Results 1 to 20 of 31
Patriotism and communism
I'vre read some articles about left-wing patriotism and that communist should love their native country. I define myself as a communist but I can't reconcile patriotism and communism. I am not talking about chauvinism or nationalism. Maybe I have a different understanding about communism but I think it has nothing to do with it, except that a change of the system and the aim must start in it's own country. I don't hate my country but i also don't love my country I just live in it and for me it doesn't matters where someone comes from I also just define myself as a human just a human not as an German. I haven't chosen that country i was born in it randomly. Why should I be proud of it?
I also think that (especially in a world with high globalisation) communism is an international issue and when we established it (at least in every country) and when we abolish all capitalist and imperialist structures, nations or countries would not make sense anymore. I think we all are humans and we all should work together to create wealth for everyone on the planet. I don't refuse patriotism I just think that breaking it would create a new unterstanding of communism and humanism.
What do you guys think? Maybe somone can explain me left-wing patriotism.
Any communist should be an internationalist. To be a patriot is just sucking up to your oppressor, screaming you love being oppressed by country A instead of country B is idiotic. Your ideas seem to make total sense, fuck nationalist/patriot/supremacist scum.
No-borders-no-nations-no-flags-no-patriots.jpg
"I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."
"It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
Given that "globalization" (i.e. capitalist expansion) has generated a large backlash in First World countries (see Trump and the National Front), I would say that we on the Left need to distinguish "internationalism" from "globalism", the latter being a slur tossed around by alt-rightists. "Internationalism" in the socialist sense of the word essentially means that the proletariat of all countries share a common enemy and have more in common with their counterparts in other countries then the capitalists in their home country. "Internationalism", in my sense of the word, does not necessarily reject patriotism; Eugene Debs, for instance, never hesitated to display his patriotic love of America while maintaining his commitment to proletarian internationalism.
Patriotism has to be distinguished from nationalism, particularly the jingoistic nationalism of the pre-WWI imperialist nations (Germany, France, Austro-Hungary, etc) and the outright revanchism of the fascists. If that becomes impossible (for whatever reason), then patriotism and internationalism necessarily come into conflict. However, it must be said that every semi-successful socialist movement relied on patriotism to some degree; after all, the heydey of the Communist Party in America was during the Popular Front of the 1930s.
An injury to one is an injury to all -Industrial Workers of the World
The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all -Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free -Eugene V. Debs
Patriotism is a dialectical combination of private and public interests, of the unity of a person and society.Patriotism lies not only in the respect for the historical past of your nation,it's cultural traditions, in willingness to defend independence of your country in the face of the invaders, to sacrifice lives for freedom,but also in a critical attitude to the existing social injustice.Patriotism of revolutionaries comes from the hatred of the ruling order,of the parasitic top of society.Patriotism also suggestes the respect for other nations, their cultures,the recognition of their rights to independence.Patriotism helps a person to realize that he belongs to a certain culture, to be more familiar to it's treasure.
This is a proletarian view on patriotism.It's clear that bourgeoisie see patriotism in a different way.
Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.
Well if being a patriot doesn't affect your views and relations with other countries or better workers, I don't see why someone should be ashamed to love his country. Of course I sometimes tend to confuse the meaning of the words because I read a book that talks about patriotism as something good and then there are people who believe patriotism=nationalism.
