World Republic

Uniting All People!
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Nationalism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
mattabesta
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 3936
Join date : 2007-12-23
Age : 22
Location : Iceland

PostSubject: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:33 pm

EVIL lurks from it, evry major conflict of the 20th and late 19th century was coused by nationalism, and today it'S STILL in commercials like: buy American cars, because there from America.

Also the most obvius reason is that it would be much better to have one world, one, not 193.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://Pichunter.com
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:25 pm

I'm against nationalism for causing class collaborationism, but, in the context in which we live now, 3rd and 2nd world nationalist and protectionist movements are an awesome hindrance to 1st world imperialism. By affecting Imperialism it affects 1st world's wealth (most of which is fictional, just look at Japan) and in doing so it helps to diminish the illusion of welfare in which the working classes of the 1st world live.

However, I do like the existance of nations as geographically limited territories with a certain historical, cultural and ethnic identity that's why I don't oppose patriotic movements or, as I'll begin calling the nationwise philosophy I propose within a socialist context, "nationist".

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
WeiWuWei
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 624
Join date : 2008-04-14
Age : 40

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:17 pm

When I first began studying world history - contemporary world history especially, like starting after Napoleon's death - I was shocked to discover just how much was actually caused by Nationalism, more than anything else. And most things that you may like to claim were motivated by other causes - like economics - usually were given a Nationalist perspective to try to validate them - like European colonialism in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia.

Zealot, I've got to know how you can try to consolidate Nationalism and Socialism, even within the context that you put it, especially considering that your definition for your concept of "nationism" is, essentially, extremely similar to - if not the same as - what Nationalism basically argues for.

Nationalism basically posits that nation-states should consist solely of groups that have a shared identity, and no one else. In order to ensure that peoples of a different nationality can not enter the nation-state - which one must admit would have to happen, because if peoples of a different nationality could live in the nation-state, then it's not a nation-state - a powerful and violent State entity must be necessary to protect the nation. Nationalism and fierce State power, to me, have always gone hand-in-hand.

I'm with mattabesta; it is evil.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/groupcp.forum?g=11
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:31 pm

mattabesta wrote:
and today it'S STILL in commercials like: buy American cars, because there from America.
Don't you mean patriotism?

Patriotism is ok, its just being proud of your country, on the other hand antionalism is own people first(kind of), so that's bad, but I still hate American Patriotism very much, I do not know why, but I just hate it.

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
WeiWuWei
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 624
Join date : 2008-04-14
Age : 40

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:36 pm

CoolKidX wrote:
mattabesta wrote:
and today it'S STILL in commercials like: buy American cars, because there from America.
Don't you mean patriotism?

Patriotism is a little different. I think when someone tells you to buy American cars, it's a Nationalist position because it serves the national interest of aiding domestic industries. Patriotism basically just posits, "MY COUNTRY IS AWESOME, FUCK YEAH," but Nationalism has a very distinct ideological motive entailed to it. Patriotism is merely, if I can quote Samuel Johnson, "the last refuge of the scoundrel." It doesn't really mean anything. It's just a claim that your country is better than anyone else's. But Nationalism has a specific goal in mind, the very end of which is the preservation and support for the nation.

So I think matta's example is a Nationalist one, in a certain sense. I might use a different example than America, though, because America constitutes a multinational state. Now if I said something like "I'm Japanese so I should buy a Japanese car," that would be a Nationalist position, because Japan is, for the most part, a nation-state in the purest sense of the term.

Granted, I'm not Japanese. Whatever.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/groupcp.forum?g=11
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:41 pm

WeiWuWei wrote:

Patriotism basically just posits, "MY COUNTRY IS AWESOME, FUCK YEAH,"
So true, I read that alot of times on YouTube hehe.

Anyways, so nationalism is like when people think only their important and like minortie groups can just go away since the interests of the majorty only counts, correct?

