Nationalism

What is your opinion on Nationalism ?

By nationalism i want to say preserve the culture,Tradition and language of the country and the people that live the country at the moment .

It's not like all those " Nazis Nationalism " where they all hate African people,Jewish people and Mestizos .

Quote:

By nationalism i want to say preserve the culture,Tradition and language of the country

Nothing wrong with it IMO.
However that is patriotism rather than nationalism.

Quote:

Nothing wrong with it IMO.
However that is patriotism rather than nationalism.

Yes but the rest can be consider Nationalism since it's the preservation of the people who lives in the country .

I voted yes. Did you vote no Vasco? I find that there is often East/West divide among Marxists on this issue, the former (like Loz) finding nothing wrong with it, while the latter often speak of eliminating national culture as a relic of capitalism or what came before it.

Quote:

I voted yes. Did you vote no Vasco? I find that there is often East/West divide among Marxists on this issue, the former (like Loz) finding nothing wrong with it, while the latter often speak of eliminating national culture as a relic of capitalism or what came before it.

I voted Yes since i can consider myself as Nationalist but ML cames first .
I want the people of my country be proud of our Heroes who fight for Portugal and freedom .
While i'm assuming Nationalism i don't want to be put as " Nazis Nationalism " since i respect every culture but i think my country has enough people and don't need anymore foreign be them White or Black .
We need to unite the people to smash capitalism and them construct a society where those people can turn back to their countrys and rebuild them to creat a better society .

Excuse if i made any grammar erro since my english isn't good .

Against. The left need to overcome its nationalistic knee-jerk responses to globalised capitalism.

Other: I support nationalism when it is working to defeat imperialism. Therefore, I support nationalism for former colonies and countries that are opposing US/European imperialism. I do not support US or European nationalism.

Nice consistency there.
It's OK for Africans to work to preserve "their" culture and so on but not for Europeans.

proletarian wrote:

Other: I support nationalism when it is working to defeat imperialism. Therefore, I support nationalism for former colonies and countries that are opposing US/European imperialism. I do not support US or European nationalism.

Ex: So if an communist party in Portugal/Greece won the elections and advocate Nationalism would you support ?

Loz wrote:

Nice consistency there.
It's OK for Africans to work to preserve "their" culture and so on but not for Europeans.

I agree with you because all nation have the right to self-determination .

Quote:

By nationalism i want to say preserve the culture,Tradition and language of the country and the people that live the country at the moment .

This kind of attitude is quite problematic. Nationalism is inherently reactionary. It is seeking to preserve something that has never existed in the first place. Cultures evolve. There is no "pure" nation in the past to return to or maintain. As stated by Ernest Gellner, “Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness; it invents nations where they do not exist.” Usually statements like the above are just used as veiled racism against immigrants (during a recent lecture, a woman asked, "What's wrong with keeping the Netherlands for the Dutch?"). Nations are imagined communities with invented traditions. They serve no other purpose than to divide the working class. Not everyone has the luxury of feeling a sense of belonging within a specific national culture.

There is no such thing as culture.
There is no such thing as tradition.
There is no such as language.

Seriously.

khlib wrote:

There is no such thing as culture.
There is no such thing as tradition.
There is no such as language.

Seriously.

As someone from a country which has experienced an unprecedented level of cultural destruction over the last 25 years, I'll have to disagree. Over that period, the former Soviet Union has rejected many elements of its own cultural past, while idolizing Western culture and creating a primitive and shabby imitation of it through movies, music, and art. There is such a thing as culture. It is the sum of a nation's collective historical traditions and experiences. It is folklore, music, dress, language, etc. The latter has experienced degradation in Russia recently as well, with thousands of new borrowed words, mostly from English, which are no better than the old Russian words, serving only to slowly wash out the richness of the Russian language. In the instance of tradition, I can agree that it can be a reactionary force, since it often promotes stupid and nonsensical behaviour and rules. In the case of culture and language though, they can evoke positive feelings, so long as they are preserved in a controlled environment, as they were in the USSR. It's when national pride is turned into xenophobia, hatred toward minorities, and exclusionary attitudes that it becomes a problem. Otherwise it can be an acceptable, even beautiful thing. Perhaps my attitudes are rooted in the fact that Soviet Marxism was mixed with Russian conservativism, messianism and ancient Russian collectivist ideals, whereas Western Marxism is mixed with liberal ideas. Still, I cannot give them up. I believe in the preservation of unique national cultures, rather than an artificial, corporate-packaged globalism which destroys national culture everywhere it rears its head. Perhaps it's more difficult for an American or Western European to understand, given that those regions serve as a sort of base from which the ideas of globalism are spread. In the case of the United States especially the lack of indigenous groups (apart from Mexicans and Native Americans) also makes pride in national culture, tradition, and language more difficult to understand