In my definition being a patriot means that you love your country, but it doesn't mean that if Albanians have an issue I won't care for example. I love my country because I like the culture (most of it of course), but if being a patriot comes with fighting wars for the capital, "loving" someone and care about them more because they are from your country etc then no I'm not a patriot. Hope I've helped
This is, however, pure idealism. You described what you think patriotism should be. Well done, but you have to admit that for most of the time, patriotism exists not as such. Most of the people who call themselves patriots are nationalists, definitely not the worst kind, but still nationalists. I mean those people who live up to the ideal patriot you described probably exist, but their numbers are scarce. Otherwise, we sould be full of self-proclaimed patriotic parties that focus on social injustice and the respect of other cultures and nations not just in their public appearance, but deep down as well. And this is a thing I don't really see. People and parties that go with patriotism either do so because the country where they operate is so swollen with nationalism that they can't be openly anti-nation without committing political suicide so they adapt a soft version of nationalism to fit in. Or, they do so because they are really nationalist, and as usual, nationalism goes hand in hand with other right-wing ideas as well. One could argue that not all nationalisms are the same, and sometimes nationalist or patriotic movements have a progressive or even revolutionary element, and this is true, in some circumstances, usually for a short period of time. I mean, the "progressive" stage of European nationalism lasted for, say, circa 60 years (from the French Revolution to the fall of the revolutions of 1848 if we are generous). And 60 years is really not a big deal when we speak about history.
Patriotism is a natural ally of communism. Only we shoud not forget that patriotism is not communism, that the patriots who objectively are on the side of progress, can pull with them a whole mess of reactionary prejudices and all kinds of national weaknesses.We should educate,form people,we should strive for patriotism,separate it from reactionary rubbish.
"Patriotism is one of the most deeply ingrained sentiments" and this great force shoud be used for serving the interests of revolution.
Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.
Of course it does. Nationalism (all that Patriotism is) is ruling class ideology which aims to segment and divide the working class and obfuscate class antagonisms. If you say you can "love your country" and "love your culture" and be a Communist, fine, why not love your ruling royal family then? A Communist must ultimately be a revolutionary DEFEATIST when it comes to his own country. He must, when the time comes, hope for his OWN bourgeoisie to be crushed in a war, to be defeated, so as to lay the opportunity to capture real political power in his own country. Anything short of that is Kaustkyte selling-your-ass-to-the-highest-bidder "Socialism".
General Winter, as in the other threads, betrays himself as nothing more than a social chauvinist. You cannot separate "patriotism from reactionary garbage", as you call it, because both immanent from the EXACT SAME SOURCE.
Soviet "patriotism", was understood as NOTHING MORE than Communism. It was merely a word play to hanker back to the 1812 war against France during Germany's own invasion. The USSR wasn't a nation state anyway and calling oneself "Soviet" explicitly meant rejection of one's "Russian-ness or Ukraine-ness".
Finally: We must indeed set ourselves apart from "Globalists" since globalization is merely the next stage of international capitalism, hardly one that comes as a surprise, its been occurring since the late 19th century. Trumpite and FN scum are fascists and their "national" economies are bound to inherent failure just as Mussolini's, we must simply be prepared, when the time comes to give the leaders the same treatment the Communists of Milan gave that piece of shit.
I agree with much of what you said, though the fact that the USSR never moved beyond a union of states based around national identity (Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakh etc) was one of its fundamental flaws (which, I think, only further proves your broader point). It certainly contributed to its dissolution, for instance the petty squabbling between Armenians and Azeris during the final days, the aftershocks of which are still felt today. Once sufficiently significant contradictions emerged between these communities, internal conflict along national lines became inevitable. It can also be seen in the "patriotism" of various movements which adopted a vulgar, degraded interpretation of Leninism, such as Juche and the Khmer Rouge.
Socialist Party of Outer Space
Without slipping into Kautskyism -- GW has a valid point in the context of *national liberation* movements, where the assertion of one's own oppressed national identity can be historically-*progressive* as long as it ultimately flows into a larger, pan-national *socialist* consciousness and activity.
In the time of the ancien regime (aristocracy / feudalism / monarchies), patriotism was about struggling for *republics* (albeit of the rising merchant class) instead of seeing endless warfare and dominion from the *monarchies* and their empires.
In today's context I can't agree that we should 'strive for patriotism' because we're not in the 18th century anymore -- materially everything has developed to where the remaining question isn't one of *means* of production, but rather is strictly about *relations* of production, meaning that *socialist* relations of production are overdue for all.
