusade against Jew-Slav Bolshevism' or whatever it was ties the German working class to the German state and bourgeoisie...).

You may as well have said 'nationalism is great as long as it persuades workers to get involved in killing each other in apocalyptic wars'.

[Popular Front of Judea]

TGDU, if you had to distill your argument into one sentence, how would you put it?

I'd rather hear your answer to that question than join in this argument, but:

This presumes a common interest between the working class and bourgeoisie of that nation.

So in the context of the Canadian First Nations, the Mohawks etc. who are the working class and who are the bourgeoisie? Is it indeed possible to use those terms in this setting?

[synthesis]

So in the context of the Canadian First Nations, the Mohawks etc. who are the working class and who are the bourgeoisie? Is it indeed possible to use those terms in this setting?

The same class rules apply to them as anyone else. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[Popular Front of Judea]

It's always demoralizing reading these type of threads with their stock answers cut and pasted from works often nearly a century old. (At least the discussion of the former Yugoslavia deals with events from 20 - 25 years ago, which here qualifies I guess as recent news) No I am not necessarily "for" nationalism, but the resistance to multi-national, neoliberal capitalism often does take a nationalistic form. We live in an age where it is capital that has no homeland. Much of the opposition to the WTO I witnessed here on the streets of Seattle in '99 was driven by people that did not want their hard won national labor and environmental laws overturned by an unaccountable multinational organization that was beholden to multinational corporations. To the north of me there is the Council of Canadians fighting the good fight against assimilation by the United States. They want to keep what is left of their social democracy and resist the ongoing resource grab by the United States.

If you wish to organize people you need to meet them where they are at -- not where you wish them to be.

[synthesis]

If you wish to organize people you need to meet them where they are at -- not where you wish them to be.

It seems like you should be practicing what you preach in this respect, when it comes to people's political principles at which they have arrived after decades of consideration.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

But you weren't talking about the "national working class." You were talking about "the nation" existing as a cultural abstraction and being destroyed as a function of capitalism [. . .]

I don't know, I think I was pretty clear that I wasn't talking about a "cultural abstraction", but judico-political, cultural, and a whole bunch of factors - I really think we can talk about nations the same way we can talk about race or gender. As for its being destroyed, I'm not talking about an abstract "cultural" destruction, but material destruction of which culture (which I think needs to be understood as ways of life - how re/production is organized) is part. This destruction is part of capitalist strategy, and needs to be resisted.

[. . .]a nation that necessarily contains a ruling class and a working class. It is the culture that is in danger of being destroyed, not the working class, without which the bourgeoisie obviously cannot exist.

The thing is, I'm not convinced that that is true, or not in a narrow sense. There are black capitalists in the United States, but it's white American capitalists who run the show. There are undoubtedly indigenous capitalists in Canada, but we're looking at a population that is by and large excluded from capitalist production proper almost entirely. And who are the threats to Palestinian workers? I have no illusions that Palestinian Authority is proletarian, but where's the primary contradiction in Palestine?

And does it just so happen that the "nationally peculiar interests" of the "national working class" are completely the same as those of the national bourgeoisie?

That's the nature of capitalism, to which the working class is tied. The bourgeoisie also have an interest in the workers eating and re/producing generally. There needs to be a "break" with this (y'know, general strike or whateva), but, the fact of the matter is "Your boss wants you to eat!" is a piss poor argument for starving yourself.

In this you are doing something far more dangerous than "thinly veiled apologizing for neo-colonialism" - by which I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say - you are advocating that they commit the exact same crime that was entirely responsible for the implosion of Marxism in the twentieth century: class collaboration.

OK, but it runs both ways, right? And far more often we see settler and imperialist working classes cooperating with their bourgeois against national struggles for autonomy. As a consequence we get calls for entire peoples to allow themselves to be imprisoned, exterminated, and super-exploited less they "collaborate": so who's actually cooperating with the ruling class then?

[Blake's Baby]

... we see settler and imperialist working classes cooperating with their bourgeois against national struggles for autonomy...

And why do we see that? Because they have fallen for the lies of nationalism, that you support...

The workers have no country. That's fundamental. As soon as any workers are tied to any country they are doing the will of the bourgeoisie. And anyone who supports tying the workers to any country, any bourgeois gang (whether in power or seeking power), is doing the will of the bourgeoisie.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I don't know, I think I was pretty clear that I wasn't talking about a "cultural abstraction", but judico-political, cultural, and a whole bunch of factors - I really think we can talk about nations the same way we can talk about race or gender. As for its being destroyed, I'm not talking about an abstract "cultural" destruction, but material destruction of which culture (which I think needs to be understood as ways of life - how re/production is organized) is part. This destruction is part of capitalist strategy, and needs to be resisted.