soviet78 wrote:

There is such a thing as culture. It is the sum of a nation's collective historical traditions and experiences. It is folklore, music, dress, language, etc.

What is a nation? There is no such thing as a Russian nation. There was some land that was inhabited by different ethnic groups speaking mutually-unintelligible languages with disparate historical experiences and 'traditions.' In the 19th- and 20th-centuries, the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia decided it would be politically advantageous to convince everyone that they belonged to a common 'nation,' and thus efforts began at standardizing a language, highlighting certain traditions that the groups had in common, and downplaying their differences. Folk costume was only valued as an 'integral' expression of national culture in the 19th-century, and IN FACT, the concept of it being so was mostly an importation from the West (esp. Germany). "Following the outbreak of romantic nationalism, the peasantry of Europe came to serve as models for all that appeared genuine and desirable. Their dress crystallised into so-called "typical" forms, and enthusiasts adopted it as part of their symbolism." Same thing with folklore (mostly beginning with the Grimm brothers). Same thing with language.

Quote:

I believe in the preservation of unique national cultures, rather than an artificial, corporate-packaged globalism which destroys national culture everywhere it rears its head.

The national cultures are not unique and they are not natural. They are just as artificial as cosmopolitanism or globalism, they are just more intellectually dishonest about being so.

Quote:

There is no such thing as a Russian nation.

Yes there is, and the Russian nation state started forming in the 16th century or so.
Source: Nasha Velikaja Rodina, Moscow, 1948.

Also:

Quote:

According to Lenin: "A Fatherland, that is, the given political, cultural and social environment is the most powerful factor in the class struggle of the proletariat ... The proletariat can not be indifferent to the political, social and cultural conditions of their struggle, so it can not be indifferent to the fate of their country" (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, v. 15, ed. 4, p. 171-172). Vladimir Ilyich never separated the Russian proletariat from Russia, and believed it would be criminal to ignore their homeland, as the Trotskyites and the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie do.

In the article "On the national pride of the Great Russians”, Lenin stressed that the conscious Russian workers are not alien to a sense of national pride, but they are not proud of the same things that capitalists are proud of. "We love our language and our country, - he wrote – and we are doing our very utmost to raise her toiling masses (i.e. 9 / 10 of her population) to the level of a democratic and socialist consciousness. To us it is most painful to see and feel the outrages, the oppression and humiliation inflicted our fair country suffers at the hands of the tsar’s butchers, the nobles and the capitalists. We take pride in the resistance to these outrages put up from our midst, from the Great Russians, that midst having produced Radishchev, the Decembrists and the revolutionary commoners of the seventies, in the Great-Russian working class having created in 1905, a mighty revolutionary party of the masses that the Great-Russian peasantry began at the same time to turn to democracy and set about overthrowing the clergy and the landed prioprietors". (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol., v. 21, ed. 4, p. 85 (Rus)) .
According to Lenin, a patriot is a person who is not indifferent to the situation of their own country and tries to change it for the better.

viewtopic.php?f=117&t=50639

Quote:

In the 19th- and 20th-centuries, the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia decided it would be politically advantageous to convince everyone that they belonged to a common 'nation,' and thus efforts began at standardizing a language, highlighting certain traditions that the groups had in common, and downplaying their differences

Yes, and that was progressive.