The proletariat has no nation. Any 'socialist' who claims it does has given up being a socialist. My country is a prison, and so is every other country. They should all be destroyed.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
I would argue the opposite (or rather, a slight modification). It is true in modern times that the difference between "patriotism" and "nationalism" is getting blurred, what with the rise of authoritarian right-populists such as Jobbik, UKIP, the National Front, etc. Indeed, the opposite has also become true; "internationalism" has become blurred with "globalism" (i.e. bourgeois internationalism), making it difficult for any leftist to articulate a credible alternative without being called a "rootless cosmopolitan".
Nevertheless, we on the radical Left have to remember that one of the ways that we've made inroads with the working classes is by including, rather than shunning, a love of one's country. This doesn't have to be a distinct affiliation with an explicit identity; hell, it doesn't even have to be national in scope. But every major leftist movement, whether in the developed countries or in the postcolonial world, has relied to some degree on the national identity of its origins to articulate a vision for the future. Ho Chi Minh, for instance, was often referred to as the "Vietnamese George Washington"; the Socialist Party of America in the early 1900s was rooted in "flyover country"; and the Paris Commune fashioned itself as the direct successor of the bourgeois French Revolution.
In other words, socialists and radical leftists ought to be centering on an appreciation of "working class culture", which (for better or worse) includes a regional or national component. Of course, we must be vigilant against an obsessive or idealistic worship of the working class, but we cannot establish a connection with the working class if we content ourselves to lampooning their culture and their values without offering anything tangible in return. Ironically, the alt-right and the right-populists seem to have articulated their own version of "internationalism", which is essentially predicated on racial consciousness for "besieged" white populations. If the fascists can sway working-class voters with a distorted version of internationalist politics, surely we can win them over with the real thing.
An injury to one is an injury to all -Industrial Workers of the World
The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all -Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free -Eugene V. Debs
nationalism can be great in the same way that slavery can be great, if its used to develop society out of barbarism, for example a house slave living in alabama was better off than a man dying of starvation in the jungle. Nationalism is the natural development of society out of feudalistic society and into a capitalist one. Feudalism still exists (depending on how loosely we use the term) in Africa the middle east and in asia. Chinese imperialism ended when the nationalists revolted and destroyed one of the oldest monarchies in world history. They united everyone under one flag despite religious, ethnic, and language differences and formed a democratic government guaranteeing rights for all citizens. This government was obviously destroyed following the chinese civil war and surely for good reason, but the national identity of china was developed they were no longer hans and uigher they were chinese. Now this does promote hatred between nations and discriminates against those not adhering to the national identity whatever it may be But this is nothing compared to the hatred and discrimination promoted inside a feudal system like imperialist china. Where you can be the same ethnicity, same religion, speak the same language, have the same beliefs etc, but because you are not royalty you are scum.
The obvious fact that nationalism "can" be left wing aside, the apprehension that self proclaimed communists and socialist feel about encouraging nationalism is expected since its basically the same as encouraging slavery. Yet we cannot bring a society out of barbarism without slavery, just as we cannot bring a society out of feudalism without nationalism.
So communists recoil at the thought of nationalism since it would be like asking us if should some Terena tribesman be made a slave. They will desperately search for some way to skip a step in their societies development because who would want to encourage slavery if it wasn't necessary? and who then is to determine if slavery is needed in the end? So yes in all honesty nationalism is necessary in certain pats of the world. Wherever a kingdom exists that still holds power, a sense of nationalism should be encouraged even in countries like england or norway where a king is still respected rather than hung for their crimes. Just as a system of slavery should be encouraged in a barbaric society in the Amazon. But if you could find a way to skip a step from barbarism directly into feudalism you should try it, so should you try to skip a step from nationalism to full communism.
Here is the way I see it, and I'll be extremely simple and to the point:
Right now, patriotism is bad. It would only strengthen the capitalist state and make revolution harder to achieve. There is absolutely nothing to love about the current state of my country. So yea, I'm an anarchist, anti-State, anti-patriotic, yada yada.
But when revolution comes and we set up a socialist state, that's apt to change. Then patriotism is good in my view. People need to feel good about camaraderie and a sense of belonging to a people...this is natural to mankind. But rather than it having to do with borders, race, religion, or other such construct, the ties that bind us together is socialism, justice, empowerment, and love of one another - and this transcends borders, language, race etc. This is the true utopia. Right now the capitalists are using the nature of people against them...love of family, identity, and people...natural affections, twisted into something vulgar and hateful and divisive. All products of the capitalist system.
So certain social constructs are not necessarily bad, some are products of that which makes us human beings and social...you have to consider context. Capitalism poisons everything.
Only if you see patriotism as a stupid principle "right or wrong - my country". However,this principle is always bad.
Germans from the 'Red Orchestra' who formally fought against Germany were a thousand times more patriots than any German who formally fought for Germany in the ranks of the Wehrmacht.
Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.
Our first loyalty should always be to the transnational working class.
Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin
Here's from post #10:
I'll use the example of *Syria* -- any efforts that bolster its national sovereignty / self-determination / national-liberation (as from the Kurds, against ISIS, and/or from Russia and Iran, or even from the SDF) should be seen as *historically-progressive* -- so Syrian 'patriotism' at this point is to be lauded as a bulwark against religious fundamentalist reaction, and even against Western imperialism.
I agree with you that Patriotism is a stupid principle in that context and that the Germans who resisted were better countrymen. But I still question how patriotism is even slightly useful to us now? What do I, as an American, have to be proud about exactly? Why should I defend a country that is oppressive and that I want to see collapse?
Maybe you have a different idea of patriotism. Do I love my country? That I love my country and want to free them from capitalism? That makes no sense to me. I love the workers - not the bourgeoisie...and this transcends borders and language. I'm sorry, and I'm trying to be fair, it's just that I don't really see how to reconcile my Marxism with love of country.
You do very well to distrust any kind of justification for either nationalism or patriotism.
It is really disheartening, worrisome and surprising that any sort of “leftist” would even speak of patriotism without spitting vile out of his/her mouth.
After a hundred years one would think people would have learned from the betrayal of the social chauvinist scum in the Second International (https://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm#socialist-international) and the heroism of the Zimmerwald Left (https://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/z/i.htm).
The typical argument (not just in leftist circles) one hears is to pathetically and uncritically ask “what’s wrong with loving one’s country?” without realizing how ideological that question in on itself is.
Leaving that aside for a second though, the obvious answer is: Well, what is then, right in “loving one’s country”? Seriously, what justifies such a stupid and absurd sentimentalism? What is there to love about a country? What is most ironic is that none of the things that most people refer to when they talk about "loving their country" are simply irreducible to a nation state, most are even universal. Your loved ones aren’t your country, neither is your favorite food, the language you speak? In a globalized world that rarely means anything, people treat as bad and as well each other as in any other country… People simply project all those little things that determine and give "meaning" to their lives onto a symbolic "country".
However, a country is, coldly and simply, a piece of land whose boundaries have been more or less arbitrarily set by the competing interests of ruling classes across centuries. The greatest example of what a sham national borders are is that of contemporary Africa what the colonial empires did to Africa.
I’ve noticed, much to my surprise, that some people speak of patriotism almost as an euphemism for nationalism, as if patriotism is more “acceptable”. Quite to the contrary, patriotism is as repulsive as, if not more, than nationalism; and just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I’ll be perfectly clear about this: nationalism (no matter how much reactionary “socialists” bang about “nationalism of the oppressed”, national “liberation” movements or whatever other opportunist boilerplate) is to be opposed by all communists. If there ever was a progressive nationalist or patriotic movement, it was only progressive despite its nationalistic tendencies and only in contrast with the reactionaries that opposed them (ie. PLO against Israel and Jordan, Viet Minh against the Colonial French and American imperialists, M-26-7 in Cuba against USA, MPLA in Angola against USA and South Africa, not to mention UNITA which also had pretensions to “communism”). Note that all the groups mentioned have either dropped any pretensions to communism or such a move would be at this point unnecessary and trivial; in either case they all quickly devolved into a bunch of crooks and gangsters (I would have said "enemies of the working class but that would imply they weren't before). All nationalist groups are as disingenuous as each other, what a coincidence uh?