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
WeiWuWei
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 624
Join date : 2008-04-14
Age : 40

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:43 pm

CoolKidX wrote:
Anyways, so nationalism is like when people think only their important and like minortie groups can just go away since the interests of the majorty only counts, correct?

I'd say that's it in a nutshell, yes.

Also, most - if not all - Nationalists want to create a nation-state for their nation.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/groupcp.forum?g=11
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 28
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:48 pm

CoolKidX wrote:
Patriotism is ok, its just being proud of your country, on the other hand antionalism is own people first(kind of), so that's bad, but I still hate American Patriotism very much, I do not know why, but I just hate it.

But why be proud of your country? This seems like blind loyalty to me (and more often than not, it really is, considering that if americans new the real identity and history of their own country, they should be disguisted). There would be a difference if it was that you were proud of your fellow countrymen for some achievement worth noting (though with a statist mentality and a corporate, corruptable media, they're likely to believe this about achievments like destroying Iraq, and i know many of these trolls)

Quote :
Patriotism is a little different. I think when someone tells you to buy American cars, it's a Nationalist position because it serves the national interest of aiding domestic industries. Patriotism basically just posits, "MY COUNTRY IS AWESOME, FUCK YEAH," but Nationalism has a very distinct ideological motive entailed to it.

Wouldn't you think, though, that patriotism would inevitably lead to nationalism, to use these specific definitions? Cos if you're saying "MY COUNTRY IS AWESOME, FUCK YEAH", then there must be some comparison there. Cos if every other country is just as awesome, then what makes any of them awesome, know what i mean? So with this type of psuedo-elitist mentality (might as well call it racist), you're bound to end up believing that your country, as the awesomer country, should benefit. And as we know, within a capitalist framework, one country's benefit is almost undoubtedly another country's slavery.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
WeiWuWei
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 624
Join date : 2008-04-14
Age : 40

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:00 pm

Black_Cross wrote:
Wouldn't you think, though, that patriotism would inevitably lead to nationalism, to use these specific definitions? Cos if you're saying "MY COUNTRY IS AWESOME, FUCK YEAH", then there must be some comparison there. Cos if every other country is just as awesome, then what makes any of them awesome, know what i mean? So with this type of psuedo-elitist mentality (might as well call it racist), you're bound to end up believing that your country, as the awesomer country, should benefit. And as we know, within a capitalist framework, one country's benefit is almost undoubtedly another country's slavery.

As I've understood the traditional meaning of Nationalism, it has usually been implied that the nation - here meaning a group of related peoples - that feels the Nationalistic pride is usually Stateless. Sure, it's within a State, but it's not their State. Nationalism usually inherently implies wanting to create a nation-state, usually by overthrowing a multinational State. So I assume that if a Nationalist lived in a pure nation-state, he could be patriotic about it. But a Nationalist in a multinational State probably wouldn't. But a non-Nationalist - someone who doesn't want self-determination for their nation - can feel patriotic about his country, whether or not its multinational or not.

I think that there are fundamental differences between the two. But, to be fair, they both suck for their own reasons. Patriotism is just silly, but Nationalism - both ethnic and civic - is inherently dangerous and usually leads to violence at the non-State level, and it always leads to genocide and war at the State level.

You should check out the new thread I made in our secret forums about Nationalism for more of my thoughts on it. Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/groupcp.forum?g=11
Tyrong Kojy
Member of the Supreme Council


Posts : 2142
Join date : 2008-04-11
Age : 29
Location : Canada

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:22 pm

Nationalism, I've noticed, has been used generally as much as religion. In fact, they're usually done in tandem. Just something I've noticed, though I haven't looked into it in too much detail.

_________________
"Jenaveve took everything from me.
My friends,
My family,
Everything!
Her ambitions to dominate the universe are terrifying,
Evil beyond imagining.
I,
Tyrong Kojy,
The one whose power even the creator fears,
Will stop her.
Even if I have to destroy the universe to do it!"
Tyrong Kojy/Jenaveve by Nicholas Rivest
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:01 pm

Patriotism, as per ethymology, is "love to the place wher you were born" from the greek "patris" or "place where you are born".