No. Nationalism is a stratifying agent of the bourgeoisie and anyone who believes in the concept leaves themselves open to manipulation by the ruling class and the state.

Quote:

Yes but the rest can be consider Nationalism since it's the preservation of the people who lives in the country .

Preserve the people? What does that even mean?

Quote:

I want the people of my country be proud of our Heroes who fight for Portugal and freedom .

Meaningless. The Portuguese reactionaries at the time fought for Portugal (in their eyes). Hitler thought he was fighting for Germany, the US government considers itself to be fighting for America.

Quote:

since i respect every culture but i think my country has enough people and don't need anymore foreign be them White or Black .

We are all humans. Planet Earth belongs to all of it. I should therefore be able to walk and live on any part of it I choose. Who are you to say no?

Quote:

It's OK for Africans to work to preserve "their" culture and so on but not for Europeans.

Nope, this is why we should oppose female circumcision. And when the African tribes us "it's part of our culture", we should tell them we don't care.

Quote:

I agree with you because all nation have the right to self-determination .

Rights don't exist.

Quote:

As someone from a country which has experienced an unprecedented level of cultural destruction over the last 25 years, I'll have to disagree. Over that period, the former Soviet Union has rejected many elements of its own cultural past, while idolizing Western culture and creating a primitive and shabby imitation of it through movies, music, and art.

Not necessarily a bad thing. If old and reactionary cultural practices are replaced by more progressive ones then I don't see the problem. Not that I'm saying all cultural change in the former USSR has been progressive, mind you.

Quote:

It is the sum of a nation's collective historical traditions and experiences.

And how far back does the Russian nation extend? When did it begin? Why should you lay claims to "experiences" that people actually experienced hundreds of years ago?

Quote:

It is folklore, music, dress, language, etc.

All ascribed their status by the bourgeoisie. When did the people of Russia choose their national anthem? How did they decided what their national dress would be? How did they decide what their national dish should be? When did the people of Russia unanimously decide what the Russian flag would be? People assume these things are "national customs" because the state propagates them as such. They are propaganda for the national myth.

Quote:

The latter has experienced degradation in Russia recently as well, with thousands of new borrowed words, mostly from English, which are no better than the old Russian words, serving only to slowly wash out the richness of the Russian language.

Russian, like all languages, has always been influenced by other languages and is constantly evolving. English has loads of words from French, German, Latin, etc. Even Inuit ('anorak')! Doesn't make it any less "rich".

Quote:

In the instance of tradition, I can agree that it can be a reactionary force, since it often promotes stupid and nonsensical behaviour and rules.

That's because most of them are invented and then propagated by the bourgeoisie as tradition.

Quote:

It's when national pride is turned into xenophobia, hatred toward minorities, and exclusionary attitudes that it becomes a problem.

It's very purpose is to foster a sense of otherness and exclusiveness. Hence you see hatred towards others even with people who do not consider themselves nationalists but merely "patriots" (two sides of the same coin).

Quote:

Otherwise it can be an acceptable, even beautiful thing.

Yes, providing you support retaining the bourgeoisie as the ruling class.

Quote:

Perhaps my attitudes are rooted in the fact that Soviet Marxism was mixed with Russian conservativism, messianism and ancient Russian collectivist ideals, whereas Western Marxism is mixed with liberal ideas. Still, I cannot give them up.

Yes you can, it just takes a bit of time.



@ Loz's post above:

Quote:

Yes there is, and the Russian nation state started forming in the 16th century or so.
Source: Nasha Velikaja Rodina, Moscow, 1948.

But bourgeois historians can still place the Russian nation as stretching back far further in time. Hence the Kingdom of Rus and Grand Duchy of Moscow are portrayed as early stages of the Russian nation (even though the people of these times would not have viewed themselves as such).

Quote:

Yes, and that was progressive.

At the time, yes it was. In order for capitalism to develop, the bourgeoisie needs to strengthen its control over the country and nationalism is merely a tool used in this much like the aristocracy used religion.