But in many cases these cultures have already been destroyed. In Norway, for example, the Sami people's culture/ways of life was/were destroyed through assimilation, forced schooling etc. I can see how that should have been opposed back in the day, but the traditional way of living for the Sami people doesn't exist anymore. Many of them still own reindeer and make their living off that, but using motorised vehicles and even helicopters. Most of them probably earn quite a lot, too, as they sell for a market and not for their own consumption (obviously). Should this "way of life" be supported against, say, the building of dams on "traditionally" Sami owned land? (there was a pretty big political event with regards to specifically this in Norway some decades ago)

I mean, Marxists can often be the worst to cheer on capitalist "development" in indigenous areas, but often the support of indigenous peoples are based on myths and constructed ideals. A while ago I was at a talk given by a Sami reindeer owner. He talked about all the technical stuff. When asked if he knew some joiks (traditional singing ritual thing), he was completely blank. He was basically a business man. I wasn't surprised at all, but I overheard people after the talk who were disappointed because the guy apparently wasn't a "real Sami".

[Bolshevik Sickle]

Because it's a demonstration of the point that we're trying to make about nationalism. The whole point of the 'Great Patrotic War' is that it ties the Russian working class to the state and their own bourgeoisie (and on the other side, the 'Crusade against Jew-Slav Bolshevism' or whatever it was ties the German working class to the German state and bourgeoisie...).

You may as well have said 'nationalism is great as long as it persuades workers to get involved in killing each other in apocalyptic wars'.

Good point. Sometimes nationalism works, sometimes it doesn't. Nationalism has no place in a full complete Marxist society.

[Popular Front of Judea]

It seems like you should be practicing what you preach in this respect, when it comes to people's political principles at which they have arrived after decades of consideration.

We are talking about Revleft here right?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

But in many cases these cultures have already been destroyed. In Norway, for example, the Sami people's culture/ways of life was/were destroyed through assimilation, forced schooling etc. I can see how that should have been opposed back in the day, but the traditional way of living for the Sami people doesn't exist anymore.

Alright, but in many cases, the "destruction" of these cultures isn't a fait accompli, it's ongoing. I'd also argue that it's not so simple as that - since cultures are mutable, not fixed. Nations, like races and genders, reconfigure themselves, relate dialectically to the broader totality of relations. Arguably the collective experience of forced schooling and other violence is key to the re-/constitution of national formations.

Many of them still own reindeer and make their living off that, but using motorised vehicles and even helicopters. Most of them probably earn quite a lot, too, as they sell for a market and not for their own consumption (obviously). Should this "way of life" be supported against, say, the building of dams on "traditionally" Sami owned land? (there was a pretty big political event with regards to specifically this in Norway some decades ago).

OK, but you see the double standard here, right? Dominant, imperial, and colonial national cultures aren't read as ceasing to exist in the course of their development: Norwegians are still Norwegians despite helicopters and motorized vehicles. That you don't parade about in a weird caricature of viking costume blood-eagling monks isn't really the point.

ANYWAY, A QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO ARE "ALWAYS" AGAINST NATIONALISM:

What do you posit as the correct way to relate to anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles, and especially when these struggles have a mass base (ie rather than being a project of a narrow group of elites)?
How should Canadian communists, for example, approach the various native Warrior Society groups? What should our orientation be toward anti-Zionist struggles of Palestinians?

[synthesis]

The thing is, I'm not convinced that that is true, or not in a narrow sense. There are black capitalists in the United States, but it's white American capitalists who run the show. There are undoubtedly indigenous capitalists in Canada, but we're looking at a population that is by and large excluded from capitalist production proper almost entirely. And who are the threats to Palestinian workers? I have no illusions that Palestinian Authority is proletarian, but where's the primary contradiction in Palestine?

I'd like to take a different tack in this discussion and ask you, simply, where does this end? At what exact point does the interest of a national working class diverge from that of their national bourgeoisie? This seems important to define, given your implicit argument that the Palestinian working class, for example, would be better served throwing in their lot with the Palestinian bourgeoisie than with the Israeli and international working class.

[synthesis]

We are talking about Revleft here right?

About the political stance of left-communists, many anarchists and other groups that take a principled opposition to nationalism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'd like to take a different tack in this discussion and ask you, simply, where does this end? At what exact point does the interest of a national working class diverge from that of their national bourgeoisie? This seems important to define, given your implicit argument that the Palestinian working class, for example, would be better served throwing in their lot with the Palestinian bourgeoisie than with the Israeli and international working class.

I don't think that's true per se - I think the interests of the Palestinian working class are in smashing the bourgeoisie and its various states generally - but what is the state and who are the bourgeois who are, first and foremost responsible for the immiseration of the Palestinian working class? It's undoubtedly Israeli.
As for the Israeli working class, as long as it remains in a parasitic settlerist relationship to the Palestinian working class, it will remain at best a dubious ally: one might as well ask, "Why didn't Southern Blacks unite with the KKK?" The answer is blindingly obvious.
On the whole, I don't think this necessarily aligns with the interests of the "Palestinian bourgeoisie", let alone the interests of capitalists in the region, and internationally, who rely on Israel either, on one hand, as a crucial strategic ally in the region, or, on the other (e.g. Iran, Syria), as the perpetual bogeyman whose nuclear might serves as justification for all sorts of repression.
All of this is to say, rather than trying to pick an ideological "point", I think it makes sense to talk about these things in concrete terms.

As for my question, I think your silence speaks volumes.
1. So, again, what should the settler left do in Canada? The Israeli left in Palestine?
2. Where does the settler-left's opposition to anti-imperialist/anti-colonial nationalism cease to serve the interests of their own bourgeoisie?
3. What is labour zionism if not the loyal lapdog of Israeli capital? How is your position different than that of the NDP in Canada? The 1930s CPUSA when they dismantled the sharecroppers union?
4. If you oppose labour zionism and social democracy, please clarify how your position vis-a-vis national liberation is any different in practice (i.e. what do you suggest as steps forward for the Palestinian working class, if not their forcible assimilation into the lowest strata of the Israeli working class?).

[Alexios]

OK, but you see the double standard here, right? Dominant, imperial, and colonial national cultures aren't read as ceasing to exist in the course of their development: Norwegians are still Norwegians despite helicopters and motorized vehicles. That you don't parade about in a weird caricature of viking costume blood-eagling monks isn't really the point.

ANYWAY, A QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO ARE "ALWAYS" AGAINST NATIONALISM:

What do you posit as the correct way to relate to anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles, and especially when these struggles have a mass base (ie rather than being a project of a narrow group of elites)?
How should Canadian communists, for example, approach the various native Warrior Society groups? What should our orientation be toward anti-Zionist struggles of Palestinians?

There are better ways to flaunt your white guilt than shilling for nationalism on a web forum. One of my favorite options is to self-flagellate on the streets of New York while begging for minorities I see to throw stones at me.

[synthesis]

As for my question, I think your silence speaks volumes.

Your question was basically a long-winded request that I explain my position on national liberation struggles. I don't support them for moralist reasons or otherwise.

Here's what "speaks volumes" to me:

As for the Israeli working class, as long as it remains in a parasitic settlerist relationship to the Palestinian working class, it will remain at best a dubious ally: one might as well ask, "Why didn't Southern Blacks unite with the KKK?" The answer is blindingly obvious.

The fact that you've conflated an entire nation's working class with the Ku Klux Klan.

It's very difficult for me to separate this from your implicit support of Third-Worldism. This isn't just a cheap jab - it's the exact same argument.

[Thirsty Crow]

Y
The fact that you've conflated an entire nation's working class with the Ku Klux Klan.

But really.

TGDU, I appreciate your contribution to the boards, but this analogy is just rotten on so many levels.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Nationalism is generally not a good thing, as it is used by the forces of Capital to divide the working class against itself. I like the diversity of cultures, but there really is nothing more pathetic than taking pride in being born within arbitrary lines drawn by the State.

That being said, however, there are certain forms of nationalism that are born out of oppression. Chinese nationalism in the early 20th century (as practiced by the likes of Sun Yat-sen and the May 4th Movement) was a progressive force as it sought to unite the various ethnicities within China against the forces of western Capital, which for several prior generations had exploited and harassed the Chinese people for the sake of imperialism and profit. Black Nationalism within the U.S. came into existence after centuries of African bondage and second class citizenship had left the African American population poor and disadvantaged, and was an attempt to give the African American not only an identity, but a sense of basic dignity in the face of overwhelming oppression from the White establishment.

That does not mean that nationalism is a means in and of itself, but these forms of nationalism were a neccessary stepping stone in the evolution of working class solidarity and, ultimately, the revolution itself.