Hell, look at the formerly stalinist uncle Ocalan now playing “libertarian” “democratic” confederalist (buzzwords ahoy!), when he’s not coercing women into his personal harem that is.
To put a long story short, nationalism is not too dissimilar from fascism (in fact it is an essential part of it) in that it obscures, mystifies and misdirects the antagonisms within capitalist society into an external enemy.
So what makes patriotism even worse (to an extent) than plain nationalism? Simply put, patriotism, as it is understood today (both terms have become decreasingly interchangeable over the years in my opinion), is wholly “depoliticized” (or “post-political”), it is cynical nationalism. Nationalism might be bullshit, but at least for someone to be a nationalist partisanship and, more importantly, aspiration to a particular collective project are required, in this case within national (ethno-religious, linguistic, cultural, etc.) boundaries. A sort of collective sphere still remains, the nationalist ruling class is still expected to answer to the nationalist “cause”, it must deliver (even if only in appearance) in order to legitimize itself. For patriots, not even the simplest legitimization is necessary, it is taken as a given. Which brings us, finally, back to the ideological nature of the question “what’s wrong with loving one’s country?”, the question itself is ideological because it assumes an unwarranted legitimacy from the nation state.
In simpler terms, nationalists are simpletons, but not unconditional ones. At least nationalists need to (at least appear to) really believe in what they do.
Patriotism on the other hand is pure ideology: “I don’t know what I am doing (nor for whom or why) but I do it nonetheless”. "I don't know (nor question) why I love my country, I just do". It is the embodiment of inertia, the sacralization of the statu quo.
In its adaptability, it's ambigousness, it works as an empty container: for a Chinese nationalist both Chiang-Kai Sek and Mao Zedong could be "patriots" at the same time (their fight against Japanese invaders), just as for many Russians both Stalin and the tsar Nicholas both can be simultaneously patriotic symbols. It is open to all possible meanings, contradictory or not.
I think that this last election has provided a good example in the difference between both. In response to the nationalist “make america great again” the Democrats responded with the patriotic “america is already great”. The sad truth that both statements hide is made obvious in their excess, the truth is America was NEVER great.
Nationalism mystifies and obscures antagonism, Patriotism outright ignores and denies it.
To capitulate to social-chauvinism is to forever renounce Communism and betray the international working class. If you ever meet people like that just tell them to do themselves a favor and stop calling themselves leftists.
Communists are internationalists, we have no fatherland nor motherland; we are "rootless cosmopolitans".
We only have each other to rely on.
There's a reason why "jewish bolshevism" was a thing among rabid anti-communists, specially fascists; and it has nothing to do with crackpot nazi conspiracy theories:
Originally Posted by Rafiq
Source: http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/194058-Jewish-Bolshevism-Theory
Last edited by Radical Atom; 18th May 2017 at 17:00.
A special kind of a bullshit:
Lumping together internationalism and cosmopolitanism,two completely opposite to each other concepts!
The difference between these concepts is fundamental because it is based on a different class basis. We can say that cosmopolitanism is "internationalism" of capital, "internationalism" of the bourgeoisie. Cosmopolitanism denies national sovereignty, rejects the right of nations to independence, calls for the fusion of nations by force, advocating in fact the enslavement of nations by imperialism.Ie cosmopolitanism does not reject the nationalism of the oppressing nations but stands on it's ground.
The Marxists see the perspective of a gradual and free rapprochement and then of the fusion of nations ,they see as a long process that comes as a result of liberation and blossom of nations.
Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.