Wei, my problem is with the "state" part of "nation". In my view, there can be a nation without a state and when people of other nationalities live in it.

For example, the country I feel fond of, Russia. For me "Russia" is that territorial delimitation in the map a delimitation whithin which the "russian culture" developed. By culture I'm talking about language, traditions, history, development in relation to geography, etc. In my view, which for the moment I ambigously call "nationism", that entity "Russia" can and should exist as that delimited teritory as occupied by the Russian people traditionally. The Russianity of Russia can be kept by the Russians and Russophils (like me) without teh least need of a coercive entity like the state and without the least trace of xenophobia.

It pretty much would work like with individuals: We all got a different name, different musical tastes, different practices in other words, different identities. Yet, this identity ought not to serve as a reason for conflict.

In my view, nationality can be kept as much a trait of one's identity as the name, color of the skin or musical tastes. Fighting for nationality is as stupid as fighting because we like different kinds of music. We're against both phenomena but we don't propose as solution for the latter the elimination of different musical styles in order to come up with a single one.

Black_Cross, patriotism doesn't lead unavoidably to nationalism for patriotism simply stands for love to the nation where you were born, as simple as that. It doesn't imply thinking of it as superior to other nations or that it should have any sort of supremacy.

Being proud of your nation? Maybe just being glad you were born there amidst said culture.

Actually, in my view, geniune patriots could actually easily embrace socialism. Why? For a very simple reason: patriots often argue that they ant teh greater good for their nations, for their peoples. Logically, socialism is the only way to provide this as it allows prosperity and equalty among their countrymen without any conflict neither within their community nor with other communities. And I've actually got several of these guys to begin understanding and leaning towards socialism.

I don't like the idea of nations disappearing nor I think it is necesary at all.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
WeiWuWei
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 624
Join date : 2008-04-14
Age : 40

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:03 pm

Yo ZK,

I'm too lazy to repost it here, but check out the Anarchist forums and look up the thread I posted about this subject. I actually addressed the reason why I believe that nations lead to States.

EDIT: Actually, I'll just put it here.

The first major topic I wanted to post here in this forum concerns Nationalism, both as an ideological movement that, as affirmed Leftists, we must actively oppose, and as a social philosophy that, as fair-minded human beings, even if we didn't consider ourselves Leftists, we must not affiliate ourselves with. The idea to post my thoughts on Nationalism came about from a thread mattabesta posted in the Red Square. I'll quote part of our comrade Zealot's post, and relay my thoughts on them.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
I'm
against nationalism for causing class collaborationism, but, in the
context in which we live now, 3rd and 2nd world nationalist and
protectionist movements are an awesome hindrance to 1st world
imperialism. By affecting Imperialism it affects 1st world's wealth
(most of which is fictional, just look at Japan) and in doing so it
helps to diminish the illusion of welfare in which the working classes
of the 1st world live.

However, I do like the existance of
nations as geographically limited territories with a certain
historical, cultural and ethnic identity that's why I don't oppose
patriotic movements or, as I'll begin calling the nationwise philosophy
I propose within a socialist context, "nationist".

First, I think it's necessary to refer to a textbook definition of Nationalism - not that one should derive complete meaning of the term from a dictionary, but it helps. This is from a chapter in Michael T. Snarr's and D. Neil Snarr's Introducing Global Issues on Nationalism:

Introducing Global Issues wrote:
Nationalism
is a shared sense of identity based on important social distinctions
that has the purpose of gaining or keeping control of the group's own
destiny. Nationalism arises from many different sources. Shared
ethnicity, language, religion, culture, history, and geographical
proximity all generate feelings of comradeship and belonging to a
certain group. As a result, human beings organize themselves into
groups or communities. We are social beings. These communities
determine how we interact with others and with whom we interact. They
affect our perception of ourselves and of others. We consider other
people either to be a part of our group or to be outside of our group.
Although we may have several identities (daughter or son, mother or
father, spouse, club member, student, etc.) our nationality is one of
the most important.