Also, there is no reason that you as a Russian proletarian should feel like you share more in common with a Russian oligarch (just because you both call yourselves "Russian" and identify with some of the same national myths and invented traditions) than with any other proletarian in the world. This is a completely modern ideological trick. Before the 19th- and 20th- centuries, the Russian rulers openly identified more with European monarchs than the people they ruled. They were educated in Europe, wore Western clothes, and married Europeans. With the revolutions in France and the Americas and the demand for a new form of political legitimacy ('democracy'), they realized that they had to convince the populations that they ruled that their interests were the same (For Russia! For the motherland!). Hence, the advent of nationalism. It's a shame socialist leaders also resorted to using the same tools for legitimacy and social cohesion, but I'm not sure what other options they had given the relative backwardness of Russian society at the time of the October Revolution.

Quote:

Nope, this is why we should oppose female circumcision. And when the African tribes us "it's part of our culture", we should tell them we don't care.

African (yes,i know Africa isn't a country) culture is much more than female circumcision.

Quote:

Hence the Kingdom of Rus and Grand Duchy of Moscow are portrayed as early stages of the Russian nation (even though the people of these times would not have viewed themselves as such.

How do you know this?
How did the people of these times identify themselves if not as Rus'?
Did Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky not rally the whole of Great-Russians against the Polish invadors, and did Bohdan Hmelnitsky not lead the Malo-Russian people to fight against the Poles and join Russia?

Quote:

In order for capitalism to develop, the bourgeoisie needs to strengthen its control over the country and nationalism is merely a tool used in this much like the aristocracy used religion.

What are you advocating then? National-nihilism? That the working class emancipate itself from all national feelings?
This is completely contrary to what Marx and Engels and Lenin and Stalin taught.

Quote:

Also, there is no reason that you as a Russian proletarian should feel like you share more in common with a Russian oligarch (just because you both call yourselves "Russian" and identify with some of the same national myths and invented traditions) than with any other proletarian in the world.

Absolutely correct.

Quote:

It's a shame socialist leaders also resorted to using the same tools for legitimacy and social cohesion, but I'm not sure what other options they had given the relative backwardness of Russian society at the time of the October Revolution.

The Russian peasant and worker was much less "nationalist" than the German one during WW1, because he was the only one to actually leave the trenches and turn the rifle against the capitalist bosses.
Although, the French Army also had a failed military rebellion.
Anyway, socialism does not mean "doing away" with the nation because that is anti-Marxist.

Language and Culture doesn't exist? Do you even know how idiotic you sound? Of course, given that you live in a country that is more of a multi-national empire than a nation, I can understand how you feel. Where was the United States or even Rome or Greece back when the state of Kochoson and the Jomon and Yayoi people existed? They were nowhere and they were nothing. Not even Russia existed. Of course to a postmodern liberal westerner, it may not exist, but to those who live in the successors to Wa, Kochoson, Silla, Balhae, Qin, Chu, etc., the evidence is all around them.

Quote:

No. Nationalism is a stratifying agent of the bourgeoisie

Actually, the bourgeoisie use Globalism, which is a trans-national concept.

Quote:

We are all humans. Planet Earth belongs to all of it.

"Humanity" is an even more artificial construct. When did I choose to be human and why should I take pride in that?

Quote:

Who are you to say no?

When did I ever say no?

Quote:

Yes you can, it just takes a bit of time.

The day I do is the day I become a liberal, so no, I won't.

Misuzu wrote:

Language and Culture doesn't exist? Do you even know how idiotic you sound? Of course, given that you live in a country that is more of a multi-national empire than a nation, I can understand how you feel. Where was the United States or even Rome or Greece back when the state of Kochoson and the Jomon and Yayoi people existed? They were nowhere and they were nothing. Not even Russia existed. Of course to a postmodern liberal westerner, it may not exist, but to those who live in the successors to Wa, Kochoson, Silla, Balhae, Qin, Chu, etc., the evidence is all around them

Societies are not gauged by their longevity. Soviet Socialism was the greatest thing to ever exist and it was only like 80 years. Also how is opposing nationalism liberal? Liberals are all about borders.

Misuzu wrote:

Actually, the bourgeoisie use Globalism, which is a trans-national concept.

Globalism is Marxist concept too. Only the international proletariat can defeat the international bourgeoisie.

Misuzu wrote:

"Humanity" is an even more artificial construct. When did I choose to be human and why should I take pride in that?

Why should you be proud of anything out of your control? You have to admit being a human is better than being anything else. At least we're capable of bettering ourselves. Also are you fuсking kidding me? The nation is a more artificial concept than humanity?

@loz: You are right about that loz, Marxism is about forming the proletarian internation. One of the critical flaws of the USSR was its preservation of national boundaries and led to the massive irregularities between many SSRs.

On the rest Khlib and gRed have won this thread although I'd agree with proletarian on support for liberationist nationalism, however with the caveat of only inasmuch as it does not restrict the progress of our class.

Voted other.

Quote:

African (yes,i know Africa isn't a country) culture is much more than female circumcision.

I know, I was just using it as an example of how suppression of reactionary customs is a good thing.

Quote:

How do you know this?

Because the vast majority of people in the Kingdom of Rus would not not be aware of each other's existence or what lay beyond their immediate surroundings. Think about it. Most people were illiterate, there were no geography lessons so people would not have a mental picture of the geographical extent of their "fellow" Rus (peasants weren't issued with maps or anything). Most people wouldn't have left their surrounding areas as travel took a long time and was often unproductive for peasants. The ruling class may have seen themselves as Rus but most people in the Rus nation (or whatever you want to call it) would not.

Quote:

How did the people of these times identify themselves if not as Rus'?

Most likely by village or limited regional identities.

Quote:

Did Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky not rally the whole of Great-Russians against the Polish invadors, and did Bohdan Hmelnitsky not lead the Malo-Russian people to fight against the Poles and join Russia?

You make it sound like a great spontaneous decision by the masses of the people. I think what you'll find is most likely is that the ruling class mobilised the peasants to fight for them in a war. This has been done since time immemorial and is not indicative of national consciousness. People will fight for many reasons: threat to their own homes and families, potential riches gained from looting, potential to prove oneself as a soldier and move up the social ladder.

Quote:

What are you advocating then? National-nihilism? That the working class emancipate itself from all national feelings?

In a sense, yes. If the working class no longer identifies with its various nations then the bourgeoisie will lose an extremely effective weapon in controlling them.

Quote:

This is completely contrary to what Marx and Engels and Lenin and Stalin taught.

How awful...

Quote:

I can understand how you feel. Where was the United States or even Rome or Greece back when the state of Kochoson and the Jomon and Yayoi people existed? They were nowhere and they were nothing. Not even Russia existed.

So what makes Kochoson "Korean"?

Quote:

Actually, the bourgeoisie use Globalism, which is a trans-national concept.

In forging their own domestic markets they use nationalism.

Quote:

"Humanity" is an even more artificial construct. When did I choose to be human and why should I take pride in that?

You didn't and you shouldn't.

Quote:

When did I ever say no?

I was replying to Vasco who was saying he didn't want anymore immigrants coming to Portugal. I was saying who is he to essentially bar humans from coming to "his" bit of planet Earth?

Quote:

The day I do is the day I become a liberal, so no, I won't.

Enjoy being manipulated by the Japanese bourgeoisie then. I'm sure you will stand by them once they pull on your nationalist heartstrings in a time of (bourgeois) crisis.

Quote:

Perhaps my attitudes are rooted in the fact that Soviet Marxism was mixed with Russian conservativism, messianism and ancient Russian collectivist ideals, whereas Western Marxism is mixed with liberal ideas.

The fusion of both in GDR ideology is extremely fascinating.

I'm going to agree with khlib. The thoroughly bourgeois ideals of national culture are not to be supported.

Quote:

When did I choose to be human and why should I take pride in that?

Your humanity is a material fact. Your nation is ideology.