People unite into groups in pursuit of
certain goals. Often this sense of shared identity becomes political.
When the goal is self-determination for the group, the shared
identification has become nationalism. In other words, when a group of
sports fans identify with one another, but have no political
aspirations, this does not constitute nationalism. But when a group of
people seek to have political control over a given territory, then it
becomes national. Thus national self-determination is the main purpose
of nationalism.

This passage is a good description of Nationalism. It doesn't just plainly state that it is some form of hyperpatriotism; it accurately declares that Nationalism is, purely, a political movement, the very end of which is the creation of a new State, exclusively for one particular group.

Now, of course, by Leftism I refer to Socialism, and Socialism primarily has two schools of thought: Anarchism and Communism - and yes, I know I'm not stating anything new here. Based on the passage I have posted here, and based on what we understand of Socialism, can we contend that the two can be consolidated? The answer, rather bluntly, is no. I should like to look at both of the main schools of Socialism and explain why neither of them are compatible with Nationalism.

It is much easier to address why Nationalism and Anarchism can not be conflated. These two ideologies are not just opponents; they are mortal enemies. There are primarily two reasons why Nationalism and Anarchism can not be united. The first is that their political aspirations are completely polar opposites: Anarchism posits that the State must be removed not just from some aspects of our social, political, and economic lives, but from every sphere of life, that all States must be wiped off the face of the Earth, while Nationalism posits that a State is just if it curtails to the interest of a particular nation that it houses, as sovereignty is seen to arise from the nation's interests. So Anarchism - which is completely against Statism - has a different view of the State than Nationalism does, because the decent Anarchist would argue that no State is good.

But the decent Anarchist should also raise another point; yes, the State is a bad institution no matter what form it takes, but would the State would be even worse if it was only created for the preservation of a single nation! This is the second point: Anarchism is an inclusive ideology, and Nationalism is exclusive. So let us assume that, by some fluke, an Anarchist society based on Nationalism were to somehow arise. While all Anarchist communities are - and have been, and will be - inclusive and make no issue of race or culture or any other such a factor, an "Anarcho"-Nationalist society would. Now, if the Anarchist society wanted to make sure that people of different nationalities did not join their society, how would it do so? The answer is simple: an institution with a monopoly on power and violence with the ability to forcefully displace people would need to be created. We know this institution very well: it's called the State! A voluntary and exclusive community is impossible to maintain without some sort of power structure to ensure that only one nation remains with its borders, and that no other nation enters its borders, because if the society was voluntary and free, then it absolutely could not be exclusive.

With Communism, it is somewhat more difficult to address the question of Nationalism, especially when you consider the roles of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong in the era of modern Communism. We're going to leave out Mao for now and just talk about Stalin.

I am not one to defend Stalin, but I think that it's shocking to see the stark contrast between Stalin's policies and the Soviet Union - which were Nationalist in nature - and his writings on Nationalism in his 1913 work entitled Marxism and the National Question. Here's a quote from its introduction.

Joseph Stalin wrote:
At
this difficult time Social-Democracy had a high mission – to resist
nationalism and to protect the masses from the general "epidemic." For
Social-Democracy, and Social-Democracy alone, could do this, by
countering nationalism with the tried weapon of internationalism, with
the unity and indivisibility of the class struggle. And the more
powerfully the wave of nationalism advanced, the louder had to be the
call of Social-Democracy for fraternity and unity among the
proletarians of all the nationalities of Russia.

I think Stalin's status as a Nationalist or an Internationalist is certainly up for debate, but we won't go into that here. This quote is significant because it raises the main point I wanted to get across: Communism is an Internationalist ideology with Internationalist aims - although, to be fair, Anarchism is, too. Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky were especially clear about this: they were completely convinced that Socialism had to be an International movement and, thus, had to be something that united people not along ethnic or cultural lines, but it had to unite people solely on the basis that they felt some certain sense of solidarity with one another. Lenin's view on antisemitism help demonstrate this rather appropriately.

Vladimir Lenin wrote:
The
Tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists,
organized pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and capitalists
tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were
tortured by want against the Jews. … Only the most ignorant and
downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread
about the Jews. … It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working
people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all
countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the
majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by
capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the
Jews there are kulaks, exploiters and capitalists, just as there are
among the Russians, and among people of all nations… Rich Jews, like
rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to
oppress, crush, rob and disunite the workers… Shame on accursed Tsarism
which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment
hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.

Again, I think it's completely fair - and, frankly, appropriate - to disagree on the methodology that people like Lenin and Trotsky had on establishing Socialism, but I think it's important that we identify that all of us, as Leftists, have the common goal of opposing Nationalism. If we are to truly involve ourselves in a movement that purports to help all working class peoples, then we can not afford to be exclusive and bigoted. There's no room for discrimination in Socialism; Socialism is for all, not for some. Our commitment must be with an International aim.


Last edited by WeiWuWei on Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:16 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/groupcp.forum?g=11
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:07 pm

WeiWuWei wrote:
Yo ZK,

I'm too lazy to repost it here, but check out the Anarchist forums and look up the thread I posted about this subject. I actually addressed the reason why I believe that nations lead to States.

I'd thank a link if you would. I don't remember exactly which anarchist forums you're refering to. Doing, finally got you. Just as much as you're lazy, I'm slow right now Razz

Anyway, I don't see why a nation would unavoidably lead to a state, specially within a socialist context.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 28
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:28 pm

Quote :
Black_Cross, patriotism doesn't lead unavoidably to nationalism for patriotism simply stands for love to the nation where you were born, as simple as that. It doesn't imply thinking of it as superior to other nations or that it should have any sort of supremacy.

I think it's come to mean more nowadays. If we were just using patriotism in this way, then you'd be right (though there must still be some relation to another nation, another culture, else the feeling of patriotism is rather baseless and without definition.

Anyway, if this is the definition we choose to base this debate on, then i stand by my point (word-choice not withstanding), but it just becomes irrelevant as far as "patriotism" goes.

There's a lot to read in this thread all of a sudden, and i'm not in a position to read it carefully.

And Frank, i'll get to the anarchist forum thread tomorrow.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stos
New Party Member


Posts : 546
Join date : 2008-09-14

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:41 pm

Quote :
Now, of course, by Leftism I refer to Socialism, and Socialism primarily has two schools of thought: Anarchism and Communism
Um, 'communism' is a synonym for 'socialism', and anarchism is a type of it. Though, of course, within anarchism, 'communism' is generally used to refer to a particular current, but yeah.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
WeiWuWei
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 624
Join date : 2008-04-14
Age : 40

PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:02 pm

Stos wrote:
Quote :
Now, of course, by Leftism I refer to Socialism, and Socialism primarily has two schools of thought: Anarchism and Communism
Um, 'communism' is a synonym for 'socialism', and anarchism is a type of it. Though, of course, within anarchism, 'communism' is generally used to refer to a particular current, but yeah.

Well, I'm an Anarchist and not a Marxist, so I go with the latter of those two.

But really, the "Socialism as Communism" argument just drowns us all in semantics, so I avoid it whenever I can.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/groupcp.forum?g=11
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Nationalism   Today at 4:55 am

Back to top Go down
 
Nationalism
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Workers' Nationalism
» progressive nationalism, marx and engels
» Language nationalism?
» RevLeft educates us on nationalism!
» Nationalism in Turkish Left

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
World Republic :: Capitol of the World Republic :: Red Square-
Jump to: